Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1997/05/21 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesday. Ma,y 21. 1997 CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue. Chuta Vista ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of February 19 and April 9, 1997 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: SUPS-97-03: Request to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary at 753 Broadway in the CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) Zoning District - The Loewen Group for Humphrey Mortuary 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-97-20: Consideration of an amendment to Otay Ranch SPA One on property generally located on 1,110 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment - McMillin Companies PCS-97-02: Consideration of a tentative subdivision map for 290 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road - McMillin Companies (-more-) Agenda -2- May 21, 1997 3. Cancellation of regular Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1997 4. Update on Council Items DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT at p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILlTIES ACt (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, andlor participate in a City meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at leastforty-eight hours in advancefor me~tings andjiv~ days in advanc~ for sch~dul~d servic~s and activities. Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Device. for the Deaf (I'DD) (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired. <.,5-21...> PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date: OS/21/97 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: SUPS-97-03 - Request to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary at 753 Broadway in the CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) Zoning District - The Loewen Group for Humphrey Mortuary Resolution SUP5-97-03 - Recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Adopt the Negative Declaration Issued on IS-97-10 and Grant a Special Use Permit for a Mortuary to be Located at 753 Broadway BACKGROUND: The Applicant is requesting permission to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary at 753 Broadway. The proposed facility will replace the existing Humphrey Mortuary currently located at 855 Broadway. The new facility will consist of a 17,000 sq.ft. two story building on a 0.89 acre parcel. At present, the site is being used by a vehicle leasing company and is occupied by a small office structure (see Exhibit 1). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration issued on Initial 5tudy 15-97-10 (Exhibit 2) and approve attached Resolution No. SUPS-97-03 (Attachment 1) recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the application to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary at 753 Broadway pursuant to the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. _ (Attachment 2). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: 1 . The Resource Conservation Commission considered this project on January 20, 1997 and voted 6 to 0 to accept the negative declaration issued on 15-97-10. The minutes are attached as Attachment 3. 2. The Design Review Committee considered the Project design on May 5, 1997 and approved the design with modifications by a vote of 3 to 0 (1 absent, 1 abstention), and directed that the Applicant return to the May 19. 1997 meeting for final approval. The minutes for the May 5, 1997 meeting are not yet prepared. A verbal report will be given to the Planning Commission as to the action the DRC took at the May 19, 1997 meeting. Page# 2. Item: 1 Meeting Date: OS/21/97 DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics: At present, structures on the 39,100 sq. ft. site consist of a small office structure and paving for parking for a vehicle rental business which occupies the site. This use will be terminated by the property owner when subject project moves into a construction phase. 2. Zoning and Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: General Plan Retail Retail Retail L/M Res. Retail Zonina CT CT CT R2 CT Current Land Use Vehicle rental Retail Furniture Retail/Residential Residential Vacant CT = Commercial Thoroughfare L/M Res. = Low/Medium Residential 3-6 dwellings per acre R2 = Residential Duplex The Land Use Matrix lists mortuaries as an Unclassified Use requiring approval by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, and which can be located in any zoning district under the correct circumstances. In this case. the proposed land use will replace an existing mortuary currently located at 855 Broadway, albeit the new facility will be larger. The vacant property immediately across Broadway is the future site of the Broadway Business Homes. To the northwest and southwest across Broadway are existing commercial developments. 3. ProDosal: The proposal is to construct an approximately 17.000 sq.ft. building at 753 Broadway. The first floor of the building will contain two chapels and several parlors where services and open casket viewing will take place. In addition, corpse preparation and storage facilities are located on the first floor. The second floor will contain offices, a casket selection room, a cremation urn display room and an employee kitchen/lounge. Page# 3, Item: 1 Meeting Date: OS/21/97 The site will contain 43 parking stalls, which meets the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance of one space per four seats for a mortuary. Because only one service will be held at a time, the maximum number of people who can be seated in the largest chapel is 172 (43 X 4 = 172). The Operational Statement (Exhibit 3) is attached. 4. Public Forum: A public forum was held for this project on April 10, 1997 in the cafeteria at Chula Vista High School. A notice was sent to all residents, property owners and businesses within a 500 foot radius of the Project site. One person attended who was representing a neighboring property owner and who was already familiar with the Project. Staff also received phone calls from area residents. One person who could not attend the forum indicated a concern over the views from the second floor of the proposed building toward the east. This elevation is to be enhanced per direction from the Design Review Committee. The building itself meets height and setback requirements. 5. Analvsis Because of Humphrey Mortuary's longstanding and well established operations at 855 Broadway, it is not anticipated that their relocation to 753 Broadway will pose any unforeseen problems. In addition, the proposed land use is consistent with the existing and proposed surrounding commercial land uses and is physically separated from the adjacent residential area. Since the Project location is within the Southwest Redevelopment Area it falls under the provisions of that area's Plan and, therefore, should implement its goals. The goals this Project specifically implements are as follows: "Section IV. (400) Redevelopment Plan Goals · Encouragement of the establishment and maintenance of "balanced neighborhoods" and subareas, characterized by a planned diversity in building sites, density, housing and land use. · Elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the [Southwest] Page# 4. Item: 1 Meeting Date: OS/21/97 Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and future Annual Work Programs. · Provision for the enhancement and renovation of businesses within the [Southwest] Project Area to promote their economic viability. · Stimulation of investment of the private sector in the full development of the [Southwest] Project Area. · Provision of needed improvements to the community's educational, cultural, residential and other community facilities to better serve the [Southwest] Project Area . Removal of impediments to land assembly and development through acquisition and reparcelization of land into reasonably sized and shaped parcels served by an improved street system and improved public facilities. . Expansion of the resource of developable land by making underutilized land available for development. . Achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design principles appropriate to the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan." It should be noted that the approval of SUPS-97-03 is for three years rather than the one year period normally granted pursuant to ~ 19.14.260 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that a use permit be utilized within one year of the effective date thereof. However, because of substantial expenditures and the necessity to implement the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, this Project is being approved for a period of three years to allow the Applicant the time to finalize purchase of the property implement the plan. In addition, a three year approval avoids the necessity of the Applicant returning to the Planning Commission in one year for an extension when it is known before hand that it may take longer than one year to implement the project because of Redevelopment Agency involvement in selling the property. Page# 5. Item: 1 Meeting Date: 05/21/97 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. SUPS-97-03 recommending approval of the application for a mortuary pursuant to the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution and subject to the findings and conditions contained therein. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-97-03 2. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution 3. Minutes from the RCC meeting of January 20, 1997 Exhibits 1. Locators, Site Plans, etc. 2. Negative Declaration for Initial Study IS.97-10 and Disclosure Statement 3. Operational Statement for Humphrey Mortuary. (h:\home\pl...ning\martin\humphrev\9703pc.rptl ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-97-03 RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-97-03 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED ON IS-97-01 AND GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MORTUARY AT 753 BROADWAY IN THE CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use permit was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 4, 1997 by The Loewen Group for Humphrey Mortuary (Applicant); and WHEREAS, said application requested permission to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary in the CT Zone at 753 Broadway; 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 21, 1997 at 7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed IS-97-10 and the Negative Declaration issued therefore and found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Negative Declaration issued for IS-97-1O and grant the Special Use Permit for the Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Applicant and the Redevelopment Agency. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this day 21st day of May 1997 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Frank Tarantino, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary pcc-rea.pc ATTACHMENT 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING TIlE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED ON IS-97-10 AND APPROVING THE DESIGN OF AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MORTUARY TO BE LOCATED AT 753 BROADWAY IN TIlE CT (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) ZONING DISTRICT I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the parcels which are the subject matter of this resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as 753 Broadway (APN's 572-180-36 & 572-212-07)( Project Site"); and, B. Project Applicant WHEREAS, duly verified applications were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by The Loewen Group for Humphrey Mortuary (Applicant); and C. Project Description; Application for Environmental Determination WHEREAS, Applicant submitted Initial Study IS-97-1O requesting environmental review of subject Project on October 25, 1996; and D. Project Description; Application for Design Review WHEREAS, Applicant submitted Design Review DRC-97-41 requesting approval of a specific building design and site plan layout for construction at 753 Broadway on March 31, 1997; and E. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit WHEREAS, Applicant submitted Special Use Permit SUPS-97-03 requesting permission to construct, maintain and operate a mortuary in the CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) Zone at 753 Broadway, said mortuary to replace the existing Humphrey Mortuary currently located at 855 Broadway on April 4, 1997. (h:\home\plamung\martin\Humphrey\9703ra.res) Resolution No. Page #2 F. Environmental Review Coordinator Record on Project WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the Project requires preparation of an Initial Study and same was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for public review as Initial Study IS-97-1O. G. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered IS-97-1O on January 20, 1997 and voted 6-0 to accept the Negative Declaration issued on IS-97- 10; and H. Design Review Committee Record on Application and Initial Study WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held an advertised public hearing on May 5, 1997 and, after taking testimony from those present and reviewing the Project's building design and site plan, voted 3 to 0 (1 absent, I abstention) to accept the environmental determination and approve the Project's design with changes, and directed the Applicant to return to the May 19, 1997 Design Review Committee meeting for a final recommendation. At the May 19, 1997 meeting, the Design Review Committee voted to _ recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Project's design and site plan in accordance with Design Review Resolution No. DRC-97-41. L Planning Commission Record on Special Use Permit and Initial Study Applications WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on May 21, 1997 and, after taking testimony from those present, closed the public hearing, after which the members voted _-_ recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt Negative Declaration IS-97-10 and approve Special Use Permit PCC-97-03 for the Project in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-97-03. J. Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency 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 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing; and (h:\home\plannil1g\mamn\Humphrey\9703ra.res) Resolution No. Page #3 K. Place of Public Hearing WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 3, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Redevelopment Agency adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-97-1O. III. APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DESIGN A. The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Design Review Committee at their meeting on this project held on May 5, 1997 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. B. Design Review Application DRC-97-41 is hereby approved based on all reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the proposed building design and site plan. IV. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL A. The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on May 21, 1997 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. B. Special Use Permit SUPS-97-03 is hereby granted 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. V. 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 is able to make findings in support of the Project as required by the City's rules and (h:\home\plamring\martin\Humphrey\9703ra.res) Resolution No. Page #4 regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth the evidentiary basis for approval of the proposed Project: 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The mortuary proposed to be constructed at 753 Broadway will continue to provide a needed and desirable service for the residents of the City of Chula Vista as it currently does at its present location at 855 Broadway. The proposed mortuary represents a land use consistent with the commercial community at the new location. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The mortuary presents a neat, well ordered appearance and will be separated from nearby residents by appropriately designed walls and landscaping. In addition, the project meets the parking requirements established by the City for such land use based on the conditions that only one service shall be allowed at any given time and that there shall be no other simultaneous services or viewings. Therefore, this use will not result in impacts which would adversely affect humans or surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditious specified in the code for such use. The proposed mortuary will comply with the applicable conditions, codes and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. 4. That the granting of this special use pennit will not adversely affect the general plan ofthe City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The Project Site is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and implements the applicable goals and policies of that plan by relocating an existing business. In addition, the Project implements the applicable goals and policies of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan by relocating a business enterprise to an area considered blighted prior to its relocation. (h:\home\planning\martin\Humphrey\9703ra. res) Resolution No. Page #5 VI. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit SUPS-97-03 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: A. 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. B. Comply with all conditions of approval pursuant to DRC-97-41 or as otherwise modified herein. C. Allow only one scheduled funeral service at a time with a maximum seating capacity of 172 attendees (43 parking spaces X 4 seats per space = 172 seating capacity). Viewings shall not be scheduled or held during the time of a funeral service. D. Construct and operate the Project in accordance with all terms and conditions set forth in that certain Disposition and Development agreement between the parties approved concurrently herewith, and all documents and agreements related thereto. E. Submit a landscape plan to the Planning Department for review and approval and implement same to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. A minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of the site shall be landscaped. F. Comply with all Project requirements as incorporated into the project description of Initial Study IS-97-1O. G. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Fire Marshal as related to conforming with the Uniform Fire Code and applicable Municipal Code requirements. H. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Director of the Building and Housing Department as related to conforming with the Uniform Building Code. 1. Comply with and implement all provisions related to Title 24 (Part II), Disabled Access, to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Housing. J. In conjunction with the issuance of any building permit under the authority of the Chula Vista Municipal Code: (h:\home\planning\martin\Humphrey\9703ra.res) Resolution No. Page #6 L Procure a Construction Permit for any work performed in the public right- of-way which may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following which shall be performed and/or constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a. Removal of one existing driveway. b. Placing of new sidewalk, curb and gutter. c. Placing of a driveway in conformance to the Americans With Disabilities Act requirements. 2. Pay sewer capacity, sewer lateral installation, traffic signal and development impact fees. Subject fees may be amended at the time development takes place and/or a building permit is applied for, based upon final plans submitted for building permits. 3. Procure a Grading Permit, if the exemptions in the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended, are not met. K. Comply with and implement all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. L. Prior to occupancy, schedule a security survey with the Crime Prevention Unit of the Chula Vista Police Department and implement any suggestions resulting therefrom to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. M. Prior to opening for operations, pay all applicable fees to the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District, or participate in alternative financing mechanisms, to the satisfaction of each respective school district. N. Execute the attached Agreement (Attachment A) indicating that you have read, understood and agreed to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement same. O. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council/Agency 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/Agency arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) Agency's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) Agency's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- (h:\home\planning\martin\Humphrey\9703ra.res) Resolution No. Page #7 discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Applicants' operation of the facility permitted hereby. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Permit as stipulated under Condition J above. Applicants' compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicants' successors and assigns. P. 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/Agency shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City/Agency has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City/Agency, 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. Q. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or extended within three years from the effective date thereof. This three year utilization period is hereby approved based on the fact that the Applicant must commit substantial funds to the project by purchasing the property from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista subject to a lease for an alternative use for longer than the customary one year utilization period. This three year utilization period also coincides with the required development schedule in the Disposition and Development Agreement for the project. This schedule was agreed upon to effectuate the orderly implementation of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. R. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. S. Comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, requirements, rules and policies, and obtain and comply with all necessary permits for the Project from each respective level of government, as applicable. VII. 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, (h: \home\planning\martin\Hmnphrey\9703ra. res) Resolution No. _ Page #8 this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 3rd DAY OF JUNE 1997. