Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2002-531 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-531 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT (GDP) TO ELIMINATE THE FLOATING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE FROM THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST PLANNING AREA AND TRANSFER OTAY RANCH GDP DWELLING UNITS FROM VILLAGE FIVE TO VILLAGE ONE WEST WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06B, and is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan portion of Otay Ranch Village One West (South) was flied with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 1, 2002 by Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development (GDP) to eliminate the floating elementary school site from the Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area and transfer Otay Ranch GDP dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West; and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 (''GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH g9010154 ("Program FEIR 90-01"); and WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional Plann'mg Area One Plan (`'SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein the City Counc'd, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH g94101046 ("FEIR 95-01"), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH g97091079 (`'FEIR 97-03"); and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03 in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and Resolution 2002-531 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendment (GPA-03-01) 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 Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on December 11, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, by a vote of 6-0 the Planning Commission approved the project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on said General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendment (GPA-03-01); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on December 11, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. II. ACTION The City Council approves an amendment to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP (GPA-03-01) eliminating the floating elementary school site from the Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The City Council also hereby transfers 65 Otay Ranch GDP dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West, as shown on attachments hereto as Exhibits "D" and "E", finding such transfer is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and ail other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, and subsequent FEIR 97-03, would have no new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, and subsequent FEIR 97-03 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01 and FEIR's 97-03 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 Resolution 2002-531 Page 3 - 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 Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01 and subsequent FEIR-97-03, and addendum attached hereto [Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)]. V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the addendum prepared to FEIR-95-01 and FEIR 97-03, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the addendum. VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program FEIR 90-01, Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 95-01, and subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03. VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay Ranch GDP FEIR 90-01, SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01 and subsequent SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 adequately describes and -- analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)]. vm. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS The proposed Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development plan for the following reasons: A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment 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. The elementary school site in Village One West was added to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan in the event that the primary school site identified in the nearby Sunbow Planned Community was unavailable. The Chula Vista Elementary School District (C.V.E.S.D.) has purchased the Sunbow site and determined that the Village One West site is no longer needed. B. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan was adopted within two years of the establishment of the Planned Community Zone District in Otay Ranch. Resolution 2002-531 Page 4 C. IN THE CASE OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIREABLILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICIN THEREOF. The planned single-family residential development for the project is designed to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods in Otay Ranch Village One West. The amendment contains provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER- ALL DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIREABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The Project does not involve Industrial or Research land uses. E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The Project does not involve Institutional, Recreational or Nonresidential uses. F. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THAT ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The Project's street circulation provides for sufficient access for the single-family residences in the development. A comprehensive street network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The design of the subdivision development utilizes a loop-road design within the development to provide multiple points of access to Santa Sierra Drive. G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). The Project does not involve Commercial development uses. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. Resolution 2002-531 Page 5 The land uses within Otay Ranch are designated with an underlying land use in place in the event of the relocation or deletion of public facilities such as schools. The underlying land use in the project is single-family residential and has been appropriately zoned and planned in coordination with surrounding development consistent with the policies described in the General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Presented by Approved as to form by ~a~t' d Building Director J~i~ny PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 17th day of December, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Rindone, Salas, McCann and Padilla NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ~ 'Stephen P~lla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-531 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17th day of December, 2002. Executed this 17th day of December, 2002. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk RIDGE R sa LOCATION CHULA VISTAPLANNING AND BUILDINGDEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRiPtiON: APPUCANT: OTAY PFOJECT, UP.  PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, WEST ~ISCELL. ANEOUS ADDRESS: R59/RE0; South of East Palomar St. G2A & GDP Amendment ~oROPOSE · to conved the West of Paseo Ranchero existing school site into single family neighborho~Dd SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: ; NORTH No Scale PCM-03-01 Related Case(s): r'u~s-uz-u~ . j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcm0301.cdr 07.10.02 EXHIBIT "A" ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village One West South, Future Elementary School Site (S-3) conversion to Single-Family Residential; Revised Tentative Tract No. 98~06B PROJECT LOCATION: South side of East Palomar Street at Heritage Road PROJECT APPLICANT: OtayProject LP CASE NO: IS-03-001 DATE: December 5, 2002 I. BACKGROUND The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-01) evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the development of Villages One and Five. The SPA One plan was approved and the EIR was certified on June 4, 1996. The Otay Ranch SPA One plan was amended in 1998 to include an approximately 308-acre area known as Village One West. A Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-97-03) for the Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments was certified at the same time. The currently adopted Village One West tentative map delineates an elementary school on the south side of East Palomar Street at Heritage Road. In response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District's decision not to utilize this site within Village One West, the Otay Project proposes to amend the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan in order to convert the current elementary school land use (S-3) in Village One West to single-family residential. The applicant has also proposed a revised Tentative Map to subdivide the 10-acre school site into 65 single-family lots. II. PROPOSED SPA ONE AMENDMENT Otay Project has applied to amend the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert a vacant 10-acre elementary school site into single-family residential land uses and requests a Revised Tentative Map to transfer 65 dwelling units fi.om Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots. The proposed discretionary actions associated with the project include the following: Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12105102 1 EXHIBIT "B" I ) Chula Vista General Plan Amendment to eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One. 2) ' Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment to eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One. 3) Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment to modify the Otay Ranch GDP dwelling unit allocations within Village Five and Village One West 4) SPA One Plan Amendments to Village One West Site Utilization Plan and Land Use neighborhood R-60 (7.3 acres and 49 single-family units), modify R-59 neighborhood to include 18.5 acres and 106 single-family units, modify the boundary between R-59 and R-60, modify SPA One Zoning Exhibit to reflect new neighborhood boundaries. 5) SPA One Amendments to Village Five Land Use Summary Table to reallocate 65 units from neighborhood R-30b to neighborhoods R-59 and R-60. 6) Revised Tentative Map 96-06B for neighborhoods R-59 and R-60. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (§ 15162) establishes the conditions under which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared. A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in 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 EIR 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 to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was prepared. B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare 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 (Guidelines §15162). Village One West South Addendum to ErR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12/04/02 2 Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that: A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum need not be cimulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Converting the elementary school land use designation (S-3) in Village One West to single-family residential does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in eimumstances under which the project would be constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has been presented. The modifications proposed for Village One West South would not result in any environmental effects that were not considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03, nor would the changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The mitigation measures identified in these documents would be equally applicable to the revised project. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR-97-03. III. ANALYSIS An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the modifications to the project would change any of the analyses contained in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The conclusion is that previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the changes, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached. Land Use: The Otay Project proposes to eliminate the 10-acre elementary school site in Village One West by amending the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert the school site into single-family residential land uses. The application proposes to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One plan by increasing the single-family residential dwelling units in Village One West with a corresponding decrease in multi-family units in Village Five. The proposal includes the reduction of allowable Otay Ranch GDP multi- Vitlage One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12/04/02 3 family dwelling units in Village Five from 1,615 to 1,550, and increasing the GDP single-family unit count in Village One West from 845 to 910. The applicant proposes to transfer 65 dwelling units from Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots. Tables 1 and 2 below detail the changes in dwelling units between the villages in SPA One. Table 1 SPA One Dwelling Unit Breakdowns Existing Dwelling Units GDP SPA SF MF SF MF Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521 Village Five 1,263 1,615 1,217 1,605 Village One West 845 0 845 0 Subtotal 3,652 3,137 3,606 3,126 TOTAL 6,789 6,732 Proposed Dwelling Units GDP SPA SF MF SF MF Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521 Village Five 1,263 1,550 1,217 1540 Village One West 910 0 910 0 Subtotal 3,717 3,072 3,671 3,061 TOTAL 6,789 6,732 Table 2 Overall Comparison of Existing and Proposed Dwelling Units GDP SPA SF MF SF MF Overall Existing Total 3,652 3,137 3,606 3,126 Overall Proposed Total 3,717 3,072 3,671 3,061 Difference +65 -65 +65 -65 The applicant is authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP policies to utilize an underlying residential land use if a public facility such as a school is relocated out of a village. The SPA One document also authorizes the transfer of dwelling units between villages if they are within the same SPA. The proposed amendments would not conflict with surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses would be similar to existing surrounding uses. No impacts to land use are anticipated. Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12104/02 4 Transportation, Circulation and Access As illustrated in Table 3, the proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily traffic trips within the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95- 01 and EIR 97-03. Table 3: Estimated Project Traffic Generation Estimated Daily Trip Ends Traffic Land Use Existing Proposed Difference (ADT) ~ Generation Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 du 8 +520 Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 du 6.7 -435.5 School l0 ac 0 -10ac 145 -1,450 Difference -1,365 ADT ' ADT generation rates based on EIR 97-03 Traffic Impact Analysis Olay Ranch SPA One Amendment, 1998 The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95- 01 and EIR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated. ~Vater Qaality and Drainage - A revised hydrology study, dated May 3I, 2002, was prepared by Hunsaker and Associates to evaluate the change in drainage patterns and runoff rates for the proposed project. The hydrology study indicates that the proposed residential uses will result in a 24 percent decrease in peak runoff rates than those generated from the planned school site. On-site drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site development. Modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West South would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 would be equally applicable to the revised configuration of land uses. Public Services and Facilities Water and Sewer: Tables 4 and 5 depict the estimated sewage generation and water demand for the proposed project. As illustrated below, the overall estimated sewer generation and water demand for the proposed project would be less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-O1 and EIR 97-03 12/04102 5 Table 4: Estimated Sewage Generation Estimated Average Unit Sewage Land Use Existing Proposed Difference Flow Generation Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 280 gpd/unit +18,200 Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 210 gpd/unit - 13,650 School 10 ac 0 - 10ac 9000 gpd/acre -9000 Difference -4,450 gpd Table 5: Estimated Water Demand Annual Unit Demand Demand Land Use Existing Proposed Difference ac-ft/yr ac-ft/yr Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 2.0 ac-ft/yr + 130 Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 2.5 ac-fdyr -162.5 School 10 ac 0 - 10ac 2.0 ac-ft/yr -20 ' Difference -52.5 ac~ft/yr The regional sewer and water facilities planned and approved within Village One have been sized to accommodate peak hour and maximum flow rates for the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would not affect the analysis previously provided in these documents. No impacts to water and sewer are anticipated. Parks: The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to the park acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands are anticipated. Schools: The proposed project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan to eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One West. This application is in response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District's (CVESD) decision to develop a 10-acre school site in the eastern portion of the Sunbow Planned Community and not utilize the "secondary" site once designated for Village One West. Recently, the CVESD has finalized the purchase of the 1 O-acre elementary school on the eastern edge of the Sunbow Plarmed Community on the south side of East Palomar Street. The school district plans to begin construction of the school facility in the next several weeks and open the school in the fall of 2003. CVESD has indicated that the proposed Sunbow site located adjacent to the~ western boundary of Otay Ranch will adequately meet the local student generation demands for the SPA One area. No impacts to school facilities are anticipated. Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12/04/02 6 IV. 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 Reports adequate under CEQA. Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi Environmental Review Coordinator References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Otay Ranch General Development Plan Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendments Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12/04/02 7 Case No. IS-03-001 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Otay Project LP 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 350 W. Ash St. Ste 730 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 234-4088 (619) 234-4050 (fax) 4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment and Village One West South Revised Tentative Tract No. 98-06B 5. Date of Checklist: December 4, 2002 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] rn [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 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: Development of Village One West and Village Five was evaluated in the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (E1R 95-01) and the Final Second Tier EIR for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (EIR 97-03) that was certified on June 4, 1996 and November 10, 1998, respectively. Development of Village One West and Village Five was evaluated in the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-01) and the Final Second Tier EIR for the Otay Page 12 Ranch SPA One Plan (EIR 97-03) that was certified on June 4, 1996 and November lO, 1998, respectively. The Otay Project proposes to eliminate the 1 O-acre elementary school site in Village One West by amending the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch _ General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert the school site into sing]e-family residential land uses. The application proposes to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One plan by increasing the single-family residential dwelling units in Village One West with a corresponding decrease in multi-family units in Village Five. The proposal includes the reduction of allowable Otay Ranch GDP multi-family dwelling units in Village Five from 1,615 to 1,550, and increasing the GDP single-family unit count in Village One West from 845 to 910. The applicant proposes to transfer 65 dwelling units from Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots. The applicant is authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP policies to utilize an underlying residential land use ifa public facility such as a school is relocated out of a village. The SPA One document also authorizes the transfer of dwelling units between villages if they are within the same SPA. The proposed amendments would not conflict with surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses wpuld be similar to existing surrounding uses. The reconfiguration of land uses would not change the overall mix of land uses evaluated in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03, nor would it result in any new or changed land use compatibility issues. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. WouM the Potc.,i~Uy si,.inc..t t~th.. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] ~ ~2 [] population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] ~ [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] ~ [] [] housing? Comments: The proposed amendments would not substantially change the overall level of development proposed for Village One West South, from what was evaluated and approved for the SPA One Plan. Additionally, the proposed amendments would not induce growth into the area, cause population projections to be exceeded, or displace housing. No impacts to population and housing are anticipated. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Po~=t~u~ ~r,~* i~ ~m expose people to potential impacts involving: ~,~pa,t Mitigated Impact Impact a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] c~ [] ~ geologic substructures? - b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] o t~ [] overcovering of the soil? Page I3 c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 identified specific mitigation measures for ground shaking, soils, and slope stability that would reduce potential geologic and seismic hazards to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures required the submittal of site- specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant. Concurrent with the mass grading of the site, these mitigation measures have been satisfied. As the area of potential effect for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment will not change, and with compliance with the Final EIR mitigation measures, the proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01. a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] tn [] [] or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water [] tn [] [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other [] [] [] [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] [] [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction [] [] [] [] of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Page 14 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] t~ [] groundwater7 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood t] c~ [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water rn rn o [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: A revised hydrology study, dated May 31, 2002, was prepared by Hunsaker and Associates to evaluate the change in drainage patterns and runoff rates for the proposed project. The hydrology study indicates that the proposed residential uses will result in a 24 percent decrease in peak runoff rates than those generated from the planned school site. On-site drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site development. Modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West South would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 would be equally applicable to the revised configuration of land uses. IV. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Pot,miany Signir~eaM Less than a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to rn rn [] [] an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, [] [] [] [] or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The analysis provided in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 stated that significant, unmitigated air quality impacts would occur as a result of implementing the entire SPA One and SPA One Amendments. Proposed modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West South would not result in any substantial additional air quality impacts. Short-term construction and long-term traffic impacts would not be exacerbated by the proposed changes. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted at the time both EIRs were certified. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts to air quality than were prev/ously analyzed in EIIR 95-01 and EIR 97- 03. Potentially V. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would Po,,,,t~ny s~mc~t t~ th,= Significant IJuless Signir~e. ant No the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Imlmcl Impact a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] [] Page 15 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incmnpatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to r~ [] [] [] nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] [] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] [] bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting o [] t~ [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] r~ [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily traffic trips within the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95-01 and E1R 97-03. The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated. VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ~,o,,~ti~u~Sigulf'maat~ ~ham proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impatl a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] [] concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage [] [] [] [] trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., [] [] r~ [] oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and [] [] [] [] vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [] [] [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: The proposed revisions to the project are entirely within the footprint of the previously analyzed and approved SPA One plan. The project area has been previously graded and is devoid of any native plant or animal species or habitats. The proposed amendments would not result in any. additional impacts to biological resources than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. Page 16 VI1. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. sig.lnca.~ Unless Sil:air~ant No Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] [] c~ [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and r~ r~ [] ~ inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] r~ o [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: There were no impacts identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 associated with energy and mineral resources. The proposed amendments would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR 95-01. VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: s~n~.t~'°tc"~nY sig~r,,,~tu.~ s~,,w,~.~tt~ th.. fo a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] ~3 ~n [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency rn r~ [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential [] c~ o [] health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] c~ [] [] potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] ~ [] [] brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The analysis provided in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with the proposed development of the Village One West South area. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional hazards impacts than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] c~ [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? r~ [] rn [] Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that residential development within the SPA One area would be exposed to significant impacts from roadway noise and requires mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed reconfiguration of land uses within Village One West South would not substantially change the relationship of sensitive noise receptors to noise sources. Therefore, Page 17 application of the noise mitigation measures required in the E1R would be required for ' the modified project, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Construction noise would have potentially significant impacts on surrounding residential areas. Construction noise impacts for the modified plan for Village One West South would be the same as those analyzed in the EIR 95-01 and 97-03. Potentially X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Mitigaled Impacl Impact altered government services in arty of the following areas: a) Fire protection? rn [3 [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? [] [] [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental services? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed reconfiguration of land uses and deletion of the planned elementary site would not affect the provision of fire or police services, public facilities, or other services. EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 identify the need for police and fire service in the project area with future development of the SPA One Plan area. The project is within the boundaries of the public facilities Development Impact Fee program, and therefore will be subject to the payment of the police and fire/EMS fee rates in effect at the time building permits are issued. Therefore, no new impacts to law enforcement, fire, or EMS will occur with implementation of the proposed amendments. The proposed project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan to eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One West. This application is in response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District's (CVESD) decision to develop a 10-acre school site in the eastern portion of the Sunbow Planned Community and not utilize the "secondary" site once