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John M. Kaheny City/Agency Attorney (h:\home\planning\martin\Humphrey\9703ra.res) ATTACHMENT A AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE LOEWEN GROUP FOR HUMPHREY MORTUARY OWNER OF 753 BROADWAY (APN's 572-180-36 & 572-212-07) RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF DRC-97-41 AND SUPS-97-03 Applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the Applicant has read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in this Resolution No. , and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Agency. Upon execution, this document and a copy of Resolution No. shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall indicate the Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for a business license, be held in abeyance without approvaL Signature of Representative of The Loewen Group Date Attachment: Resolution No. ATTACHMENT 3 Minutes from the RCC Meeting of January 20, 1997 ~ MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Resource Conservation Commission Chula Vista, California 6:30 P.M. Monday, January 20, 1997 Conference Room #1 Public Services Buildin~ CALL MEETING TO ORDERlROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chair BUITaScano. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present: Commissioners Burrascano, Marquez, McAlister, Thomas, and Yamada. It was MSUC (MarquezJThomas) to excuse Commissioner Hall who was ill; vote 5-0, motion carried. Commissioner Fisher arrived at 6:38 P.M Also present: Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator; Barbara Bamberger, Environmental Resource Manager; and Susan Herny, Chairperson of the Transportation Committee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (Thomas/Burrascano) to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 11, 1996, with one correction on page 2, paragraph 1, 5th sentence: This would not be applicable to spas and existing pools; vote 6-0, motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review of Council Referral on comments from the RCC: Michael Meacham gave a brief overview of the solid waste management issues. He stated that the goal of the program is for 50% diversion. Mr. Meacham stated that the City does not have the right to require school districts to meet the same local conditions. Ms. Marquez asked if cardboard bins could be included at the major shopping malls and at Price Costco. Mr. Meacham stated this source recycling is already being implemented. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Fisher suggested major new businesses provide a plan for solid waste disposal and recycling. Mr. Meacham stated the City already requires this. Ms. Thomas expressed concern that Rohr should be made responsible for the cleanup of its own waste; Ms. Bamberger stated this is County jurisdiction. It was announced that mixed paper, empty aerosols, paint cans, and empty oil filters have been added to the curbside recycling with its regular pickup beginning in February. Also, another mixed paper drop-off bin was added at Vons. 2. Discussion and recommendation regarding CoO Report, Barbara Bamberger and Susan Herny, Transportation Committee: Chair Burrascano asked why the report did not try to incorporate easy changes. Ms. Herny presented some criteria in measuring for CO2 and alternative fuel. One criterion was that it address issues in which the City has control over; the international traffic problem was not subject to the same criteria and therefore was not included in the analysis. Ms. Marquez expressed that she wanted to see a more aggressive fonn of solving the problems than was stated in the report. For example, she felt that reducing the number of parking spaces available to businesses was a more passive rather than a real solution. She did not feel many issues were adequately addressed, and that they ~ ,~ Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 were based on initiatives and rewards rather than mandates. Currently, the plan calls for more transit near commercial areas. Commissioner Thomas favored option #16 to emphasize traffic signal upgrades to reduce carbon dioxide, and # 1 0 to de-emphasize commercial parking. Commissioner Fisher noted there were adequate parking lots behind buildings on Third Avenue. Ms. Bamberger stated that the traffic signal upgrade is already planned to be automated. The red lights will be replaced with new high efficient LED which requires no energy. Ms. Bamberger explained the Greenstar program, now part of the permit process, was created for builders to meet a higher level of standard beyond Title 24 requirement measures. It defined a list of items for energy efficiency that, when implemented into new homes, would allow the builders to receive benefits and reduction in cost of building permits. They would also receive "points" toward a "green star." Commissioner Thomas suggested the report should focus more on hannful methane gasses. Ms. Bamberger stated most of that was found in the landfill and is currently being covered. There are no noticeable amounts located within Chula Vista proper, but it is in San Diego. Commissioners Marquez and Thomas questioned the emissions coming from production of energy from the SDG&E plant and the amount coming from boats. It was explained that these emissions were insignificant; however, the study focused mostly on autos. Commissioner Thomas asked how much was being emitted from Brown Field. Again, although helicopters and trucks are causing the emission problems, the City has no jurisdiction or control in that area and it made no negotiations with other jurisdictions. The motion was made (Thomas!McAlister) to support the CO2 proposal with the following revisions: greater emphasis and priority on #16, the traffic signal realignment; substitute the item #10 action measure with an increased awareness in the educational and community institutions; give full support to the Greenstar Program; priority be given in reduction of carbon dioxide emissions; and compliance with the CO2 plan be incorporated into the environmental analysis; Vote: 4 ayes, I no (Marquez), 1 abstain (Fisher); motion carried. Fisher abstained as he was absent from any prior discussion. Marquez felt that the plan should take a more aggressive fonn of solving emission problems and was dissatisfied with the solutions presented. A second motion was made (McAlister/Yamada) that the CO2 plan further address the issue of international contributions and that the City support legislation to reduce these impacts; and the plan address increased efficiency and availability of public transportation to the community; Vote: 5 ayes, 1 no (Marquez - same reason as stated above). ,"" Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 3. Review of Negative Declaration IS-97-06, Kentucky Fried Chicken: After a very brief discussion, a motion was made (FisherlYamada) to accept the negative declaration; vote 5 ayes, I no (Thomas felt a problem already exists with the parking as is and wanted to limit use of the existing building). 4. Review of Negative Declaration IS-97-10, Humphrey's Mortuary: After review of the project, it was MSUC (Fisher/McAlister) to accept the negative declaration; vote 6-0, motion carried. STAFF REPORT: The MSCP will be reviewed at the February 10 meeting. The RCC was not able to comment on the wildlife refuge project as the document was not delivered on time. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Marquez reported volunteers are meeting for the Giant Reed eradication project on the Sweetwater River. They meet the second Sunday of the month at the driving range. She suggested someone in with the environmental club can speak to the RCC. Marquez and Fisher noted they did not receive the wildlife refuge document and requested to see the City's letter to Council. Thomas commented that not enough data were included in that report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Burrascano at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES ',er~ JvF Barbara Taylor EXHIBIT 1 LOCATOR MAP SITE PLAN FLOOR PLAN ELEVATIONS D'Q~ r.~"'" .-'1' s~ - \ --- .",. , ~ ..- R3 ;\\IX-~\-- ,y: s ~ ~?t~, 753 Broadway Request: Proposal for relocation of an existing mortuary to 0 new 2 story, , 7,000 sq. ft. and site. SCALE, I FILE NUMBER: SU fJ~-'7'Dl NORTH No Scale 15-97-10 t m:\home\planning\carlas\locators\is971 a.cdr 11/25/96 CHULA VISTA PLANNING LOCATOR PROJECT HUMPHRY'S MORTUARY C)~ DEPARTMENT PROJECT DESCRlPllON, INITIAL STUDY ~ Because Applicant was directed to make changes to the building design by the Design Review Committee at its May 5, 1997 meeting a revised site plan, elevations and floor plans will be submitted at a later date. The plans included in this packet are the unrevised plans. EXHIBIT 2 Negative Declaration for InitialStudy IS-97-10 and Disclosure Statement negative declaration '\ """ PROJECT NAME: HUMPHREY'S MORTUARY PROJECT LOCATION: 753 Broadway ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 572-212-7,572-180-36 PROJECT APPLICANT: The Loewen Group CASE NO: IS-97-10 DATE: December 11, 1996 A, Proiect Setting The .9 acre project site is currently paved with asphalt over 100 % of its surface and is being used as a car/truck rental facility. One portable structure occupies the site and serves as the rental office. the site has electrical and water service and a septic system. Surrounding uses include commercial to the north, south and west, and residential to the east. B, Proiect Description The project consists of a construction of a 17,586 square foot mortuary with seating for 180 persons and 45 parking spaces. The building is proposed to be 2 stories and 38 feet in height. The project proposes to relocate an existing mortuary from a site approximately 1/2 mile to the south. C, Compatibility with Zorung and Plans The proposed use is unclassified according to the wrung ordinance and, therefore, requires a Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit and conditions placed upon the use will ensure compatibility with existing wrung. D. Identification of Environmental Effects The Initial Study does not identify any significant environmental impacts that would result from project implementation. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Since no significant environmental impacts have been identified, no mitigation measures are required. ~! f?. -.- ........,;"--.;: - - , \. city of chula vista planning department CTTY Of ~.,....i"(""'''I~Q'''.':'I1 ...-,:0,.,;........ ....,....;....... r~-H II ~ v,cr& F. Consultation 1, Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Bill Ulrich, Engineering Garry Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Doug Perry, Fire Marshal Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney Chula Vista Elementary School District Sweetwater Union High School District. 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code 3, Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration, The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, EN~~DINATOR Lase No.IS-97-10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: The Loewen Group 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista CA 91911 3. Address and Phone Nnmher of Proponent: 681 North Avenue Jonesboro, GA 30236 (770) 210-9200 4. Name of Proposal: Humphrey's Mortuary 5. Date of Checklist: December 11, 1996 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than SigniOcant Impact N. Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 0 181 or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 181 (e,g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0 181 of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and permitted under a Special Use Permit by the zoning ordinance. The project site is not affected by environmental plans or policies and is not a viable agricultural site. No community impacts would result. II. 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)? o o o 181 o o o 181 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: The project does not have the capacity to impact population and/or housing or to induce growth. Potentially Potendally SlgniRcant Less than Significant Unless Signiricant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181 relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 181 0 soils, either on or off the site? 1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 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 geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The project site is level and paved. No substantial changes in topography or geologic substructures are required. Temporary erosion resulting from construction activities will be controlled through standard measures. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? o o o 181 o o o 181 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? o o o 181 POlo,ntially Potentially Significanl Lenihan SigniDc.ant Unlen Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 I8J any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 I8J direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 I8J either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 I8J groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 I8J i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 I8J waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 I8J water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The project site is currently 100% paved surfaces. Project implementation would not affect runoff or absorption. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 I8J 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 I8J c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 I8J temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 I8J e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 I8J non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The project is the relocation of an existing use. Traffic, and resulting air emissions would be slightly modified, but no increase would result. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 I8J 0 (N:\SHARED\COMMDEWS-97-lO.EIR) page3 Potentially Potentially SigniDcant Len than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g" 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The project proposes to relocate an existing use approximately 1/2 mile north of its existing location on Broadway. Traffic patterns would be slightly modified, but no significant impacts would result. The project provides sufficient parking and does not impact any other mode of transportation. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181 trees) ? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The project site is paved and contains no biological resources. (N:\SHARED\COMMDEWS-97-10.EIR) page4 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unlen Significant N. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact VIII. 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 D D D 181 and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ~ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: No impacts to energy resources would result. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:, a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of D 0 1:81 D hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency D D D 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 ~ 0 potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 D 181 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with D D D 181 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed project involves the use of flammable materials. However, regulations imposed on the use and storage of these materials reduces safety impacts to less than significant levels. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: No significant increase in noise levels would result. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? D 0 D 181 (N:\SHARED\COMMDEV\IS-97-10.EIR) pageS h...::ntially Potentially Signlncant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? D D D 181 c) Schools? D D D 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including D D D 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? D D D 181 Comments: Public service needs would not change as a result of the relocation. D D D 181 XII. 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) FirelEMS D D D 181 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 has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1.5 miles away and would be associated with a 3 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department has indicated the ability to provide adequate service to the site. Fire flows in the area are adequate for the proposed use, b) Police D D D 181 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Police response times are well within the allowable threshold limits. c) Traffic D D D 181 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Traffic volumes will not be impacted by the project. d) ParkslRecreation D D 0 181 (N:\SHARED\COMMDEV\IS~97-10.EIR ) page6 POlenlially Signil'icant Impact Potentially Signincanl Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project does not propose residential use. e) Drainage o o o I:8J 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 Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. f) Sewer o o o I:8J The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project will require connection to the City sewer system and abandonment of an existing septic system on site, g) Water o o o I:8J 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 participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No net increase in waster usage would result from project implementation. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 I:8J b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 I:8J c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 I:8J distribution facilities? (N:\SHARED\COMMDEV\IS.97.1O.EIR) page7 Potentially POlentially Signlncanl Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~ e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 121 Comments: No net increase in utility or service demand would result from project implementation. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 121 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 0 0 ~ scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 ~ effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 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 ~ Comments: The height and bulk of the structure would be consistent with other surrounding commercial uses. Lighting will not cause excessive glare. xv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 ~ or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 ~ or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 ~ cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 ~ or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (N:\SHARED\COMMDEV\lS-97-1O.EIR) pageS Potentially Potentially Signi{lQnt Len than Signiftcant Unless Significanl No Impact Mitigated Impacl Impact 0 0 0 181 e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The project site was formerly developed and no cultural resources are evident on the site. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? o o o 181 Comments: The project site was formerly developed and no paleontological resources are evident on the site. c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans or programs? Comments: The project, by nature of its size and scope, does not have the capacity to cause such impacts. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facili ti es? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? o o o 181 o o o 181 o o o 181 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed, 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project, by nature of its size and scope does not have the capacity to cause such impacts. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (N:\SHARED\COMMDEWS-97-1O.EIR) o o o 181 page9 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Signif'h:ant Unless Mitigated Less th.lln Signifia1nt Impact No Impact Comments: The project, by nature of its size and scope does not have the capacity to cause such impacts, c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: The project does not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts. o o o 181 d) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 181 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient size or scope to have such impacts. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 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 Transportation/Circulation o Public Services DPopulation and Housing o Biological Resources DUtilities and Service Systems o Geophysical DEnergy and Mineral o Aesthetics Resources o Water o Hazards o Cu!tural Resources o Air Quality DNoise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance (N:\SHARED\COMMDEWS-97-1O.EIR) pagelO XXI. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the [i] environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 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, 0 and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the 0 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 IMPACT 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 0 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. ~ /?/7~ S~;{ / /.?-;/{,/?{, Date Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista (N,ISHARED\COMMDEWS-97-10,EIR) pagell THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The fOllow;ng information must be disclosed: ' 1. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the contract, Le., contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. '11\E LOellw::N c-;t:buPll.h.1MP~f{'1'5 t1.df';'TU"'P'1' , FPo#IdUtl,LI!J DI2.A~t-:)c. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is a cotpOration or pannership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the cotpOration or owning any pannership interest in the iij"ArshiP.' 3. If any person identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any pe~7Aing as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustee of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards. Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? NO 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 1='R"'~~LI~ DR~f\I~(:x I" .Jc:>(' f.lE'~DE~N 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes [ ] No [111' If yes, state which Council member(s): Person is defmed as: . Any individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. fratemaJ organization. corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. this and any other county. city and county, city. mUrUcipality. disaict or other pOliricaI subdivis,ion, or any other group or combination acting as a unit .. (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) Date: 10-24.-'1(:" ItI~ contractor/applicant Print or type name of contractor/applicant WPC:f:\HOME\PlANNING\STORED\I021.A.9~Re(. t020.93) (Ref. 1022.93) Page II EXHIBIT 3 Operational Statement for Humphrey Mortuary , .. '..' ,,",,"','" ' . ,",..'.'.'.'.'.','..,.',.'.' ,.., ,'..' , " " '...., ' , ' ",'..'.','" , ,.""",.,',,.. ,.. ,.';:.. ',',', '." " .:-,-:-:-:-:-:-;,:::;:::;:;:;::;':':::":'::":':;:::::: :,:::,:,::' .. ,. , ' , ' . ",', ' , , ' " , '... , , ' " "'," , .. ,','.'" , ;:',.'; . . . ... . . . . .. . .. . ... .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. " "..' ..,','.." " , ,... ..,',.,.,.., .,.',.. .ibJ~d~' ','.,. .',..',. .,.,..., ,.....~i .,' .,..... .... .,'.,.. .i,;:,',.,..,..,.,.',. ,.,... .'..'.....',.,,' .... ,...., ,Humph~""Yll"Mo.rt~,Ha'V, , , .. , .. .. . ... . .. ..... , ~:W:,:::::~. .:.;.:_:.:~: ~:il::--' . .... . ..... " '" "';;"";8""" ...'.':.."d"""'" ..".,;;"...'Ih ..:,;.;;;. ..."t'" ,'"," ", 'c ;(;;;;<9""'~'''1'i:,,''.....,.,... " " ,,', '."Q;;i'" toea: WSV;I';.UfQvl$'iI!l:r M';;'I " ;n :.','.' ...., '....,.. ..p, ~" '.:-:r .. ...."., .. ,'.. " .. .... , ":::":". :.:".". ",'::'::":':.:. .....:..:..: ::".:..::: :..:-:"::.:.:::"::::":".::".: :":. ". .. . ........ ...". .... ............. ... :.:':"..:: ..:."..:: .:.,.... ". :.:. :",: ,': :..:.::::.::..:.:.....: "::.. "'. :.": .. .............. .. . .. .. .............."...... ".".. . " ,'.' ' ': ", '.........,.......... '" ,'.. ,,: . . . . ... .:..:::::. ":.::" : , ',.. "...",. , , , ' . ::.::::. "<.," :./??? . "::-: '...,:..... ,.....',. ,'.'....,.,..'.',,'."..',' .'". ',",.'...;.,.' .,.,'., , .,'... ""......'...';'"..;: , ._il~~.i'~lill_I~~II'i,,' ,,',', ,',', , .. . ... " , ".., ,,',' ," , , "',,' .... ." .... .." , , . '. . . . .' ..' , , ' , " .... .' .. . . .. , " , , , " ' , ' .. .. .... . '. . .. ... . .... .. ' .. .... . . .... . .... .' " , ,', ,","',J "'..."",,.. ,...... , ',' ,',' ,..", " Pre~;$d by' ........... 'i', .... , ',','.' ,.. .".,'!)'~~i;~fJj.\Wjlli~,)I , , ,',', ,',' ','., '. ' ,',.......~l1eryi~~~n~g~r ,'., ,",' '" ," , " , ",'.....'...".'.......'"',..".."""':"..,..,;",,..,,,'....' ," ','..',.'..,',',.",,'.','.'."".' ,.', .,'.."."',,"..."..,' ,',',,', ' ',' " ", ,',', .',. .,' .'. ii)" ,'....................1.......... ,." ,),>', ,", ',,' "..','><..i.'w......}.. ) ,.'., ,'.... f6ii. .','" '.. '..'.' > I · , ,. ,'.>$~,I(!iriiD$p~ft~~, .',' >..,,'" (Hn./:\: :: : .. . .' : , 'QiW ofqhiJla?iti$tli! ' .. ',.., .., .... .. . . '.."" '" ,," , , .... " .." . .. ... 'I'". "',.." ,'. '. .,',.,,'. .. ... . ... , ',', ,',...... . ... . . ...... 0"".. . .. ..... , '..' '.'. " .., " , . .... . .." . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .... , , :'" .. ',' ...... . ,01)~ . . . . , . ,,'., .".',,'." .. "..."1"..,,...,'.......,',. '..'>, ,'. . ... . . . ... . . . . ." . ... . . .. . .' . ." ..' . .. .. . ,.,.',',.', ", ,,'" , .. . . , , . . .. . . . .. . .. .' ." . ..... . " ' "., . " , , ',.. .., I'" " , , ,.., " ", "" ',',", , ",',."',..'.'.. ',,'.. "'.".',"'" , .. , ," ".." ' " , .. .......", ,','..' '.....",..", ,,',',',', , . . . . . ... . . ... .. .. >i" ',,' .'.. ' '. , ,",'.:,i, ' " ' ,:".i' .. " '...... ' .. .. . . .. . . . . .... . . , ..' '. . . . . .... , .. :' :. .. .>'" .. .. .. .... " , , " . .. . .. .... .. ... , "I ' , , , ' , ' , , , . . .. , ' , ' . .' . . ""..... ,Marcl118 1997 ' : ..: :. .. . '. .'.:.'::" ~ ..'. .' . ,) ...,..""".,' ,""',',,,', ," " , , , '.'.....'..... ", '," .. ',';..','.. ;,' . .. . . .. .. . . .., . . .. .' .. .. , , ' , , , , ,". . , '.. ,.. ....", ' , .. ' '. ... . .' . "'I"" ' ,,' . .. ... . . .. ... , ..I "', """....' """'..,',-...."",""'..""""'. . .::;';:;.. .. .. . .' .. . ............. . .. .... ................... , , ,m(' , " '...... ,.., ... '.., ,'.... , ... :: u)}: : .. '",'," , , , 'i ' , ..(.om" , ' ' , , , " , , , , , .... . . " , .... . .. .. .. . .. . . , , .. . . , , , " ".',",.".".'...".,.,..' , " , " . ... . ... " , , , , , , , , " ", " , .' .... " ' " '..' , ' ,.'" ... , " , , , , ... . , , , " . ... . . . . ... . . . . . ... . " , .. .. ... ... .. ... . .. . .. . .. . . .. , .... .. . ..... . .... ... . ... . ..... ... , , , ' , ....,,:., Operational Statement Humphrey Mortuary was established in Chula Vista, CA in 1955, Since the time Humphrey Mortuary was established, it has grown to serving over 1175 families per year, 60% of our Business is Cremation, where 40% of our Business is providing some type of Funeral Service for the Families that we serve, Our daily public operational schedule is /Tom 8:00 a,m, to 9:00 p,m, seven (7) days a week. The office is closed on major Holidays throughout the year. Visitations are conducted as the need arises seven days a week /Tom 9:00 a,m, to 9:00 p,m, At the present we have 2 Viewing Rooms and the Chapel. We only conduct 1 Service at a time in the facility, We do not allow any services to be held in the Viewing Rooms, They must be held in the Chapel. Arrangements of Services are scheduled seven days a week /Tom 8:30 a,m, to 4:30 p,m, At the present we have the capabilities to meet with 2 different families at one time, We have two arrangement offices, From the attached sheet that shows the breakdown of services, you will note that most of our services are conducted at outside facilities, 80% of our Traditional Families are Catholic, which requires that the Mass be held in the church, When the services are held at the church, there is not a processional /Tom the Mortuary to the Church, When the service is held in our Chapel, and we are required to conclude the service at the Cemetery, we then do have a processional to the Cemetery, We require that all Processionals have 1 Motor Escort (Police Escort) for every 12 cars in the Processional. Ifwe do not have the Escorts, then we do not have a Processional, As far as # of people that attend the Services in our Facility, we find that varies depending on the Family, We do not have more than 150 people in the Chapel at any given time, Humphrey Mortuary employs 12 Full Time people, and 8 Part Time people, We contract with a removal service that works for Humphrey Mortuary after 5:00 p,m, on Weekdays and on Saturday and Sundays, There main responsibility is to make removals /Tom the place of death, and transport back to Humphrey Mortuary, They employ 6 people, Regarding the new building, there will not be any significant changes as far as operations, etc, Our hours will remain the same, staffing will not change. and the way we conduct business will not change, We will not be running two services at any given time, You will note /Tom the building plans that the only Chapel that has access and capabilities to effectively run a service, is out of the main chapel. Breakdown of SeIVices: Humphrey Chapel vs Outside Facilities MONTH VISITATIONS EVENING SERVICES DAY SERVICES OUTSIDE SERVICES Oct 1996 12 6 4 21 Nay, 1996 7 1 5 6 Dec, 1996 14 10 2 31 Jan 1997 23 8 11 22 Feb, 1997 20 10 6 31 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item No, 2 Meeting date: May 2 L 1997 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 97-20: Consideration of an amendment to Otay Ranch SPA One Plan on property generally located on I, II 0 acres south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future SR-125 alignment. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 97-02: Consideration of a tentative subdivision map for 290 acres of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, generally located off the southern extension of Otay Lakes Road south of Telegraph Canyon Road. McMillin Companies has submitted a Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment and tentative subdivision map for the portion of Otay Ranch SPA One owned by West Coast Land Fund (WCLF) to subdivide 290 acres creating 1,877 residential units in Villages One and Five, The SPA amendment makes minor adjustments to the neighborhood boundaries and dwelling units and proposes deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina Avenue as a promenade street in Neighborhood R-11 of Village One. The tentative map proposes 527 single-family residential lots, 1,350 multi-family units and a 10 acre elementary school, 15,8 acres for parks, 3.3 acres of commercial land uses and 8,1 acres of community purpose facilities (CPF) in Village Five, On June 4, 1996, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch, The SPA One Plan was processed by Village Development for the entire 1,110 acres of Villages One and Five, In response to a foreclosure action by WCLF, Village Development excluded the 290 acres from their tentative subdivision map that was subject of the foreclosure action, In August of 1996, WCLF foreclosed on 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch, McMillin Companies is in the process of acquiring the WCLF ownership and is processing a SPA One Plan amendment and tentative map over the 290 acres of Villages One and Five, ISSUES: SPA One Plan Amendment Deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5 from Neighborhood R-11 in Village One Planned Community District Regulations Reduction in the required number of "Hollywood" driveways Tentative Subdivision Map Master Homeowners Association to maintain landscaping and open space Limited use of residential streets with parkways Page 2, Item 2 Meeting Date: Mav 21. 1997 RECOMMENDATION: 1, Based on the direction of the Policy Committee, adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCM 97-07 recommending the City Council approve the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 and Santa Delphina Avenue as a Promenade Street, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution PCS 97-02 recommending approval of the tentative subdivision map for the WCLF portion of Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council Resolution, BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission will consider the deletion of Pedestrian Park P-5 at their May 15, 1997 meeting, Staff will provide an oral report on the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting, DISCUSSION: L Background In October of 1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch, On June 4, 1996, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch, The SPA One Plan was processed by Village Development for the entire 1,110 acres of Villages One and Five, The Planning Commission recommended approval of a tentative map on the entire SPA One area on July 10, 1996. As previously discussed, Village Development revised their map to exclude ITom the tentative map the 290 acres in the WCLF foreclosure action, In August of 1996, WCLF foreclosed on 1,036 acres of the Otay Ranch, including the 290 acres located in Villages One and Five, Subsequently, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Village Development's revised tentative map, The City Council approved the majority of Village Development's map on November 19, 1996, The balance of the map in Village Five was continued to see if Village Development and WCLF could reach agreement on the Village Five land plan, When McMillin Companies filed a tentative map that was substantially consistent with the approved SPA One Plan, staff returned to the City Council recommending approval of Village Development's map, McMillin is currently in the process of acquiring the WCLF ownership and is processing a SPA One Plan amendment and tentative map over a portion of the 290 acres within Villages One and Five, The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared Initial Study IS 97-21 and concluded that the existing Program EIR for the GDP and Second-Tier EIR for the SPA One Plan provide adequate prior review of the project's environmental impacts, The Coordinator has prepared an addendum to the Second-Tiered EIR substantiating this position, The addendum is attached to the Planning Commission resolutions Olayrnch:Mcspa\PCSTFRPT, DOC Page 3, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 II. Applicant's Proposal A. SPA One Plan Amendments Except for the deletion of Park P-5 and Santa Delphina as Promenade Street, McMillin Companies has submitted a tentative map that is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan, However, specific amendments to SPA One are necessary to address these deletions, Most of the SPA amendments focus on Neighborhood R-ll in Village One, The amendments in this neighborhood delete the pedestrian park and promenade street and increase the number of lots ITom 116 to 125. Minor amendments are proposed to Neighborhoods R-22, R-23 and R-24 in Village Five. These amendments rearrange the single-family densities in the neighborhoods north of the Village Five Core, The Phasing Plan also changes to reflect all of McMillin's single-family homes in their first phase of development, The current SPA Phasing Plan indicates this area as Phase 3 but with the approval of this amendment and map, this area will develop on its own schedule concurrently with Village Development's phases, The proposed changes to phasing will be reflected in the update to the Public Facilities Finance Plan that is required prior to the first Final "B" map. B. Tentative Map 1. Village One McMillin Companies tentative subdivision map proposes a total of 1,877 dwelling units on the 290 acres in their portion of Villages One and Five, All the streets in McMillin's map are public as opposed to the private streets approved for Village Development's portion of the SPA One Plan. In Village One, the WCLF owns Neighborhoods R-I I and R-12. The map subdivides R-ll into 125 6,000 square foot single-family lots, Two options are proposed for R-12. a. Neighborhood R-ll Neighborhood R-II in Village One was allocated 118 single-family units with a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre under the approved SPA One Plan, McMillin is proposing 125 units on 29,8 acres with a density of 4,2 dwelling units per acre under their SPA One amendment, The tentative map proposes 125 units with 60-foot by 105-foot pads on slightly larger lots depending on the grading and slopes, The applicant proposes to delete the Pedestrian Park P-5 ITom the SPA One Plan, If the Planning Commission believes the pedestrian park is needed in the neighborhood, 8 lots between Santa Delphina Avenue, Montana Drive and Bellena Avenue could be combined to form the park and a residential street The SPA amendment is discussed fully in the issues section ofthis agenda statement, The applicant also proposes to reduce Santa Delphina ITom a promenade street to a Residential A Street Staff has proposed conditions to require an additional street tree easement in the front yards of the homes fronting on Santa Delphina, providing the double row of trees similar to the promenade street but with a reduced parkway and sidewalk (See Exhibit A), Santa Delphina provides the access to the regional trail in Telegraph Canyon Ota)TnchiMcspa\PCSTfRPT.DOC Page 4, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21. 1997 Staff believes this design will provide a similar pedestrian environment as the promenade street and due to the limited area served, the revised street design is acceptable with staff. Due to the private streets in Village Development's Neighborhood R-IO to the west, Santa Delphina is the only access to Neighborhood R-II, Emergency access is provided between R-IO and R- I I. This access will contain "grasscrete" or a similar surface and will be maintained by the master homeowners association, b. Neighborhoods R-12 and R-13 Neighborhoods R-12 and R-B in Village One are split by the ownership of Village Development and WCLF, Only portions of Neighborhoods R-12 and R-B were subdivided by Village Development's tentative map. The portion of Village Development's R-12 north of Santa Flora was not subdivided, and there are residual lots left in R-12 and R-B that are adjacent to McMillin's R-12 (E), Two alternative subdivisions are proposed for R-12, Alternative A requires a land swap with Village Development and places all ofR-12 in McMillin's ownership and all ofR-B within Village Development's ownership (See Exhibit B), This alternative produces the best overall subdivision design for the two neighborhoods and is staff's recommended plan for this area. McMillin proposes 104 single-family lots in this alternative. Village Development's portion would be lotted for 122 units finishing out the lot pattern of their approved tentative map, Alternative B proposes a stand-alone subdivision on McMillin's portion of Village 12, It takes temporary access off Palomar Street with permanent access provided on Santa Flora when Village Development develops its portion of Village 12, McMillin's map proposes 86 lots for their portion ofR-12. Village Development has 64 lots approved on their portion of R-I2 and 76 lots on R-B with a potential balance of 45 lots for the residual part ofR-12 that was not subdivide under Village Development's map, Alternative A is the subdivision recommended by staff, and both owners support the landswap, however, McMillin is concerned about relying on the landswap with Village Development in order to record a final map on R-12, A 6-month time limit has been proposed in the conditions for completion of the land swap, If the swap has not occurred, then McMillin can record a final map using Alternative B, Staff will assist in facilitating the landswap, If swap cannot be achieved, Alternative B is acceptable with staff, 2. Village Five The tentative map on Village Five proposes 316 single-family homes and 1,350 multi-family units, a 10-acre elementary school site, three park sites on 15,8 acres plus their portion of the paseo, 8, I acres of CPF on three sites and two commercial sites of 3,3 acres, These land uses and densities are substantially the same as the SPA One Plan, While this portion of the tentative map is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan, the second phase of McMillin's work program will re-evaluate the Village Five core land uses and densities, The Otaymch!Mcspa\PCSTFRPT.DOC Page 5, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 alignment of Palomar Street, with the trolley right-of-way and the promenade streets, has not changed on the proposed tentative map. a. Neighborhood R-22 Neighborhood R-22 proposes a small lot single-family "duplex" design that McMillin has used in their Rancho del Rey Project. These houses are individual homes on zero lot-line lots that share a common wall with an adjacent unit. Since a specific product has not been proposed at this time, the future product is required by the conditions of approval to go through design review, There are 92 lots proposed, and McMillin acknowledges that a reduction in lots may be necessary to achieve an acceptable design, Due to intersection spacing'standards, one entrance is proposed with a pedestrian access to Santa Cora at the north end of the neighborhood. b. Neighborhood R-23 Neighborhood R-23 proposes a 50-foot by 70-foot pads on 86 lots, Two internal cul-de- sacs are proposed. Staff required the cul-de-sacs to be open for pedestrian access to Santa Cora, the promenade street to the village core, c. Neighborhood R-24 Neighborhood R-24 is a standard 5,000 square foot lot design with 138 lots proposed. The key feature here is Pedestrian Park P-9 and the Paseo to the schooVpark sites and the village core, The ownership boundary between McMillin and Village Development splits Pedestrian Park P-9, now called P-6,3, on McMillin's tentative map. McMillin has agreed to construct their portion of this pedestrian park and their share of the paseo. McMillin controls 1 acre of the pedestrian park and a IS-foot wide section of the paseo. Because of the dual ownership, the City Council decided, during Village Development's tentative map, that this pedestrian park and paseo should be publicly owned and maintained, All the cul-de- sacs open onto the paseo or park. AI; in Village One, the circulation pattern is limited due to private streets in Village Development's portion of Village Five. Santa Cora is the access in and out of McMillin's area of Village Five, Emergency access is provided by Bouquet Canyon to Neighborhood R-25 in Village Five. d. Neighborhood R-46 Neighborhood R-46 is the only multi-family site that is north of Palomar Street and part of the first phase of McMillin's development. The applicant proposes liS multi-family units on the 7, 2-acre lot. This site is identified in the SPA One Affordable Housing Plan as a target site for Village Five, e. Elementary School Site The elementary school site proposed on the tentative map is consistent with the location and size indicated on the SPA One Plan, The Chula Vista Elementary School District has indicated the site is acceptable and, while the site in Village One will be the first school in Otaymch;Mcspa\PCSTFRPT. DOC Page 6, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21. 1997 the two villages, they request that it be made available on demand, approximately 1,000 units into the development of Village Five, The conditions of approval reflect this requirement. f. Park P-6.6 The applicant controls 7.6 acres of this 10,l-acre neighborhood park in Village Five, McMillin has proposed to construct this park as a "turn-key" park if they can adequately control the park design process with City input. Otherwise, McMillin prefers to pay Park Acquisition and Development (pAD) fees to the City, City staff wants to ensure that the City has adequate input into the design process since this will be a public park and needs to meet the City's park program for facilities, Staff has required in the conditions of approval that the park design comply with the City's Landscape Manual which sets out the design process for City parks, The specifics of the design process will refined through additional discussion between McMillin and the City. The park is required to be offered for dedication on the first "B" map and the threshold for the park will be further evaluated by the update of the PFFP, Any changes in park thresholds will require Planning commission and City Council approval, g. Village Core The applicant's tentative map for the Village Five Core proposes to divide the core into lots as indicated on the SPA One Plan, Staff believes the map is therefore consistent with the SPA One Plan. The applicant has indicated that they are planning to replan the Village Five core land uses in their next phase of development, m. ISSUES: A. SPA One Amendment Should Pedestrian Park P-5 be deleted from Neighborhood R-ll in the SPA One Plan? Applicant's Proposal McMillin Companies has proposed deleting Pedestrian Park P-5 because they believe the conventional lots proposed in this neighborhood will meet the private recreation needs of the residents, In addition, they believe since the neighborhood park acreage of P-I and P-2 meet the parkland requirements of the GDP and SPA, the park can be deleted because the pedestrian park acreage is above the requirement. Analysis The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) provides for park credit for neighborhood and community parks within the Otay Ranch, The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan established a standard of 1 acre per 1,000 residents for community parks and 2 acres per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks, The approved neighborhood parks in SPA One satisfied the park requirement, and the pedestrian parks provided additional parks above the OtaymchiMcspa\PCSTFRPT.DOC Page 7, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21. 1997 requirement. Pedestrian parks were proposed to provide recreational opportunities within walking distance of the single-family neighborhoods that were not adjacent to a neighborhood park. Park P-5 was approved as a Q,S-acre pedestrian park for Neighborhood R-I I in the SPA One Plan, In the SPA One Plan, Neighborhood R-l I is approved for 118 single-family lots with a density of 4,1 dwelling units per acre on the eastern side of Village One, This neighborhood is on the north side of Palomar Street The closest neighborhood parks are Park P-2 located more than 1/4 mile for the majority of the neighborhood on the south side of Palomar Street and Park P-I in the village core, over a half mile away, Pedestrian Parks were proposed by Village Development as part of the SPA One Plan. These parks are part of the "Village Concept", The Village Concept in the GDP establish the transit and pedestrian orientation policies for the Otay Ranch Village Development proposed these small parks in the single-family neighborhoods outside the village cores to provide casual recreational opportunities in these neighborhoods, The larger neighborhood parks are centrally located in each village to provide organized sport opportunities, These parks were planned with a lI2-mile service radius. The pedestrian parks have a smaller service radius which is focussed on the neighborhood in which they are located, The SPA One Plan allows 118 lots in Neighborhood R-II with the D,8-acre Pedestrian Park P-5, McMillin is now proposing 125 lots without the park. Deletion of the park adds lots to the neighborhood with no additional amenities, The applicant's proposal to delete Pedestrian Park P-5 was reviewed by the Technical Committee, The Planning Commission will recall that, the Otay Ranch Project has a specific staff review process for resolving issues that come up during the review of plans on the Otay Ranch. The Technical Committee is made up of representatives of the Planning, Engineering, Fire and Parks and Recreation Departments. The committee believed this park was a key pedestrian feature of the neighborhood and was opposed to its elimination, The committee was concerned about what can be seen as an incremental reduction in the neo- traditional features of the project. The physical design of the neighborhood can effect the quality of life in the neighborhood, and the committee believed that these features need to be maintained to improve that quality in these future neighborhoods, The nearest pedestrian park to Neighborhood R-II is P-3 which is over 1/2-mile away, The closest Neighborhood Park is P-2 located over 1/4 mile away, but on the south side of Palomar. The deletion of Park P-5 would mean residents would drive to these parks instead of walking which is contrary to the pedestrian concept. The Technical Committee also felt that the pedestrian parks provide visual relief within the rather dense single-family neighborhoods, Since the Technical Committee position was in conflict with the applicant, the issue was taken to the Policy Committee, The Policy Committee is comprised of the City Manager and department heads, Unresolved issues are raised to the Policy Committee for resolution, Ota:>TTlch!Mcspa\PCSTFRPT.DOC Page 8, Item 2 Meeting Date: Mav 21. 1997 Staff Position The Policy Committee generally agreed with the applicants position that the SPA park requirements were met by the neighborhood parks and that the lots in R-ll could satisfy the recreational needs of the neighborhood, However, the Policy Committee believed the deletion of the pedestrian park was a major policy decision for the City Council. Both the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions will be asked for their recommendations on the park deletion. If the Commissions believe this park is an important pedestrian feature of this neighborhood, the subdivision can be easily redesigned to include the park by modifying eight lots for the park and street, B. Planned Community District Regulations Amendment Should the required number of "Hollywood" Driveways be Reduced? Applicant's Proposal McMillin Companies is concerned about the marketability of homes with the "Hollywood" driveways, The "Hollywood' driveway requirement sets the garages back a minimum of 30 feet ITom the ITont property line and requires a landscaping strip or other material in the center of the drive on lots 55 feet wide by 105 feet long, McMillin has proposed the following changes in bold print to the PC District Regulations requirement increasing the lot size requirement to 60-foot by IIO-foot pads in order to exempt Neighborhood R-24 from the standard and provide only 25% in R-II : 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 60 feet by 110 deep (pads) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan), The model home for Parcel R-ll shall include at least one model with the option of being sited and constructed with the "Hollywood" driveway concept. Analysis As part of any SPA plan, Planned Community District Regulations are adopted to provide the detailed land use standards that function as a Zoning Ordinance, In addition, the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan District Regulations contain the design features of the Village Concept, In the residential neighborhoods, these features primarily deal with the streetscape, In order to make the streetscape more pedestrian fiiendly, many garages are required to set back further, porches are required and sidewalks are separated from the curb with a parkway, The current PC regulation addressing "Hollywood' driveways is contain in a footnote to the setback requirements and reads as follows: 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 deep shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan), O1ayrnchiMcspa\PCSTFRPT.DOC Page 9, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21, 1997 Staff Position Staff is concerned about the amendment since it effects all of SPA One Plan, and changing the standard would reduce the number of "Hollywood" driveways SPA wide, McMillin has designed their lot based on pad width as a opposed to Village Development who set the standard based on lot width, Of the 138 lots in McMillin's Neighborhood R-24, 36 qualify as being 55 feet wide producing only 12 "Hollywood" driveways in the entire 136 lot subdivision, Just 12 of these driveways will not have a significant effect on the streetscape in this neighborhood. Staff would prefer to exempt R-24 ITom the requirement and maintain the standard SPA wide. In an effort to address the marketability issue, the standard could be modified to allow the Director of Planning the discretion to waive the requirement if it can be demonstrated the units with "Hollywood" driveways are not marketable. Originally, the Technical Committee wanted all units on the larger lots to have "Hollywood" drives but compromised to 30 per cent because of the marketability issue, The Committee understands the marketing issues but wants to maintain the standard, The following recommendation allows the Planning Director discretion with the issue, If substantial evidence is not provided by the developer, the director can refer the issue to the Commission for resolution, 2 A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 deep shall be set back a minimum of30 feet and incorporate a "Hollywood" driveway (see Village Design Plan), The model home for Parcel Neighborhood R-ll shall include at least one model with the option of being sited and constructed with "Hollywood" driveway concept. The Director of Planning may waive this requirement based on evidence from the developer that these units are not marketable, and are replaced with an alternative plan that is consistent with the Village Design Plan. The Director may refer the issue to the Planning Commission resolution if in the Director's opinion the evidence is not adequate to make a clear determination. Neighborhood R-24 is exempt from this requirement. C. Tentative Map Should residential street with parkways be used in the applicant's residential neighborhoods? Applicant's Proposal The applicant wants to use the City's standard monolithic sidewalks with walk adjacent to the curb and gutter in all but two of the residential streets in their tentative map. They are concerned about increasing the driveway distance and maintenance ofthe parkway, Analvsis The SPA One Plan approved two street design cross sections for residential streets in these two villages, Residential Street A provides a 6-foot parkway between the 4-foot sidewalk and the curb, Residential Street B allows the City standard 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the Otaymch'Mcspa\PCSTFRPT, DOC Page 10, Item 2 Meeting Date: Mav 21. ] 997 curb, Street A is seen as providing a superior pedestrian environment because it separates the pedestrian ITom the travel lanes of the streets and will provide a tree canopy for shade on the sidewalk. The Village Design Plan requires Street A to be used predominantly throughout the residential neighborhoods, Street B is allowed in special circumstances in conjunction with alley products or small lot single-family, McMillin has proposed using Street A in only two locations: as a replacement for the promenade street on Santa Delphina Avenue in R-ll and on Lonetree Drive in R-24 in Village Five. This street is indicated on the SPA One Plan running ITom the promenade street, Santa Cora to the Pedestrian Park P-6.3, The applicant proposes using Street B on all the other residential streets in their portion of SPA One, Village Development uses Street A except for their alley product neighborhoods, Staff Position Staff has proposed conditions requiring Street A on all neighborhoods except R-22, the "duplex" product, which qualifies as a small lot single-family product, The conditions of approval also require the applicant to landscape the parkway and provide irrigation, either by a HOA or by the individual home owner. The parkways are another key pedestrian fiiendly feature of neighborhood, The Village Design Plan is clear that parkways are to be the rule rather than the exception. D. Tentative Map Should a Master Homeowners Association be required to maintain the open space and landscaping? Applicant Proposal McMillin prefers an open space maintenance district similar to Rancho del Rey to maintain the open space and common landscaping in the tentative map, Analysis The Engineering Department has recommended that a Master Homeowners Associations be formed to maintain the slopes, parkways and other landscaped areas for this portion of SPA One, An open space maintenance district will be formed to maintain the street medians and drainage channels and back up the MHOA if it fails to maintains landscaping to City standards, The Rancho del Rey OSMD is funded by a ]972 Landscaping and Lighting District which are now subject to Proportion 218, Proposition 218 places a number of restrictions on the use of benefit assessment by local agencies to pay for maintaining public improvements, The Engineering Department has hired a consultant to review this issue and make recommendations to the City Council on structuring open space maintenance districts, The consultant is scheduled to report to the City Council at their May 20th meeting on their recommendations, The consultants have also been hired by the City to form the OSMD for Ota)mchIMcspa\PCSTFRPT.DOC Page 11, Item 2 Meeting Date: May 21. 1997 the approved portions of SPA One, They are recommending the City use Community Facility Districts to pay for on-going maintenance costs. The Engineering Department believes the primary responsibility for maintaining landscaping belongs with the local residents, Currently, EastLake has an HOA and Village Development has been required to form one, These communities have private facilities to maintain, There are none in McMillin's proposal, Since the issue is moving forward to City Council for a City-wide policy, the Commission may wish to defer this issue to the City Council for resolution under the new Council policy, Staff Position Staff believes a :MHOA is the most appropriate funding mechanism for the open space and landscaping with a backup of an open space maintenance district funded by a community finance district, City Council is scheduled to discuss this issue at their May 20th meeting, Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B Santa Delphina Avenue street tree easement exhibit Alternative A landswap subdivision Alternative B stand alone subdivision Exhibit C: Planning Commission Resolution PCM 97-20 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the SPA One Plan Amendment with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving the SPA One Plan Amendment Exhibit D: Planning Commission Resolution PCS 97-02 Recommending Approval to the City Council of the ChuJa Vista Tract 97-02 with attached Draft City Council Resolution Approving Chula Vista Tract 97-02 Otayrnch~Mcspa\PCSTFRPT, DOC PART TWO Village One Design Plall ~ ~. !~~1t ;--\- toNP tnON 1"\ J r--> Gd ; 1ff \ (~!vj)lnOH B l ~ VILLAGE INTERIOR STREETSCAPES - VILLAGE ONE . Residential Street - Conditions A & B Description: Two conditions exist in the residential area streets. Each condition provides a single row of street tI'eeson each side of the street The conditions are A) a parkway for the street trees between the curb and property line; and B) a sidewalk and a curb adjacent sidewalk where the street tree is planted behind the walk. The trees should be medium scale canopy trees spaced between 25' to 30' on center. Broadleaf evergreen and deciduous trees are permitted. Plant Palette: Trees: Bradford Pear (Pyros calleryana), Tipu Tree (Tipuana tipu), Evergreen Pear (Pyros kawakami), Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parviofolia), and Podocarpus gracilior. '51'I!.c.a..&.. '5TR.eeT C:(\O~$. '5e.c. Tic"'" FCtIL ~A"'TA nSL.pt4,N4 ~ /I~'IN ~ PMI<W-4y. ~ 3Z. p.ctN . Ll', ~ T~e.e. ~ ~ e.A.se.MEJlLT T"RE5E:5 ~ND Sfce- fNAl/<::;5 , ~ f-dIv ' ~ N(",mbe,g ;',:; ~HIBIT A , I I <I: w > ta~ 1-<1: _2 taD: -w J:I- X..I w<l: ~l ,~ n " Q o Ei a ~ - -+~ i ,-- , UI " :s -' ;; \' .. i . i I s w /0Il I ~- .~ 00 ~~ ." ,;: ~ r~-: l i<~ I. _ /1 ----:~ I" :~ I' g- .~ 0, ~~ 3g S co w ILe:( I-Z jj5a: -w J:I- X...J we:( en ..-- ,,~ -: ~ I \' D ~ D '" * EXHffiIT C RESOLUTION PCM 97-20 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCil.. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE OVERALL DESIGN PLAN, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC F ACil..ITIES FINANCING PLAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAlLS MASTER PLAN, REGIONAL FACil..ITIES 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 of the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, was filed with the City of ChuIa Vista Planning Department on April 10, 1997 by the McMillin Companies ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, the SPA One Plan project area includes portions of Village One and Five, The SPA One Plan project area is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land located south of Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Ranchero and the future alignment of SR-125 ("Project"), This amendment for 290 acres in Villages One and Five owned by West Coast Land Fund, 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 and tenants within 1,000 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 21, 1997 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 ErR, 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 90-01 was certified Planning Commission May 21,1997 Page 2 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 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 the Third Addendum to the Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 95-01 and Addendum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION reconunends 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 CllliLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 21st day of May 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William C, Tuchscher II Chainnan Nancy Ripley, Secretary Attaclunent: Draft City Council Resolution IIb:\mcmiJJin:\pcspa,doc RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE TInRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL SECOND-TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR 95-01) FOR THE OTAY RANCH SECTION PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT PCM 97-20 TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON WIllCH INCLUDES THE 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 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 April 10, 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 Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero and is comprised of approximately 1,061.2 acres of land 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 and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 21, 1997 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 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 of Influence Update EIR 94-03 was certified by the Chula Vista City Council on March 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Chula 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 2I092,5(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 of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 1997 regarding the Project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: 1. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at their public hearings on the Addendum and this Project held on May 21 and June 3, 1997 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 Ilb:\mcmillin:\ccspa.doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 Page 3 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 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 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 ofChula Vista City CounciL V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to paragraph VI of this Resolution and the conditions, set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. VI. PHASE TWO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL The City Council does hereby approve the Phase Two Resource Management Plan subject to the following conditions: said Plan shall apply to the processing and conveyance of preserve lands associated only with SPA One; no other village or SPA shall be approved until the Phase Two Resource Management Plan is reevaluated and amended by the City of Chula Vista; the Property Owner of SPA One and/or Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the first tentative map approval for the SPA, to implement the terms of said Plan, VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A. The proposed Sectional Planning Area Plan is in conformity with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan, IIb:\mcmillin:\ccspa.doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 Page 4 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 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 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 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, VITI. 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 rrom 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 infonnation 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)), IX. 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, Ilb:\rocmillin:\ccspa.doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 Page 5 X ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full, Xl 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. C096-086. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter Planning Director John Kaheny City Attorney Attachment Exhibit A: McMillin Draft Final Conditions of Approval Ilb:\mcmillin:\ccspa,doc Exhibit A Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment PCM 97-20 1. Prior to the approval ofthe first Final Map for either Neighborhood R-12 or R-B, the developer shall revise the SPA One Plan exhibits to reflect the landswap between Village Development and McMillin Companies on Neighborhoods R-12 and R-B if the land swap is successfuL. THIRD ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-95-01 INITIAL STUDy IS-97-21 PROJECT NAME: Consideration of an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, PCM-97-20, and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 97-02 PROJECT LOCATION: South of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road (see locator map Figure 1.) PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin Companies CASE NO: IS-97-21 DATE: May 9, 1997 I. INTRODUCTION (a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a Negative Declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. This addendum has been prepared and analysis concerning impacts change the project description. conclusions of the Environmental in order to provide additional information as a result of the applicants decision to As a result of this analysis, the basi Impact Report have not changed. Therefore, in accordance with Sect10n 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch SPA I, EIR-95-01. II. PROJECT SETTING The project site is located to the south of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road on both sides of the extension of La Media Avenue. The project involves the eastern portion of Village One and the western portion of Village Five (see attached located map Figure 1). The Otay Ranch GDP defines Village One as the land area both e~st and west of Paseo Ranchero between Telegraph Canyon Road and East Orange Avenue. The SPA One plan includes all of Village Five and the portion of Village One east of Paseo Ranchero. The SPA land plan excludes entitlements for the area west of Paseo Ranchero, with the exception of public facilities necessary to serve SPA One (e.g. roadways, transit corridor), which traverse the area west of Paseo Ranchero. The project area is surrounded on three sides by the urbanized areas of the City of Chula Vista to the east, west, and north. Villages Two and Six are south of the project area. Other adjacent properties include the Otay Water District property, the planned State Route 125 corridor to the east, and thr planned Phase 2 of the Sunbow project to the west. Access to the site i~ currently provided via Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, an east-west arterial which forms the northern boundary of the site. The SPA One project area contains approximately 1,095.8 acres of gently rolling terrain. Past and current uses of the site include ranching, graz~ng, dry-farming and truck farming activities. The project site is currently vacant, unoccupied and in an unimproved condition. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (a) SPA One Amendments McMillin Companies has submitted a tentative map that is mostly in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan. However, several amendments to SPA One are necessary to find the proposed tentative map in compliance with the SPA One Plan. Most of the SPA amendments focus on Neighborhood R-11 in Village One. The amendments in this neighborhood delete the pedestrian park and promenade street and increase the number of lots from 116 to 125. Minor amendments are proposed to Neighborhoods R-22, R-23 and R-24 in Village Five. These amendments rearrange the single-family densities in the neighborhoods north of the Village Five Core. The Phasing Plan also changed to reflect all of McMillin's single-family homes in both villages in their first phase of development. (See Figure 2.) -2- (b) Tentative Map Village One McMillin Companies tentative subdivision map proposes a total of l,877 dwelling units on the 290 acres in their portion of Village One and Five. In Village One, the.WCLF owns Neighborhoods R-ll and R-l2. (See Figure 3.) The map subdivides R-ll into 125, 6,000 square foot single- family lots. Two options are proposed for R-12. Neighborhood R-12 was not subdivided under Village Development's tentative map since the property line between WCLF (West Coast Land Fund) and Village Development split the neighborhood. Two alternatives are proposed by McMillin's map. Staff supports Alternative A, which requires a boundary adjustment with Village Development and creates 106 lots with access off Santa Flora. Alternative B is a stand alone subdivision of 86 lots on just WCLF property with a temporary access on Palomar. This alternative leaves several residual parcels on Village Development's property which will cause them to redesign in the future. . Village Five The tentative map on Village Five proposes 316 single-family homes and 1,350 multi-family units, a 10-acre elementary school site, three park sites on 15.8 acres plus their portion of the paseo, 8.1 acres of CPF on three sites and two commercial sites of 3.3 acres. (See Figure 4.) These land uses and densities are substantially the same as the SPA One Plan. While,this portion of the tentative map is in compliance with the approved SPA One Plan, the second phase of McMillin's work program will re-evaluate the Village Five core land uses and densities. The alignment of Palomar Street, with the trolley right-of-way and the promenade streets, has not changed on the proposed tentative map. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed modifications to the Otay Ranch SPA I Plan and the tentative subdivision map represent only minor technical changes in the SPA I land use and operational characteristics. The proposed modifications to dwelling unit types, land use and street clasification are not of such a magnitude to warrant the preparation of a subsequent environmental document. V. CONCLUSION 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. {)~A~l ~c d' EnVlr~~~~/ReVlew oor lnator -3- REFERENCES General Plan, City of Chula Vista Title l~; Chula Vista Municipal. Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Otay Ranch General Development Plan Otay Ranch SPA I Plan 3rdAdEIR.951 -4- i i I I I I I I I I I I I I i , ~ (js,;'!>i J r--.--'") - , !- , . , I\"" / ~~ (/ J f,,-,~-, I ~~ffi -----. i ~~~ \:::::~~:.::::~~--- ~ \ ::iZ~ ........ ' \---!'_~_ --::::::~ OJ \ ---- ~~---- i ------='::1 \ \ : \ I ' ~\ ~r. i ~ o n \~ \ ~ :i \ > 15 \ ' % \ i \ 0 \ j <}d! ," ~ ?! i i:" I iJ. ...1 ~ II ,-~-J \ ~ \ , r \ , . L-.-J--J ~ './ , i , \ o . '" - 0 r::.-' ~ If) ...~ DO .E c c: co ii: OJ c 0 <( a. en .:: u c co a: ..... >- .. C1> 0 .. ::5 '" .~ u... LI') ~ ..- CJ) w C) c:( ..J ..J >1/) .. , 0 i :I:o~ UQ,):> ZCJ)~ c:( CI ~ a: I:: ;; "_ c >- I: 5 oct ~ Ii .... I'CI ~ oC:~ ~ " o " ~ <<: ~ 'E " ..:: '" - " " .~ v ~ .::: v " ~ ~ ~ _ 0 ~ ; U') ~ ,... (J) w ~ <( ...J ...J - >~ Z I a: , 0 J:~ U~ z~ <(~ C::s ;:) >-G ~~ 08 " - III > u: III 0'1 ~ :> ; < r:::" , 5 ~ j ~ z ~"-" ~ oj .! i . ~ -. . .: ~ ..-~ ~ L-. _ ~.~1 ::T.;,,; g~g. ~j~ "'-.. ~~~ .:~ C ~'3 Q. ~'Z3: ~i'o.. :; -..I; '" :;; ~ ~:i :;. ':~ s; ;'~5~ ::-=c=' Q,)! :::: > ~ ;;: "" c ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ DO ,g :> . c ~ ii: ~ ~ ::I N ,. C OJ ~ '- -' " C> u.. - --. l-E~ ~~] , ~ ~ ~:; ~~ t] ;~~~ "" .. E ~ ~i~i ~Hj ~~I c .,- -"""'''''''00; ...... ""~...-,.... ;~.~._-~-~._~~.~' r> -& " - ;J...-,...-:.';.I:'...... 't'::;:'~~~~::: >- a: w< z:; 0:0 w" 1:)'" j! >~ s e~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~.~~: r,~ - -- -g-~~~~~--= h &' nl~ ~~~.~O~_.~ ~bqi . ~..-.~,~~~ ~~, s ... --::!....; ::...- ill bN.~h~~~.~~~w~o~--~-~,~~~~--~-~ f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~.~o.~~~.~~___,~~ J ~...~--N --~~...--~-- - ~ ...- .,._......................EEi~<f1 ..ttti-!, J~~~~~~A~A~b~~~~M~~2~22Z2Z33!'~'~ :~~~J~~~~ H .......,.....- ...~ "'Nr;>'" i~~i~iti :j,j i::D.:' -.- ;5; i ~ ;1" ~ .! j - .- t ~ ~(S~, ~1!:S~li "!'''t Hi. ! t~jS:~t l-j~= .! ".!!~; ~ I~ . - > if, ~ ;'&.0 i ~'!"':'...~,."1~~.,qo2:.:t.ij: !<~=:i:I:Lx::z:lrrrll:=:r:t:t. "': "'::i: t ::&:11 . . ! i ] , , ~ " ,; a; < i5 w ~ S c ~'I .. . II (" " , , l , ,.' . , or , 0 " ".....c: , '&' , ~ "\ III: t ~;: ~,d: : ~ ~~ , ~ ..>!! ~, , ,. , , , ~ '2>" , , ~ " ~ ; < . " ~ > :< ~ , w g ~ , , ~ " ~ !. -.' ~ . , ~ ~ c e ~ w '" '" a; . 0' ~ u; , ...--- . z ,-~~- w if ~ a; " ~ ;- " E ~ * I .' ,71 ~ ."\\,,, " i o , :! ,;, o ~ ~ ~ '" , --~ c. ,.. j . . -, :!: HH! ~ i{Hi J " c - 11. j :Iii! . c . .. 0 . .. ~ ;; M Q) S- ::s '" .~ u.. ~ 15 - ~ '<: ~ ~ '" ~ - .~ 'C J' ,:, . ~ ~ ~ o >- w~ >>E ii:::It ",'" 0" ~~ >~ :5 f~;~:~~:~~~:~:;F~~ ~;~~9.~~~~ "0 I ~ ~~~~~j~~~~~~i~!~;~~~~;~~$~~ ~t - ~ - ~ ~~-~~~--_ n Q w .~~~~~~b~-~O~~~~~.~~.~N~~~a~O~~'~'~~~~~.h~~~~~.~~ ~ ~~~~~--~.~~~~~-~SO~~..~~.~ -N~~~~----D-"~~~=20~=w : __~____...._..._ __ ",__ - .. CO'; ~ 1- _~~~~..__._._ ._.~.~..iE'~~~i~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........lEf..,. , ~~ ~~ ~~S~~~~~ H.Pt.t~.ii :tr....,I~.,1~..ioli... ~~o-~~~~~ ~~ ~~o- ~~~~ ~~~~~~~T~ ~. . ~~.~~~- r-.. ii~~~~~z~ uj :~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~Jn! ~' SOl ~q~ . ..". s ,~ \lJf ;! ;> '8 ~:~i~~~~~~;~1~~~~~ ~4~XX~~~~~~~X~~Z~~ g . z ~ ~ . 3 . ~ 3 . ~ i . '" ~ ~ .. '" < '" '" " ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~8 '" ~ .. '" .. ~ '" ~ ;- ~ ~ c . Pi' 0: H!it 0 :5 ~IHl ." c . .J !r~r ~ dB u: ~ .. . :;: .r;:'" 11......1 ~:! " , " .. m . ~ ::i < Z H o ~ '" n: .. 0 Q .. Ii' '" ~ i '" '" ~ .. ~ g < ~ w > ~ <:t' Q) '- ::> '" .~ u.. ~ o " " " "<: ~ 'h ~ ~ - - ~ o - ;: " ~, '" " " ::: ... '0 3 Case No.IS-97-21 E~ONMENTALCHECKLISTFORM 1. Name of Proponent: West Coast Land Fund,IM:cMiIlin 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 91955 477-1170 4. Name of Proposal: Modifications to Otay Ranch SPA I and Consideration of a Tentative S"ubdivision Map S. Date of Checklist: May 8, 1997 Potentially Si&nUicant Impact POlentially Significant Vola. Millgalcd N. Impact LClllhm SignJricant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 I8J zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 0 0 0 I8J or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The project conforms to all plans and zoning for the project site. II. POPlJLATION 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)" (tl: JJ,oIDC;\fHanmnglwcli.UlIi:) o o I8J o o o o I8J o o o I8J o o o 181 IJag~ 1 otentially POIc:ntialJy Significant Leu than SignitiCllnt Unlen SignUicanl ~. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 181 affordable housing? Comments: The project is in substantial compliance with approved plans. There is no housing present; therefore, it will not affect' housing or population. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181 relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 181 any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 181 soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 181 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 geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: These issues were adequately discussed in EIR-9Q-OI and EIR-95-01, which concluded that there would be no significant geophysical impacts. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 181 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 181 0 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 0 0 0 181 any water body? \t.:,.Dom~ '.pl<lnDIDg\wclt.~) l'age 2 Potentially Potentially Significant Leu than Significant Unlen Significant So Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181 direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? t) Change in the quantity of-ground waters, 0 0 0 181 either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alterations to the course or flow .of flood 0 0 P 181 waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181 water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-9Q-Ol and EIR-95-01. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or 0 181 0 0 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181 non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 181 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 181 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 181 nearby uses" \ h: <f1omc:\pJannlng\\\'C!l.t;.[).K) Page J ^-~_.~,- PotenLially PotenLially Significant u,u than Signifiant Unleu Significant N. Impact Mitigated Itnpac:t Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- 0 0 0 181 site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 181 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 181 alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 181 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 181 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01 adequately addressed traffic impacts~ No significant change in the amount of traffic being generated is proposed. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 181 trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 181 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: These issues were adequateJy addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? o o o 181 o o o 181 c) If the site is designated for mineral resource protection. will this project impact this protection" o o o 181 ,b: \borne \pJannlDglwdLCnK) }'ag~ 4 POlenLiaU)' Poten1ially Signinc:.ant leu than Significant Unlesl Signif'iont ~. Impact Milig81ed Impact Impact Comments: These issues were adequateJy addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181 hazardous substances (induding, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 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 .P 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 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. X. 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: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 181 0 0 c) Schools? 0 181 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, induding 0 0 181 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 181 0 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. (n: illomelplaD.Dlllg\wcli,cnk) fage ;, XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? potentiall,. Potentially Significant Len than Significant Unless Significant ~. Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 0 0 181 As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS o o o 181 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 has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 3-4 miles away and would be associated with a 3-minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. b) Police o o o 181 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. c) Traffic o 181 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 -805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F' during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arteria]s with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. d) ParkslRecreation o 181 o o The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. (ll.:J!omelplanJJ.1.Ilg\WclLcnJ() Page 0 Potentially PotaJtially Significant Leu than Significant Unlen Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Drainage 0 181 0 0 The Threshold Standards Tequire that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. f) Sewer o 181 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 Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. g) Water o 181 o o 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 participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. XIII. 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? 0 181 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 181 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 181 0 0 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 181 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 181 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-01. (ll.:\.IJomelpJannlDglwciLc.tl.k) J'age I I'otentially Potentially Significllht Les5 Lhan Significant Unlen Significant ~" Impact MiLigated Impact Impact XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 181 0 0 the public or will the prgp.0sal 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 0 181 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. XV. 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? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 181 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. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 181 0 0 proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in EIR-90-01 and EIR-95-0J. (n: JlOmelpJanDlnglwcll,W) !'age8 Potenli.lly Potentially Significant LenLh.n Signincanl linlen Signincant ~. Impact Mitiaattd Impact Impact XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 181 0 0 regional parks or other .!:e~reational facili ti es? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 181 0 0 c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 181 0 plans or programs? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Because of the developed nature of the site and the analysis and mitigation provided in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-Ol which have been or are being implemented, none of these impacts would result. o o o 181 b) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 181 achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project conforms to all long-term goals/plans for this area and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when \~ewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o o 181 o ~b.: ,.!10m\: IpJilnnmglwclLcnk) Page 9 POLenLlIUy Significant Impact POlenlially Signlncant Unleu Mitigaled Leu than Si~nlficant Impact So Implct Comments: Cumulative impact analysis was evaluated in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. d) Does the project have environmental effect which will cause substamial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in EIR-90-0l and EIR-95-01. o 181 o o XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The foJlowing project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: . Project Proponent Date '- n:JJom e "pla nnlng\wclLCD.J;.) I'age 10 XX. ENVIRONMEN....L FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECLu: 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. . . - . . Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services 0 0 . Population and Biological Resources Utilities and Service Housing Systems 0 0 . Geophysical Energy and Mineral Aesthetics Resources . D D Water Hazards Cultural Resources . . . Air Quality Noise Recreation . Mandatory Findings of Significance l.l:: ,home ,planDwglwciLc.b.*,) !'age11 XXI. DETERMINATIO, On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a J\'EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0 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, 0 and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect( s) on the 0 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 sheet$, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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, induding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. @J/ D!!:(j ~ /'7'77 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista (b.:lhomelpJanmng\wclLciJ..kJ !'agc12 EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. PCS 97-02 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 ONE AND FIVE OF THE OT A Y RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-02 WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02 and is commonly known as Neighborhood R-l1 and R-12 of Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One ("Property"), and; WHEREAS, McMillin Companies filed a duIy 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 97-02, with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April 10, 1997 ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, said application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately 290 acres located south of Telegraph Canyon Road along the extension of Otay Lakes Road known as La Media into 1,877 residential lots, one 10-acre schoo~ 15.8 acres of neighborhood parks, 8.1 acres of community purpose facility lots and two commercial sites on 3.3 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 IrnpactReport No. 95-01, SCH#9502l012 ("FEIR95-01"), and; WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01 and the addendum 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 determined 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 and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; Planning Commission May 21, 1997 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 TIIAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution adopting the Third Addendum to EIR 95-01 and approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for a portion of Village One and Five only ofChula VISta Tract 97-02 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED TIIAT 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 21 st day of May, 1997 by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Frank Tarantino Chairman Nancy Ripley Secretary Attachment Draft City Council Resolution llb:\rncmil1in:'pctm,doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FEIR 95- 01 (SCH #95021012) AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR PORTIONS OF THE OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT 97-02, AND MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02 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 97-02, with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on April 10, 1997; and WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately 290 acres located south of the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road into 1,877 residential lots, 67 acres of open space, one 10-acre school site and, 15.8 acres of parks, 8.1 acres of community purpose facility lots and two commercial sites on 3.3 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 90-0 I "); 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, induding lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and Chula Vista City Council June 3,1997 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed alternative tentative maps (including the Project's) as part of IS-97-21 and determined that they are in substantial conformance 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 21, 1997 at which time the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Third Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and recommend that the City Council approve the Project in accordance with staffs 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 3, 1997 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, determines, and resolves as follows: SECTION 1. 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 rrom 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 third Addendum has been prepared (Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)). IIb:\rncmillin:\cctm.doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 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 and third addendum's adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA (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 Applicants portion of Village One and Five 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 of land uses and residential densities ranging between 4.1 and 36.5 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 15.8 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 67.0 acres of open space, 23% 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. I1b:\rncmil1in:\cctJn,doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 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 confonnance 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 indude 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). 11. 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 ITom single family detached homes to attached single-family and multiple-family housing and will provide low and moderate priced housing consistent with regional goals. 1Jb:\mcmillin:\cct.m,doc Chula Vista City Council lune3, 1997 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 One and Five sites are 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 Alternatives Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a) in the Subdivision Map Act, the revised tentative subdivision map for the West Coast Land Fund properties in 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: A. Public Facilities West Coast Land Fund foreclosed on approximately 290 acres of Villages One and Five and, 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 Phases I and 2 of Villages One and Five of the Otay Ranch SPA One, Chula Vista Tract 97-02, based upon the findings and determinations on the record for the project. SECTION 7. Adoption of Addendum The City Council does hereby adopt the Third Addendum to the Final EIR 95-01. Ilb:\mcmillin:\cctm,doc Chula Vista City Council June 3, 1997 Page 6 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. 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 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 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 IIh:\mcmil1in:\cctm,doc MCMILLIN DRAFT FINAL CONDmONS 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, 'tledicate" 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 tree and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. The Developer has requested ''p,:' 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 pohasing 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 pacel map, filed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which porposed to subdivide land into individual single or multi-family lots, or contains a subdivision of he multi- family lots shown on he 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. GENERALlPRELIMINARY 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 pJans 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 ofthe 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" . Page No 2 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived rrom 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 final 'E" 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 (Exhibit *) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit *). 7. Prior to the approval of each final 'E" 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 rrom 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 tTom the appropriate resource agencies or comply with an approved MSCP or other equivalent 10(a) permit or Section 7 consultation applicable to the property. DESIGN 9. The secondary emergency access between Neighborhoods R-IO and R-ll shall be surfaced with 'grass-crete", 'turf-block" or some other comparable material unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director and Fire Chief. Bollards shall be provided at the end of the emergency access. 10. 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 ground cover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften :-'1CMILCNTDOC Printed: 5,'15197 Page No.3 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. ] ]. 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 comer side-yards or 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, East Orange Avenue and La Media Road, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the end of Applegate Street. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required. The exposed portion of any combination rree standing/retaining wall as measured rrom 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 'I::ombination walls" which include retaining and rree 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 rreestanding walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between rree standing and retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet. 12. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view fencing such as three feet of wrought iron on top of a three 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, induding footing shall be located wholly within the park and maintained by the City. 13. Should the applicant propose an amendment to the Otay 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. 14. Approval of lot widths and the final number of lots in Neighborhood 22 is subject to building design and product site plan approval by the Planning Department. A reduction in the number of currently proposed lots will likely occur prior to approval of actual building permits for this Neighborhood. 15. Alternative A for Neighborhood R-12 as depicted on the tentative map is the preferred alternative. The applicant and the adjacent landowner shall make all reasonable efforts to work together in order to accomplish this alternative. If, after six months from the effective date of the map, no agreement has been reached, the other alternate depicted on the map shall be acceptable. MCMILCNF.DOC Printed: 5,'1~S/97 Page No.4 STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 16. 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. 17. 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 indude, 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 East Orange Avenue and East Palomar Street west of Pas eo Ranchero is not necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision, their construction may be delayed. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide a cul-de-sac in accordance with City standards at the end of all proposed street stubs along the subdivision boundary. The City Engineer may approve the installation of a temporary turnaround or other acceptable alternative at the end of those streets that might be extended in the future to provide access to the adjacent property. 18. Indude 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 PaJomar Street and Paseo Ranchero b. East PaJomar Street and La Media Road c. East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue d. East Orange Avenue and Paseo Ranchero e. East Orange Avenue and La Media Road ~ICMILCNF.j)OC Printed: 5/15/97 Page No.5 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 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. Prior to the approval of the final 'B"Map containing parkways, the Developer shall 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 and a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. 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. 22. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first fina1 Map (including an "A" Map), in which the developer agrees to the following: a. Fund and instaII Chula Vista transit stop facilities (i.e., bus stops) when directed 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 Villages 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. 23. Prior to approval of the appropriate fina1 map, 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. Indude said right-of-way in an open space district. :\10.HLC:'\F,DOC Printed: 5/15"97 Page No.6 24. Guarantee the construction and enter into an agreement to construct the pedestrian bridge connecting Village One to ViIlage 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 East Orange Avenue. 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. 25. 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. 26. Prior to approval of the first final map for Neighborhood R-12 which requires the construction of the temporary access road to East Palomar Street, the developer shall accomplish the following: a. If required by the City Engineer, obtain a construction permit from the City approving the necessary modifications to any existing improvements, which are necessary to provide temporary access to Neighborhood R-12. b. Enter into an agreement where the developer agrees to: 1. Remove to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the "Temporary Access Road" improvements, at such time as a permanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 2. Construct the ultimate East Palomar Street improvements and regrade the area to be consistent with the streetscape of East Palomar Street as directed by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation at such time as a permanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use.. 3. Install signs as directed by the City Engineer, indicating that the "Temporary Access Road" will be closed once a permanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 4. Provide a Notice in any residential disdosure document that the "Temporary Access Road" will be dosed once a permanent road connecting R-12 to East Palomar Street is opened for public use. 5. Provide for all costs associated with the vacation of the 'Temporary Access Road"located within the proposed future residential lot c. Provide security acceptable to the City in the amount determined by the City Engineer to guarantee the removal of the Temporary Access Road improvements and \ICJ\1J1 ,CNF,DOC Printed: 5/15197 Page NO.7 construction of the ultimate East Palomar Street improvements as directed by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation 27. Indude 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. 28. Include the right of way for the proposed "Temporary Access Road" to R-12 from East Palomar Street to the northern property line of the proposed future residential lot in a separate lot. On the appropriate finaI 'B"Map, as determined by the City Engineer, grant said lot in fee to the City for open space, transportation, and other public uses: 29. Provide: (1) 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 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. 30. 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: I . 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 determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. :-'lC~1ILC"\F,DOC Printed: 5/15/97 Page No.8 3 I. Include in separate lots the right-of-way required to accommodate the future grade separation at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road. These lots shall be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, transportation, and other public purposes on the appropriate final 'B" Map, as determined by the City Engineer. Prior to the approval of the grading plans proposing the grading of the area that would accommodate said intersection, the developer shall submit a design study, acceptable to the City Engineer, ofthe grading required for said grade separated intersection. 32. 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 alIey 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-l1: Santa Delfina Ave., Pacifica Ave., Colusa Drive, Ballena Ave., Ballena Court, Montana Drive, Quailsprings Drive and Coalsprings Drive. Neighborhood R-12: Carmel Avenue, Pleasanton Road, Carmel Court and Ojai Court. Neighborhood R-23: Bridlevale Drive, Ravenrock Drive, Fawntail Drive, Bouquet Canyon Drive, Strawberry Valley Road, Elk Run Court and Covey Court. Neighborhood R-24: Bouquet Canyon Drive, Fernwood Drive, Lonetree Drive, Sagetree Drive, Clovertree Drive and Bramblewood Drive. Residential street Condition B may be used in Neighborhood R-22. 33. The applicant shall submit a conceptual design for the bridge connections between Village One and VilIage 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 requires construction of La Media Road between East Palomar Street and East Orange Avenue. 34. Requested General Waivers 1,2, 3 and 4 and Specific Waiver I, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are hereby approved. 35. Right-of-way for the light rail transit line shall provide for spiral curves as provided by MTDB and approved by the City Engineer. 36. 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 requred by the Publilc Facilities Financing Plan (PFP); provided, however, that such dedications shall be restricted to those reasonably necessary for the constructionofthe facilities identified in the PFFP. 37. The Developer shall be responsible for the construction of full improvements of that portion of East Palomar Street contained within the proposed tentative map, induding 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: (1) submit and MCMILC'WDOC Printed: 5'15197 Page No.9 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. 38. 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 ITom 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. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 42. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved by the City Engineer to reduce the peak runoff ITom the development to an amount equal to or less than the present IOO-year rrequency peak runoff. 43. Prior to approval of (1) the first final 'B" Map or grading pennit whichever occurs first for land draining into the Poggi Canyon, and (2) the first final 'B" Map or grading permit whichever occurs first for land draining into the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the deveJoper shall: a. Guarantee the construction of the applicable drainage facility, unJess otherwise approved by the City Engineer as follows: 1. Runoff detentionldesilting basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon; or ~lc!\.m,C\TDOC Printed: 50'15/97 Page No. 10 2. Runoff detention Basin in Telegraph Canyon Channel 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 rrom 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 shal1 provide security satisfactory to the City to guarantee the O&M activities, in the event said facilities are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shaIl 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 shaIl 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 detention basin in Telegraph Canyon and the proposed naturaIized 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 (1.)the Telegraph Canyon detention basin and (2.) Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin until 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 (l.)the Telegraph Canyon detention basin and (2. )Poggi Canyon Channel and detention basin attributable to the development for a minimum period of five years after City acceptance of the landscaping improvements. !\!CMILC:-.JF.DOC Printed: 5/15/97 Page No. 11 44. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map or grading permit whichever occurs first for land draining into the existing Telegraph Canyon Channel, where the developer agrees to perform the following activities within the portion of said existing channel extending rrom Paseo Ladera to the eastem subdivision boundary: a. Provide for the removal of siltation until 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. b. Provide for the removal of any siltation attributable to the development for a minimum period offive years after City acceptance of the landscaping improvements. 45. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating ITom and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property and vice versa. 46. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easements as required by the City Engineer to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Improved access as determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to public drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 47. Provide a protective fencing system around: (1) the proposed detention basins at Telegraph Canyon and 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 shaI1 be subject to approval of the Director of Planning and the City Engineer. 48. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public facilities as private. 49. 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. 50. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) ITom the Federal Emergency Management Agency revising the current National Flood Insurance Program maps of the Telegraph Canyon Channel to reflect the effect of the proposed drainage improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the proposed detention facility. 51. 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 shall be 12 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location of the access roads shall be as determined by the City Engineer. 52. Prior to the approval of the first final 'B"Map, the developer shall submit for the approval of the City Engineer, a study demonstrating that the proposed detention basin in Telegraph Canyon is capable of reducing the peak runoff from SPA One to or less than the present ] OO-year frequency peak \tCMILC!\F.DOC Printed: 5/J 5'97 Page No. 12 runoff The City Engineer may require that said study be reviewed by an outside consultant to determine the effect of the proposed detention facility on the existing naturalized channel. All costs associated with retaining said consultant shall be the responsibility of the Developer. The final design and location of the detention basin shall be approved by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Director of Parks and Recreation. 53. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of: (I) the existing maintenance access roads along the Telegraph Canyon Channe~ and (2) the proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shall 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 54. Prior to approval of mass grading plans, the Developer shall 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, the Developer shall obtain approval oflandscapelirrigation plans. 55. Landform grading, similar to what has been proposed along Telegraph Canyon Road indicated on this tentative map 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 East Orange Avenue). 56. 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. 57. The grading plans for the intersection at East Orange Avenue!Paseo Ranchero shall include a partial grading of the area that would accommodate the eastbound on-ramp and off- ramp and the westbound on-ramp of the future grade separated intersection. The elevations and extent ofthe required grading shall be determined by the City Engineer to: (1) 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. 58. Prior to approval of the grading and/or improvement plans proposing the construction of the culvert under La Media Road at the crossing with the Telegraph Canyon Channel, the developer shall submit a study acceptable to the City Engineer demonstrating that the proposed culvert will be capable of handling the design flow in the event said culvert needs to be extended in the future in conjunction with the grading for a grade separated intersection at Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. 59. Prior to approval of the first final 'B"Map or first grading permit (whichever occurs first) for Neighborhood R-J2 (Alternate A or B), the developer shall submit a study for the approval of the City Engineer demonstrating that the 100-year peak flow proposed to be discharged from said neighborhood to the adjacent properties to the west, is equal to or less than the present 100-year MCMILC~F.DOC Printed: 5/15/97 Page No. 13 peak flow. The City Engineer may approve that increased flows be deposited into the adjacent properties if the developer provides: (I) verification in the form of an agreement with the owners of downstream properties indicating the acceptance of the increased flows, or (2) evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that any existing downstream drainage improvements will be capable of handling the increased flows in accordance with City standards. The developer shall limit the flows to non-erosive velocities and provide erosion control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 60. Prior to approavel of any final 'B" Map, Developer shall agree to imdemnifY City for any liability, claims or actions resulting from the downstream property owners accepting the increased flows. SEWER 61. 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. 62. Prior to the approval of the first final 'B"Map for any property located within Neighborhood R-12 (Alternate A), the developer shall construct or secure the construction, in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, of a gravity sewer line connecting Neighborhood R-12 (Alternate A) to an approved public sewer line. 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 western boundary of R-12 (Altemate A). 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). 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 required to serve the properties located within said fina1 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 Avenue 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). PARKS/OPEN SP ACE/WILDLIFE PRESERV A nON General 64. 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 oflocal 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 MCMILC!\'F,DOC Printed: 511 5/97 Page No. 14 partial park credit as defined below. A minimum of two thirds (2 acres/l,OOO residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks.. The remaining requirement (I acre/l ,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment offees. 65. 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 be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 66. 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. 67. All aspects of the neighborhood parks, induding the applicants fair share portion of Park P-9 and the paseo, shall be designed in accordance with the City Landscape Manual. 68. 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 satisty local park requirements in future SPAs. 69. 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 indude the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 70. 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. 71. Pedestrian Parks (also known as mini-parks): Pedestrian parks less than five acres, with the exception of Park P-9 and the paseo, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund. Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation pursuant to the City wide small park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. 72. Neighborhood Parks: Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedication, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the park identified in the PFFP as P-6 prior to the approval of the final map in accordance with the PFFP phasing. a. In addition to those PAD fees required by Condition #83, the Applicant shall pay P AD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 431 M01ILC!-iF.DOC Printed: 5'15/97 Page No. 15 dwelling units. In the City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be required for units in excess of the first 431 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 431 st 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 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 'tonstructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/l,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 'tonstructed neighborhood park shall mean that construction 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 I, 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. MC!l.IILCNF,DOC Printed: 5.'15/97 Page No 16 b The two connector trails ITom Neighborhoods R-24 and R-25 in Village Five to Telegraph Canyon Road shaH be combined into one trail in Open Space Lot 37 and shaH connect to the regional trail in one location. c. The maximum gradient for connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades of up to 12% for short TUns of 50 feet may be permitted subject to the approval by the Parks and Recreation Director. d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shaH be 10 feet in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on either side. . e. Landscape and irrigation plans for the transit right-of-way shaH be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director in conjunction with the landscape plans for East Palomar Street. 75. Community Gardens: a. Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. b. Water lines shall be stubbed ITom the nearest open space water meter to the site(s) in order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens. c. Community Garden sites shall be consistent with those identified on the tentative map. d. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Homeowner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the Director of.Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. e. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit. OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 76. 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 rrom 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 indude 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. pursuant to the 1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act or other financing mechanism approved by City Council. The district \lCvlILC\F.DOC Printed: 5-'15 '97 Page No. 17 formation shall be submitted to Council for consideration prior to approval of the first fina1 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 fina1 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_. 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 fina1 determination 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 sha1I 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: 1. All facilities located on open space lots to indude but not be limited to: 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 East Orange Avenue (onsite and off site), Paseo Ranchero, La Media Road, East Palomar Street (onsite and off site) 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 rrom the improvements. This includes but is not limited to the ~IC\IILCNF.DOC Printed: 5/15'97 Page No 18 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. Community Gardens 6. Pedestrian Bridges. 7. The proportional share of the maintenance of the median and parkways along that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road adjoining the development as determined by the City Engineer. 8. Parkways and open space lots proposed along Santa Cora Avenue within Neighborhoods R-22, R-23, and R-24. 9. Parkways along Santa Delphina Avenue within Neighborhood R-l1. 10. Trees planted within the 8-foot street tree easement adjacent to (1 )the western right-of-way line of Santa Delphina Avenue and (2) Lone Tree Drive to the south right of way of Park 6.3. e. Submit an initial deposit of $15,000 to begin the process of formation of the open space district. All costs off ormation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space relating to this project 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. 77. Indude in the CC&Rs, if applicable, the obligation of the Homeowners' Association to maintain all the facilities and improvements within the open space lots rejected by the City prior to the approval of the final map containing said lots. 78. 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 fj-om face-of-wall to beginning of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 79. Ensure that all buyers oflots 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 restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot :-'jC~nLC~F_DOC Printed: 5/15,'97 Page No. 19 80. Agree to not protest fonnation 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. 81. If requested by the City, 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 or the HOA Provide on the final map a certificate, pursuant to section 66477.2(a) of the Subdivision Map Act, r~ecting those open space lots to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 82. Provide documentation, prior to the approval of the first final 'B" 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. 83. 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 'B"Map. 84. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L & 1) 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. 85. Provide an 8-foot street tree easement adjacent to the western right-of-way line of Santa Delphina Avenue (within Neighborhood R-12) and to the south right of way of Lonetree Drive. 86. Ensure that all buyers of lots ITonting residential streets constructed in accordance with Condition A sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that (1) they are aware that they will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping improvements located between the curb and the sidewalk (excepting City approved trees which shall be maintained by the City), and (2) they shall not replace or remove any trees planted between the curb and the sidewalk without the approval ofthe City. These provisions shall be incorporated in the CC&Rs for each lot. WATER 87. Provide to the City a letter ITom 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). !\1C~llLCI'\F,DOC Printed: 5.'15'97 Page No 20 88. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter rrom Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage facilities. EASEMENTS 89. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street rrontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 90. 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. 91. 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. 92. 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 detenruned 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. MCWLC:-.;F.DOC Printed: 5/J 5/97 Page No. 21 93. 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. 94. Grant to City on the appropriate final 'B"Map two foot access easements along the rear and side property line oflots 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 waIls. 95. Grant on the appropriate final 'B"Map the following: (1.) a minimum 15 foot wide drainage and access easement for stormdrains located between residential units, and (2.) a minimum 20 foot wide sewer and access easement for sewerlines 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 shaIl meet City standards for required width. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 96. 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 PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. c. Defend, indemnitY and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, ITom any daim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, induding 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 ITom any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting crom this project. \1CMILC~F,DOC Printed: 5/J 5197 Page No. 22 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 ChuIa Vista. f Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' Association (BOA) 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"/0 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). h. Pay, upon Council approval of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee, the total amount of the fees for those lots of the final map which are located within the area of benefit of said facility and that obtained building permits prior to the establishment of said fee. 97. 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 (CMF). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of correctional facilities. 98. Prior to approval of the first final Map (induding an "A" Map), or as otherwise determined by the Director of Planning, within SPA One and consistent with the City's Housing Element, Ranch-Wide and SPA One Affordable Housing Plans, the applicant shall enter into and execute with the City an Affordable Housing Agreement ('SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement') containing, but not limited to, the following provisions: (a.) The obligation to provide the total number of low and moderate income units required under the City's Affordable Housing Program, based on the number of dwelling units contained within the Master Tentative Map for SPA One; (b.) Identity the overall number of dwelling units within the Master Tentative Map for which the applicant can receive final map approval prior to the applicant selecting and guaranteeing, to the City's satisfaction, final affordable housing site(s); (c.) The number of dwelling units within the master tentative map area which can receive building permit authorizations prior to the applicant obtaining building permits for a specified number of the required low income units; and (d.) A description of what information must be provided in !\1CMILC\'F.DOC Printed: 5.'15'97 Page No. 23 subsequent Project Level Affordable Housing Agreements. Upon its approval by the City, the terms and conditions of the SPA One Affordable Housing Agreement shaIl become conditions of this resolution, and is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 99. The Applicant shall pay, prior to approval of the first "B" Map, their proportional share, as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, of a coIlaborative study analyzing local park needs for the area east of the 1-805 Freeway. 100. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of an "Improvement Phasing Schedule" which will identity the timing of construction of all backbone facilities and/or completion of the activity noted in the foIlowing table. The Improvement Phasing Schedule shall be consistent with the PFFP. COST ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN IMPROVEMENT PHASING SCHEDULE *Payment of Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIP 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) . *Construction and maintenance (prior to City acceptance). Telegraph Canyon Channel detention basin. 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 fuIl 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 MCMILCXF.DOC Printcd: 5/15/97 Page No. 24 demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient data or other information is available to warrant such reduction. SCHOOLS 10 1. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site induding utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 500th 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 102. Indude in the Dedaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) provisions 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 rrom 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 indude language which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or conveyance for public purposes ofland used for private streets (i.e., in multi-family areas) will require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners' Association members. 103. Submit copies of Final Maps and improvement plans and storm drain plans 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 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks prior to the approval of each Final Map. 104. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the Califomia System -Zone VI (1983). 1 05. The developer may submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ('1\" Map )showing 'super block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said '1\" 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 '1\" 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 '1\" Map lots, but the developer shall provide security to guarantee the construction of the backbone facilities, prior to approval of any '1\" Map in the following amounts: \1CMILCNF,DOC Printed: 51} 5'97 Page No. 25 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 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 '~"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. 106. Prior to approval of the first 'W'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. 107. 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 identiJying 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. 108. 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 :'\1CMILC'\TDOC Printed: ),'15'97 Page No. 26 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. 109. 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 final 'B"Map. 110. Fully accessible handicap access shall be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs: Artesia Street, GIendora Court, Calistoga Avenue, Monte Sereno Avenue, Antioch Avenue, Coalinga Court, Westmoreland Street, Cordelia Street, Iowa Hill Court, Live Oak Street, Marion Court, Lodi Court, Larkspur Court, Santa Lucia Road, Parker Mountain Road, Geyserville Street, Escalon Court, Sheep Ranch, Meeks Bay Drive, Harrills Mill Avenue and Volcano Creek Road. Access via stairs shalI be provided at the ends of the following cul-de-sacs: Stanislaus Drive, Amador Street, Woodsford Court, Lockeport Court, Clovis Court, Millbrae Court, Mayfield Court, Cache Creek Road, Jedediah Road, Kingsburg Avenue and Lassen Peak Street. Ill. 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 ITom 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 112. 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 113. 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 final 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. ~rCMILC'TF,DOC Printed: 5/15'97 Page No. 27 114. 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 PFFP 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. CODE REQUIREMENTS 115. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of 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. 116. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 117. 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. AIl applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to_sewer connection fees d. Interim SR-125 impact fee e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIP f Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIP as may be adopted by the City in the future g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIP h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 Undergrounding 1. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. I 18. Comply with all relevant Federal, State and Local regulations, induding 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. ] 19. 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 fonn for approval by the City Engineer prior to FinaJ Map approvaJ. 1.1CMILC!\F,DOC Printed: 51l5i97 Page No. 28 120. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 ifpump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 121. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. 122. The applicant shall comply with all aspects ofthe City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual. 123. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended rrom 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 prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 124. 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. 125. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. !\1CMILC~F,DOC Printed: 5'15.'97 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Pages Proposed for Amendment by West Coast Land Fund/McMillin Draft dated: May 14, 1997 Underline = Text proposed to be added St..a...uul - Text proposed to be deleted ~'-l'. , J) f~/ )/ ~ V ( 7 ~______ . \ J i -------- : ~~i I \ ~::::i~:~::::::::'" \ \.._---- ..::::::~,"- ) \ \ --......-- , .................... 4I,J........... \ -'--'-1 \ \ : \ I : \ ~ \! \ ~ : i \ I ~ \ : w \ I \ : \ I \ : I I it) ~ ..... en w CJ < -I -I >rn ... I 0 ~ :I:-! o g ~ zen~ < c:n~ a: c s: .- :5 > C ~ < c ~ I-tao 00::5 f ~ s ~ ~ ~ at ,:j C C c .. it II C o c( Q. fI) .c ... c .. a: >- .. - o ~., I...~ .. " o ~ '<: ~ ';; " is! - " " " j iJ " " cz: ~ S; _ .. o ; .. "' ~ r--- w . z , ..; ~ L.} '-, , ! . , ~.....r--. z 3; ~ :i w w z z 2 2 Q Z W CJ W ..J - r::: r::: c c w w ~ !< t5 9 f ~ II z ~ z ~ z ::E ~ w ~ w w z w ~ z 2 z 2 ~ 2 ;:: .. CJ r::: ffi ~ z w rn (!) j: a: it Z ~ ~ 0 ~ W lL II: ~ I I g I I 0 I I g o m ~~ ~~i; r;:;~ n~f nh ig~! ~~~i -" ~ww; r ,,' , w2s ~ I ~~!g d ,/ 'l7/~ ~ !:! ~\~J: ' ; Jf r~nn;,1' Jf ; , S~ ~i mi Ir !..~. ",.,,' ~r~" ~, ? -- )' . if: ::.~ ....- ."L U oJj~ !; , - . .. ~ ~ ii: :I: ~i ~> o ~ '" ~ ~ '0 ~ Q iEJ 5 ~ :I ~:! ~ .1 . ., ,; ! ,,:".: ,": ~." . , - ) :I: , ~ !;1'" - , ;::I!! - ~_\ 3 / ?<~ , , , - - , ii: >'> , --"'~ 0 ~ --~ , , , ' ' - _____1...___/ \ 9J.OM .o.J' - -' , , ,- n~ ntt ~S!l ;ho .c .~?' im i " '" ---J-- ~ \II ~ :q ""'E ." .. ~; .JS", :::Is: :::~ i w '" :s w ~ Z w :J Z a: :J w a: ;: w ~ w ;: a,~ (/) w 0 (/) w (!) Ww ~ Z ~~ ;:: ffi~ 0- W 0 Zw C a: X :;1' Z Q. w :10 I "'", W ..", ~ Ww w I ~~ ..I " , / , , w " ffi ~ :J: "'" Zw "'''' a::s ~s o iEJ l:, ~;I ,.. .. ::::::.:~ / , t:.) , I I Z o ?< I- '" ~ ~ '" '" :J: OCt UN tLO Zw @t <C) Cl)W 0::5 00 >:..J ~~ 6> "-- ~~) Q: ..; z It: ~Ii lE w , I I if !]If !ls- ~ill -;1';'>; - fa an ~ Z ~ -t ~ I w a: :s- o Iii w '" ~ '" ill ~ \ ~ '0 , ,- 1\ I: ! gi)Jf: < ' tIJ I I I '1N- JI(L: !~., I : I ( J , I \_-~-----_ '" \1;:: ~~ ~= f-'> o d a: < C w ,. :s -' >- , < ~ , Ii: w :- ~ ~ ~ Iii t::: ~ ~ 0 i1i:5 w ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 E i ;0 w :c '" ~ I!' I!I In: ~ ~:! !c w .. Z ... Z ;! ;! i!! iI! w :J ;! :5 w w Z ~!i: 0 ~ -' Q w :Ii :Ii 8 '" w :c fa II!: '" -' c f f 1H i I ~ ~ 50 I!: a: ii Z . I . ~ I ( I I w . I . I I CI . . i I . I I w . . I -' . I . I . ~,/ 111l :::~', .1J / \ , I -~~/-)I _, I '" " I ""'~ I :--~ I \....._____\___J~ J ~~ I" '" 0", Zw ~" >~ i!:s: o , . . ;;; i IE: ~ -.!. i: :i: i! :S J!! l :2:! .!IF ... i ~ II. VI c t- O c 'i ! u ~ { .. -- lij Utt -u- ~s~1 ji....! ';!h . ..~ ~~..- ~m z z ~ z ~ z ;;: z ~ c ::E ;;: c w c ::E w C ::E w C ::E w :5 ::E w :5 ::E :5 ::E :5 '" frl :5 frl '" w a: frl a: u ~ frl w zz w a: w a: :J;t z w a: z w Co~ 0 z w 2 N Z w'" 2 z 2 !:lw ~ 2 ~ ",!!J ~ '" ~ !u c 8 c '" :ow w C) r- W C) ~F en w en 0 z 2 z ;;!o ... f;; a: i= 0 ~ 0 en ~ Q a: x => a: ~ ... w ... ... z w w ! 11 CJ I W ! I I / I -I I ! I , I , "!Ii ~I~~ ifLJ1 ! ~~ ~~J ~lL V(I , " ~ 11 x I~ 1<~ ",> o ~ -..-.- \ i " to __.J1 , .... , , , , , , , , ' , ' ,I I , ---__....1:.._______) i o z o .. ~ u i , , '. , "" , , '. -- '<-<:\1 ' -, , , , , " ' ,// " \ , ~/ \ \ , " , , , \J _J.... -- " ' ! \\, : \, -' ( '-\ '\ ( / I \ c:;.::f.::....,;.:::.::.-' \ i , , , , , 'i \ \ , , ~ \ \ ~'L1D ( \ 'i, ,.... '1 ' '9, \ ( ;..! \,/ ':! r .' , ///// -- a 0] ::" ..".CD ...~.: - ..' " ) ( , ~- ') -:>' , " ' , , ~'-'~ -j I , , , \....._____IL___) 1i. t.!. is ,. , '-....._ I -j __//CiD ,-- Lt .en , Q; , .; >! ;t g Z :J '" ~j -L ;15.. .- f jj~ 1 E .. 'i .: !: :i It] ~:! .1 , .1 C a: c ~ '" ~ X UN :;;w ~~ ?(= >-'> o - 1ij !it, U - J ~i i jn- is~l ;h.. F~r .ru HU .nn g[f.;i~ ~;!1. if 2..s..:DQI '''''~~ !..;;~ !"l~ -~ i ~1 ~ i~. . il~ q" I'~i ! " r :S w - ~ c ~I!' ;~ ". ...- r~ ,,",, ~' '~ (', :; .. " '--. " " \ ~ m ~ !i1 , .. ~ z t ) , '"". 36' I : , '. I I I f , 10' II >. --~~- .. .., w" !'r I' r , 31 ~ o ~~ ~~ mz .." :r (r--,:----....\ ') \ \ /'-- \ I t &, \ i ,", I """ ') "D ') ~-,..."" , \ , / ~\f~ r: '. .::SJJ ;/(1 t '0 ~....-", I " , , , , , " ' /" \ \~/" , , , , , " '-. g .. z ~ o $);! ~"' "'~ :::~ :r , I I t 2<" it " f-jo~~ ,t~:o / / ,S / 1 g 2<'/ ..." I"r~ . .. < . m ,r ~ ~ m ?;, ~ '" ~ s ~ s;: " rn ~ .7.. '"( IT I t r- K .', t m ~,}I J... C) m 0 ~ " 0 0 en Z ,!!j :JJ " ~ cJ C en 0 m m ::j " Z :JJ Z 0 ~ ~ .... ~ en (') ~ m :I: ~ > (') 0 Z .~ c: (') z Z ~ c: m en !;: r- Z m ~ Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I LAND USE PLAN 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 GDP defined Villages One and Five and the scope of this SPA Plan. Table 1-2 Land Use Comparative Table - SPA One ACRES DUS GDP SPA GDP SPA Village One 623.6 619.3 2,880 2,880 VIllage Five 493.4 486 2,878 2,878 SPA ODe Total 1,117.0 1,105.3 5,758 5,758 Area W. of Pasco Ranchero 280.0 264.8 443 443 Overall Total 1,397.0 1370.1 6,201 6,201 Otay Ranch 1-33 May 14, 1997 Lt) ~ ..... (/) w CJ <( .J .J - >:! I i ::I:g O~ Z~ <(UI 0:; _5! ~~ ~o 05 ~ it 8, as , , , , , , , , , , ~ , .. . \ '>.~o~)=->"'~ :I \\ \ " o..~"'=_. ;I ,",: ; ~..:: C ' .. ---; ,---'" o:z a ( 1 \ , , I -- I , l..____r-__ ~ ~! ~ ~ .'!::! IL ..l ~ ,e... i U . c: o J > , c: . i: .. .. ;:) ... c: . ... ~EJ I ~~ .1.1 !~ II t~1 ~E~ '!F !8'ii ill!; .It _.0.. . ~18S ~st~ lili 1 1ft" Ji i -Ie.. I~J!~ :~f~ ~t!~ lEi! ~ Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I LAND USE PLAN A.VILLAGE ONE The following rable summarizes the differences between the GDP defined Village One and the scope of this document. Table 1-3 GDP Land Use Comparative - Village One ACRES DUS Village One GDP SPA GDP SPA Single Family 328.6 273.0 1,314 1,314 Multi-Family 87.0 73.8 1.566 1.566 Parks 10.0 10.0 School 10.0 10.0 CPF 13.4 14.6 Commercial 11.4 11.1 Exrernal Circulation 46.5 32.8 Internal Circulation 45.1 Open Space 116.7 Village One Subtotal 623.6 470.4 2.880 2,880 Area W. of Pasco Ranchero 280.0 237.8 443 443 School 10.0 External Circulation 17.0 Subtotal 264.8 443 443 VIUAGE ONE TOTAL 280.0 735.2 3,323 3,323 The Oray Ranch General Development Plan defines Village One as containing approximately 904 acres. However, Oray Ranch SPA One covers a smaller area of approximately 619 acres. This reduced planning area includes the land surrounded by Paseo Ranchero, Telegraph Canyon Road, La Media and Easr Orange Ave. and ex- cludes the area west of Pas eo Ranchero.3 Accordingly, the number of units identified in the Village One SPA plan reflects the land uses approved in the Oray Ranch General Development Plan for the areas east of Paseo Ranchero and excludes the areas west of Paseo Ranchero. 3 A detailed discussion regarding the area west of Pas80 Ranchero is provided on page 1--4710 I-52, Otay Ranch 1.37 May 14.1997 ~~H~~H;.;~Ui! ~.a.;~;a;' a a ~;;; f IT l a . ; ~ , ~ ~ B ~ ; 2 ~ ~ ~ i .. . . ... c ~ ...!... :! ~i: :2: .!j::l ... Ii .... . III Z o . 1 :> ;;j:;:::::~='::1I~=:J:::: ,W!U; J! ~""'~"!!".ti !~iift~~!1 Ii ]~ u~uuuuuu BBB~U II J 1111 I ~ ~ ~ s I ~ J J I J III Z o IIJW" CJ ."" ..:Ie ....c::E ....z::E s;:5ii! i. . - . · "I ..."..~ _I I ,,;,"I'''''~'''':''P'I'-'''-'':'- ....";'...-- '" ... ow ':' "I' '1" Ita: II: a: Ita: Ira:: a:d:t Ii: a:d:: d: d:a:d: Ii: d: d: 0 <> Q. Q. Go IL -n ill iiI !in I ~ s s I.!i J ~., ~ J I, i ~; I i~ " ~ I H 'j s . j ~ . d t ~ t- Z w ::E z t, " II ::; .. ~ , , >- ,- -;:::- 1, w 15 0 ~ w '" $ 0 ~ 't:}'" 0: t- o. 0 g I w en 0: t- o: I W (jj ... 'I! w 0: 0: 0. t- ... ~i!f t-. d- B" 1!!1'~ ..~ ~o:. ~I~ ~~i ilg! .. . ,,~1i.' 1);. is "10:.. hg~ - "fl hlB "Ia h~i :Z2~c !i"a .!!" ~ .h .~." nii I --...r--- 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 280.6 238.0 1,263 1.263 Multi-Family 89.7 73.8 1,615 1,615 Parks 10.0 21.3 School 10.0 10.3 CPF 11.3 11.6 Commercial 6.0 3.3 External Circulation 15.4 15.1 Internal Circulation 22.4 Open Space 70.4 90.2 Village Five Total 493.4 486.0 2,878 2,878 Otay Ranch I-54 May 14, 1997 As depicted in Table 1-5 above, there are 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 park 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. I. Design Influences The primary design influence for Village Five is the pedestrian friendly village concept established in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Other influen= reflecr on-site condirions and characteristics such as, landforms, biological resources, drainage patterns, aesthetics, land use relationships and circularion patterns. Existing development patterns and Chula Vista's 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- Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I LAND USE PLAN nections, the Telegraph Canyon SPA and EastLake Greens. Village Five design influences and requirements are reviewed more fully in the Village Design Plans (Appendix B). a. Site Characteristics and Visual Context Village Five is bounded on the north by Otay Lakes Road and the south by Poggi Canyon. The entire Otay Ranch Otay Valley Parcel has been farmed or grazed, leaving only isolated areas of very frag- mented 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. Limited scenic values extend along Otay Lakes Road and East Orange Avenue, both identified in the Otay Ranch GDP as scenic corridors. The village contains views to the surrounding mountains to the northeast and east and to the Pacific Ocean to the west. The dominant features within the Village Five site include: . Telegraph Canyon . Poggi Canyon . Associated Drainage Courses . Limited Views to Mountains and Pacific Ocean Preserved open space areas within Village Five will surround resi- dential neighborhoods, public improvements and ameniries, creat- ing a well-defined community. There are 90.2 acres of open space within Village Five. The largest open space area includes the slopes of Poggi and Telegraph Canyons. This area will eventually be part of a Ranch-wide system of open space and trails. Graded slopes will be landscaped to be visually compatible with the other natural slopes. b. Transition to Existing and Praposed Surrounding Land Uses The Village Five Land Use Plan is influenced by current and planned surrounding land uses. Surrounding projects are depicted on the Regional Context Map (Exhibit 1-8). Villages One and Five are defined on their northern and southern edges by significant landscape buffers and slopes. The northern buffer is Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Road. The southern buffer is Poggi Canyon and East Orange Avenue. These buffers separate developed areas from land uses on the opposite sides of the canyons. The existing land uses north of Telegraph Canyon are varied, ranging from a Mobilehome Park to single family homes. Oray Ranch I-55 May 14,1997 Ii;UHun~;;;;==' Jail iiiiU II E "I~."!.!..."~B 8~U~ ilil!1 II } ~;Ui!~~nii.ua~~i .i;;~=~~~a' =.~ ~ ~.= ~".~ I a ~ ~= ~ ~; iI ~ ~ i c .- .. " N 2' " ~ i . ::7 1 ;!E I ,e. -,," Jj::l " " . ... ~~ uuuuuuuu. uu~ uu~ J J, 11111 III ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 J ~ II . 1 II. j ~ w > Ii: w .... c:J !I ~ ~!I > ~.. I nUHUUHHU J 1 ! III unn~n ~:Zn~:zn HU ~Ini 1301 _ I I! w, 1 iE:) i t s J . J n .... z w ,. Z " i! i .. w i ~ .... ~ c - w :!i-) II: II: 5i w IiI' .. ~ W II: .. .... nit <f IS.!!} -:a i ill" '-fal - I In s z~ ~ w ~ !; _z Q. => f2 ~ en 0 .... u ii) '" z '" < - f!: 55 << ~ w w ~ ~ < Z ::;; => << ::;; > w ::;; ~ z 0 << u 8 ;i ~ :J:: 1E CI u w < z ~ ..J ~ < ~ "'@*.):t Ii; t:: w en << I!' z 8 en < - w I!' << ::;; :J:: ~ Ii! t:: u .... ;: ~ o J: I- a: Z 0 w < w z w u c( a: w ~ ~ Ii; ~ ~ ~ ~ .... Ii; 2- <<<<owwli; wWt)wa:w ~ ~ .. I!' Ii; I!' ~~fI:~~~c ~ ~ ~ cc ~ a: a: w ::::E ~ < Il. Q. W W W Z wWc)CJO~ ZZ:5:5:5~ ~ ~ S S $ ~ c z . c W . g CJ . c W . c .... II i << w << < .... -' w <w.... j::a:z z....w wen::;; c>z cnf!CJ Wz::i Sw< ....wi:; WCl.... ~:5-' I-...J~ (1)>1- W>c c<<w <<<< zc<< Wzw ::;; 0 "- ouw <<w<< Q.enQ. II I w " ~ '" 0::\ ~ w II: ~ >' '" oj ~ '" II: W f:! ~! is > ~ ........f '....~ \.... "-... " , , , w '" \ :;) ,/' \ \ Q /~..../ \ \ ~ , , \f ~ y ~......r ~ <~ G;< i\i! ,. Q: .. 2f ~ Z :> '" 1 I -~ C II: " 15 w ::; :5 ~~ :5 ?<:::! >'> o N_" ~. .. ,! 1_ - Ii! :: L i :is I: < .- 0 ~'i 'S ~ U :r ON Zw i!'" ~J >'> o - -"j ifl~ !bi !os"... ""'10 ~11~r ~lu '" ::Ii ~ ~,~ '- -:&. .:s. .- " ~! " " I w " z .. a: ~ z " ::> a: ::; 0 ~ ::> w ~ U ~ 0.. 9 CJ 8 ::; 8 '" ~ 5! 5! N 0 0 0 0 w CJ w w '" '" '" 0 z 0 0 0.. ~ 0.. 0.. ~ iii ~ ~ 0.. 0.. 0.. C Z ( I [' 1 w I ( I C) W ~ \ h T ...J cS a: <II w ~ ~ 0 - Fj IIRs ;;l iQ H~i iH! .;j!~.. . if~ I'.~.:. .. ei7.i;j Un U'i a: < .... ~ I- .... ~ c i3~~ z ~~.. ~ a }Ii ~ .~I ~ ~i~ ~:~ ~:~ ~I~ c:c .~. i:S1~ j5:1C!S o(,~ ::E !IIUU.:~ ~I':;: :E m ~.~ ri.ri ~.~ ~ : ,-,-. Cf) 51~ ~i~ n[ II .1 N .... 0 - "'-' 5 ::11-,-, ~ u..oiiroi-::>'= a: ;il;i ;il;i ;il~ ~IU. ~ ~ ~ ~Ib bib 151~ ~ .................... ~ .J ~ ~;: 1ft ;! ~ c!J 1&1 ~ Q W ~ ~ w s: ~ :: ~ .. " c. i ;!:1ft ;;. -=1: ::;: ~ :0= ~ ~ii: 1 ~ u if ;g~ litl -f~i z~~~ 'tiCII'ji''a. .;Jih ~i~1>' .. " di PART I x. PHASING . I . Sectional PI iting Area One PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN Otay Ranch 1.192 May 14. 1997 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I PHASING PLAN x. PHASING PLAN The development of Otay Ranch SPA One will be completed in several phases to ensure construction of necessary infrastructure and amenities for each phase as the project progresses. The Phasing Plan (Exhibit 1-32) reflects anticipated market demand for a variety of housing types and commercial development. The purpose of this plan is to demonstrate one way to phase the development in order to satisfY anticipated market, facility and amenity demands. However, it is understood that changes in the marketplace or the need for facilities will result in changes in project phasing. Further. the fact that two ownerships within SPA One will be developing concurrently adds complexity to the phasiqg plan. In this regard, creating a phasing plan for SPA One has proven to be a challenge because it is exceedingly difficult to forecast, with any confidence, future market conditions. It is recognized that upon adoption of a SPA One Plan, the current marketplace will not sup- pon the development of multi-family homes or non-residential uses. It is further recognized that the current market for single family homes is depressed compared to recent experiences. These market realities consrrain Omy Ranch SPA One phasing options. Specifi- cally, early phases must rely almost exclusively on the development of single family detached neighborhoods. However, consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan, it is desirable to develop Otay Ranch villages with greater variety than conventional single family detached neighborhoods. Specifically, it is desirable to introduce multi-family homes and commercial uses into SPA One as soon as the marketplace will permit. It is further desirable to initially focus on development of only one of the SPA One vil- lage cores to increase the feasibility of the core. However, this should not be done at the detriment of providing basic public services in Villages One and Five. In order to permit phasing consistent with current market realities, but to ensure the timely development of diverse and balanced com- munities, the following policy shall apply to the phasing of SPA One: Review and update of the SPA One Phasing Plan shall commence prior to the issuance of a building permit within SPA One for the 1, 150th unit, and be completed prior to the issuance of a building Otay Ranch 1-193 May 14,1997 PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN permit within SPA One for the 1,400th unit, adhering to the fol- lowing objectives: o Provide economically and physically feasible access toa high school site, community park site and neighborhood park. o Identify residential phasing to complement the east.west access sc:lection (E. Palomar Street or E. Orange Avenue). o Promote build-out of an entire village. o Promote accc:leration of a village core area. o Consider market conditions, product absorption and location of appropriate product to meet demand. o Consider the provision of public services in the village which is not the focus of accc:lerated dc:vc:lopment. o Consider the provision of affordable housing opportunities. Village: One West & Vill"'!e Five East Phase IA Phase lA, Li.~ ;..;l;..1 SI':A O..~ pI~...~ is to be devc:loped in Village Five. The phase consists of approximatc:ly 260 single family units. Phase lA includes the extension of St. Clair Drive from Tc:legraph Canyon Road into the northeast portion of Village Five and a 1.2 acre pedestrian park (P-lO). Phasel B Phase 1 B consists of approximatc:ly 485 single-family units and a 168 unit multi-family site within Village One. Depending on mar- ket conditions, Phase 1 B may be: constructed concurrenclywith Phase lA or may be deferred until a future phase. Access to Phase 1 B will be provided through the construction of a two lane access road from Tc:legraph Canyon Road into Village One. A 10 acre c:lementary school site will be provided in Phase lB. Construction of the first SPA One c:lementary school must be pro- vided consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. A 2.1 acre neigh- borhood park (P-3) is also included in Phase 1 B. Phase 2A Otay Ranch 1.194 Phase 2A is located in the northern portion of Village Five, south of Oray 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 Tc:legraph Canyon Road. This phase is slated May 14, 1997 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I PHASING PLAN 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. A pedestrian oriented paseo connects Vil- lage Five, through the Otay Water District property, into the EastLake project. :It. ApprOJcirn.tely one-h.lf of the 2.0 acre neigh- borhood park (P-9) is included within the single-family residential area northeast of the village core. The 10.6 acre Village Five neigh- borhood park site (P-6) must be provided consistent with the pro- visions of the PFFp, most likely during the development of this phase and Vill~ Five West. Phase 1. The initial park improve- ments will be equivalent to 5 acres of park development. Construc- tion of the first SPA One elementary school will need to be com- pleted during this phase, consistent with the PFFP. Phase 2B Phase 2B is located in the north west portion of Village One, east of Paseo Ranchero and north of East Palomar Street. This phase con- sists 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-l) 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. Phase 3 l'I..l~"" 3 ~~ ~'-d.h..J ~J..l lIu:. UUJ.LIJw",~l",ul yvJ.l~uu ufV~lld.15\.. r~,,\.. d,UJ ;".Ju.h.. JIG .;"51.. [...,,;!, I.v""... ....J.. 177 u.';, mull;-[.....;I, .;l~. A pVJ.L~VU vf u.\,.. Valcl.o'" r~ V\. 1".Vl\.. 4H..d. ~.3 ~J.u..1u.J-..J ~u JJ~:a pI!c:Q.... t.uul~u~uo llLt. 1.04\.1'- lUWU ,)"{UcU.... (~O), 3.G cU..,H.,,) uf \.uuu.m..u..~cal, LWV crr :!o~L\.." lul.J~u5 4.7 .......u..." cLUJ d. 10 ,1.1...,11,.. ....h..Ul\..UL4.ly ,n..L,uul :lIb... CuU.)~l\.Ul w~ll.l J.t\, pl.VY;i)~uu.) vf Ju... rrrr cU.J C11u14 V;;)ld.'", t..ialL... tl.u;;:al...vkb, ~v....lvpu.u...J.u vf Ul;:a pi~\. UJ41 .l\.'iU;l~ ,,",u..:au u....- L;VU uf Let Jvh.J;" Rud.J lV :r::~l r ..h.,lucU Slu........, PIV" ;J;uo IllUU.. J;- .1.......l..."'....II;,),) Lv u.n,.. vaL.5.... ....vJ...... Pl~~4 Phase -+ .:! is generally located in the southeast portion of Village One, south of East Palomar Street and east of the village core. Phase -+ .:! contains approximarely 3% ill single family homes and 129 multi-family homes. A 7.3 acre neighborhood park (P-2) is lo- cated adjacent to the multi-family site. A .0 .......~ I'~.h..l.;.... I'...l.. (~ Otay Ranch 1-195 May 14, 1997 PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN 5) ~ ~ll.JuJt;J ~u Jll,.. ,,~u5h.. [cuull, dJ.\..d. ~u U.Lt: uv.U."-d..)l pull~uu uf P:I&~,", 4. Phasr5~ Phase 5 i is located in the southeastern portion of Village Five, adjacent to the Otay Water District properry. This phase contains approximately 145 single family homes and 175 multi-family homes. A .6 acre pedestrian park (P-ll) is included in the Phase 5 i single family area. Access to Phase 5 i 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 5 i, consistent with the provisions of the PFFP. Phasefi.,5 I'Ild..)"- G ~;) U,n", L.uJ. V~lld.o'" r~ n., pi..ol,..o Nld..)'" G ~;) lv\..d.Lt:J ~u ..11,1,.. ~uuJnn.;)l\"J.u puJ.l~u.u v[V~1ld.5\" r~n.. d.uJ '-AJul~u;) d.pp1U~1ucLll,..ly 1,173 1uulL~fd.J.ua)' "U1~UI UU;)~ ;)~I.\"':) ;)U.UUL.ulJ~u5 cL 5.2 cU..I.\.. lU'.~DII- Lu,lmuJ p..,l" (I'-7). I, ;. ""l;";p..l"J ll,.., ,I,,, .''''''1'0' ",,,..l~J Uuuu5Ilv,.,U. JI\,. ~n.lvpu.u..ul u[ JJ\.. ;)~uDh.. [dJ.Uay l.....;);~UI,..~ ;u \'d.l- 1;\.1 pild..)Q wJlI,..3lciLl;"Il ."uIf.\";\,.1.LL \"u,u.. d.1,..~v;ly Lv L"'5;U LV cl.I,..I,..U1U- UJUJ.&ll,.. luul~fdJ.uay J\.v\.lupu!\..ul. II. ;;) eJ."u cl..u,";\,.;Pd.L\.J Ll..d.l U.tcllA....... d.1,..~pLcU..u........ [uJ. u.ult;[cuuJy ~v\..lvpu.u...u.l w;Ulld.n. ;lUP.l.VV",J Ly Ll.,\.. l~1.U.. NId..)I,.. G ~,) ~v...u...u~...u..~J. IL ,)l...vuhl L~ uvl~J Ll...cu. ~vu,)u U~L~VU vf ...uull~[dJ.uay l.Lv",u~') ~u I'I...d.,)~ G nvulJ v~~u... vv~... ...u ~A.L~U~J L~J.u~ t'~J.~vJ, ~,)t'~~~J.ly VU JJ.~ lvL,) L~OU"'L~J [vJ. IJ.~olJ.~J. J~U')~L~~'). SV.LU'" ~u,)~l~~~ U.Ld.y uvl L", f",~a.A\. UULa ll.l.",l~Dl.Ll J.d.a Ud.J.~~l ~~ up- ~J.d.L~UU.J. Cvu;)lJ.u~l~vu ufN.L~~ G \"'uuJ.p-h..l~ J.L~ V~lld.o~ r~V\. ~UH~ dJ.~d. n~JJ. u.Lull~[dJ.uay ~v~lut'u.L",ul dJ.J.J d. 3.2 d.~H. crr ~~l~. A~~",;);) Lv I'IJ.~~ G ~,) t'J.Vy~~J [J.uuJ. ~l r ...h.uucu Sh~d. .l.nh"."r;.. 7 Otay Ranch 1-196 Phase ~ .5. is the last SPA One phase and includes the western most portion of Village One, including the village core and most of Vil- lage One's multi-family units. This phase also includes site prepa- ration 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 activirywill not occur until there is a sufficient population base within Village One and the surround- ing communiry to support such uses. A similar rationale applies to the larger CPF sites. ~ J~~u.o>>",J d.Lvy~, ~u lwVuu,,",,"l~uu w~LlJ. N.I.~~ G, ~l h is anticipated May 14, 1997 Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PART I PHASING PLAN that the market acceptance for attached units will be improved by the time Phase 7- 5. is consuucred. It is also anticipated that devel- opment of higher density multi-family lots will significantly lag de- velopment of the remainder of SPA One and may requite that the light rail transit is in operation to be feasible. The third SPA One elementary schoollocared \veSt ofPaseo Ranchero will be consuucred during Phase 7-.5.. depending upon the absorption and student popu- lation associated with the build-out of SPA One homes. Vill~ One East & ViIl'fC Five West Both of these development "reas "re accessed from Telegnph Can- yon Road via the consuucrion of La Media Road. These "reas are Phased independent1y of the "reas described above and .re subject to a Sq1.rate PFFP. However. as with the areas described above. this project .rea will initi.lly develop with siJ\ile &mily housiJ\i prod- Ucts with multi&mily homes and commercial uses developiqg later. as the market allows. Phase 1 This Phase includes "II ofVilla~ One &st and the portion of Vil- l~e Five located north of East Palomar Street. It includes approxi- mately 125 sirWe family units west of La Media and approJl'imately 316 SF units in Village Five West. It also includes a multifamily P"rcel (R-46). a CPF parcel. school site and Park Parcel P-6.6 in Villa~ Five West. Althouih these public facility sites are within the Ph..e 1 boundary. the timing of construction of these public &cili- ties will be determined by PFFP provisions. Phase 2 This Ph.<e includes all of Village Five West located south of &<t p.lomar Street. includiJ\i the commercial. p"rk. CPF and multi- family sites which define the vill\\fe core for Vill~ Five. This .rea includes approximately 1.235 multifamily units. Development of this area will be parti.lly dependent on development prQgress in other areas which will provide the population necessary to s\IPport commercial .nd CPF activities in the core. Development of the multifamily units will be determined by rnar- leet dem.nd. Multifamily development may occur over an extended period of time. even l'lfiiqg siqrle family development in other vill~ outside of SPA One. Otay Ranch 1-197 May 1"1, 1997 Table 1-13.1 Phasing Summary Village One NEIGHBORHOOD r PHASE I TOTAL AREA 1 I 2 IIA I IB 12A I 2B I 3 I 4 I 5 Vdlage One East R-ll 125 R-t2E 86 Village One East Subtotal 125 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 Vtllagc One 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 64 R-B 121 Vd One SF Subtotal 0 0 0 485 0 433 185 0 0 1,103 R-14 129 R-15 215 R-16 280 R-17 200 R-18 230 R-19 204 R-20 140 R-2l 168 Yd. One MF Subtotal 0 0 0 168 0 140 129 0 1,129 1,566 Vd. One Subtotal 0 0 0 653 0 1573 314 0 11129 I 2669 Village One Totals 125 86 0 653 0 1573 314 0 11,129 I 2,880 Otay ]lalU:b 1-198 May 14, 1997 Table 1-13.2 Phasing Summa, . iIIage Five NEIGHBORHOOD PHASE I TOTAL AREA 1 I 2 I lAl 18 I 2A I 28 I 3 I 4 I 5 V'tllage Five 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 Vall. Five SF Subtotal 0 0 260 0 542 0 0 145 0 947 R-29 90 R-39 175 Yill. Five MF Subtotal 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 175 0 265 Vall. Five Subtotal 0 260 0 632 0 0 320 0 1212 Village Five West R-22 92 R-23 86 R-24 138 Yill. Five West SF Subtotal 316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316 R-40 266 R-41 127 R-42 175 R-43 241 R-44 261 R-45 165 R-46 115 Vtll. Five West MF Subtotal 115 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1350 Vall. Five West Subtotal 431 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1656 Village Five Totals 431 112351 260 0 I 632 0 0 I 320 I 0 2878 SPA One Totals 556 I 13211 260 653 1 632 I 573 314 I 320 11129 I Otay 5758 Ranch 1-199 May 14,1997 w z d ::; ~ z Q ~ Z ~ ~ W 0. 0. 51 I e I ...I . Q. :II! >- : Q. :c r! 011 C ~ !i ;!~ ~ ~ ~ I Q. :c r! 011 C ~ ~ ~ II E E 6J II J ... J 8!8 .. -",18 - - OJ ~ 0.... OJ - OJ 01 ... 1 ! ~ < ... ~ i o o ~ ~ ~ II! ..... Q) CD .... _ OJ .. ~ ~ ! ~ .....,.. :! !;;:g OJ ._ 0) C\I ~ - ~~ - 'E.-JI ?;~- If.i,2 E E JI ~Q).':' Lfs~! Oc,~ .~~; ,2 ~rJj~ Ll:l~ .. ~CI) ~ s: :::;: so '- .. !:! < ~ ~ (A" ~ 11; .~" i!j 11 L ~ ""'. ~;&'" -~.. ~". Ii; I ... ~ ~~ I ~ -.. - ~~ I '0:'''' ." '2P II' !O ~ tI) ... ~ '}..<i: --_..-' ~~" ~ g : ~, ~ Ji ffi I -~~~., <i: I/~ . o " U"J :' -,....11 00 /J IX I, ~ I' J,;. 1(1 ;' C\I --0'" '. '; 'I ./0, <i: " ~ ," ~ I .....ci:.,; It i~ .'.'; .. "-'~.' p-' ~t;"\'-, \1 I ,'..,;,'''' ,,1;(' '" ,~ .X::../~' , w, ........ "II:, ~ 0 - ' '~ \ ~:!\ ci:'U ~""_.!;...' '~'_'''''/.' .~ .~' ~a: "; \ , ,~_ It-" II: ",' ' I ~ ~~ :._'d,!!:' Q " ..::::--_ N ,.,,~--~- \ [ i.... . j~ / ;,:/ '''''.i .rcd- s~ _--- ,.."V1j,~o'/l:i\,\rf\: ~ \~._..._ ..Ort > "A'~'"'~\f+I\I~ 'C \ '" -\ ,',. /~'" a: i ",' , w ~\\~\ :: '" ,'''/'. ..).,%,: ",t Ii( ~\~'. It '''<. '. "';~~~C\I. ),' \ \ __ / ". :..^''' Q. J \ \ ___ ,? ' ~_" '_ ; -';'/~'_ t '" ' .,..-1./~' . '" ..' " ',! 1J-,\.. _ \\:?::_'9.....:--:' :.~i @ 'to \~.., 51 '...'.(i://.o,!!.--':'" <;_::~.~~ .. \ . It . ~_,.......iS-' r'" ~ ,'. ....... ~.._ i " \ ~=@)= i ."'< 0;t ~,~! ....I ;(0. ..' - CD -~" (') '.~ \ >;,1 I' ,.. -----"<. \ \. ." ~(~I . \.,~\ <<> \ '\ 1 \ 01 !-\\ d: \ - - --;;;....- \ '. '" ~:Z \\ r~':':-'\'I"\\ \ "C'I' tr 'I - \ '. c....' ;. \. <8,'. It. . "\\ ~ ,\ I.) '@'.\.\ ~." \~ \_#..-_.. . ~ \,0: . I ~ ,I ,,' 1-< 1< \ ~..-_, ",~~J' It 'i i"" ,It ~:~~ .:i';t """'''.(/_ .7/'-0''''. I;;; ,0 ~~ \ ' '? II "-// ,Lt) ,. .. "I , It \\ /<..-._.. h '" 'e> . .,/,':':1' ~ 'If: ..~ ~~\ ,'"!'~'. )}.'.'/~~' '~})"-J.//.~ U ~1 \)\, \ ' .. CD. '" ! ~ 7!-- 1; \i,\ I.... C\I -- \ d:l .....~-- ~\ _.:.. /,,:.tV' N I-~-~.// ",. I (/ It " ! _It 8[ i"" ;: i ~ '~ ;t il;; F~ <<:--d ..~\ '. 0 I ~ g; II -------~-\ -- \ ! . II -' 1/,' \ '--\1 \' "~' j1 i (:;1'/ ! !]j/ "j II .\ ! / \ , I I " ---rJ ~ f' ~ ; :J '" "'e "1.. ;i: -:e. .z:C JS'j f. 2 f ...!. :; t i~ I ~: i ~ ~ d "Jj h. rd ~Ifi;; f~~~ .IP ..",..11 J:. oo.p ifn Planned Community District Regulations ~ GENERAL PROVISIONS between buildings and structures, and to regulate the density of population, Otay Ranch SPA One is hereby divided into the following Land Use Districts. Table 111-1 SPA One Zoning Districts Definitions SYMBOL SFE SF! SF2 SF3 SF4 RMI RM2 CPF C as/PI OS/P2 DEFINmON Single Family Estate: Zoning District which permits single family housing located on lots larger rhan 2 acres. Single Family One: Zoning District which permits single family housing located on lots with average sizes of 15.100 square feet to 2 acres. Single Family Two: Zoning District which permits single family housing located on lacs with aver- age sizes of8.100 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Single Family Three: Zoning District which permits single family housing located on lots with average sizes of 5.000 square feet to 8.000 square feet. Single Family Four: Zoning District which permits attached and detached single family housing located on lots with average sizes of 3,000 square feet to 4.900 square feet. Residential Multi~Family One: Zoning District which permits housing ranging from 8 units/acre up ro 14.9 units/acre including small lot single family. alley and duplex product rypes. Residential Multi-Family Two: Zoning District which permits housing at densities above 15 units/ acre. Community Purpose Facility: Zoning District which permits uses which may be esrablished pur- suant ro the Community Purpose Facilities section of the City ofChula Vista Planned Community Zone Ordinance. Commercial: Zoning District which permits commercial uses such as, but not limited to, retail shops. professional offices and service commercial. as further defined and delineated by the Permit- ted Use: Matrix. Residential uses may be permitted above or connected to me commercial uses. Open Space/Park One: Zoning District which permits allowable open space and park uses. and may include naturalized open space. Open Space/Park Two: Zoning District which includes the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve area and native open space. A.Adoption of Zoning District Map Land Use Districts and boundaries are established and adopted as shown, delineated and designated on the Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District Map (see Exhibit III-I) of the City ofChula Vista and San Diego County. These maps, together with all notations, references, data. district boundaries and other information thereon, are made a part of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and adopted concurrently herewith. Otay Ranch 111-7 May 14, 1997 IIi1ad RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Otay Ranch 111-/8 JUr'I@4, 1996 Planned Community District Regulations B. Speci~c Standards Table 111-3 Residential Property Development Standards NEIGHBORHOOD SF3 SF4 RMl RM2 Lot aiteria: Average Lot area (square feet) 5000 3000' SP SP Minimum lot area (square feet) 4000 28001 SP SP Minimum lot depth (feet) 90 60 sp sp Maximum lot coverage (%) 50 55 sp sp Minimum lot width (feet): Measured at setbaek line 45 25 sp sp Flag lots frontage 20 20 sp sp Knuckle ot cul-de-sac 30 25 sp sp Minimum front yard setback (feet from back of front sidewalk): To direct entry garage' 19.5' 19.5' SP' SP' To side entry garage or house 10 10 SP SP To main residence 15 15 SP SP To porch 9' 9' SP SP Minimum side yard setback (feet): To adjacent residential lot 5' 5' SP SP Distance between detached units 10 8 Sp' SP Residential street from building to back of adjacent sidewalk (comer lot) 13 13 SP SP Promenade street from building to back of adjacent sidewalk (comer lot) 13' 13' SP' SP' To garage with minimum 30 0 0 0 0 foot driveway May be reduced for attached units with site plan approval. A minimum of 30% of the garages on housing located on lots at least 55 feet wide and 105 feet deep !wW) shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet and incorporate a ~Hol1ywood" driveway. (See Village Design Plan), The mndel homM for Parcel R.11 ShAll includA at least one model with the ontion of beina sited and constructed with the "Hollywood" driveway cnncect. 30% of driveways may be reduced to 17 feet if roll-up type garage door provided and a like percentage is provided at 22 teet or greater, Porches are encouraged; a maximum of 30% of the porches will be permitted at this minimum setbaek of 9 teet. May be reduced for zero lot line concepts. Reduced to 10 feet on non-teatured side of promenade, Minimum 8 feet on featured side. minimum 5 feet on non-featured side of promenade, Detached alley product shall maintain an B foot minimum and 12 foot average side yard set back for zero lot line products. a. :::E ~ ~ ~ a: '" ~ z ...J W ~ a. (,) ~ 0 a: ...J w '" ~ ~ Z :0 8 ~ ~ CJ~~ w 0 ~ ~~;! ~~o --Lf w :::E :::E wo w a: Lf Lf 2a: a: :0 " '" :!: f2 66 w .... :o:oa:~ ~ >:::E::E~..:J ::!-J-JD.. ~ ~ '" ~ < ~ ~ \0 ;::: "'~!zz W WLUW;::) Q ...J -'cc:E co co - - 13 z z z"'''' c;; _ w w W cna:a:o CJ ~~iNt w ...I (I)(I)a:~CJ ..~~ U5 ... uj .. ~ 0 f'! ~ ~ Ti~=-<t w " - !G'" ~lj-~J / 'li;o~ ~ (~Y7 ~ o 1iio~ ~( i o w " z .. a; o i I \ , \ \ i i.' ~ , , , I .' -~ ~ z " '" i~ I ~~ . d ~ I :Iii' =:1: :q :2.11 Jle ~ 'E ~ ~ i: = ;; t PART I Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One PHASING PLAN Otay Ranch 1-200 May 14, 1997 Otay Ranch Village One Design Plan Pages Proposed for AIl1endment by West Coast Land FundIMcMillin Draft dated: May 8, 1997 . ... . PART TWO Vz1/age One Design Plan --1 l~_ --=-.. r-- p..~~~t:. _____'.~Op..~ ~Op..O " -d L-.~ .. ~p..~~ ~..- ,.~\.~. . . ~ .' ~._~--,-- Dray RAnch 11-101 April 29.1997 PART TWO Village One Design Plan / '( t ~ !it" I .-. '0. f' -' - "NGE ~...- ,,51 OR -"- ~ E ,,- -..---- . . ., j:sL AVENUE "II" Dray Ranch 11-115 Annl?Q 1Q07 -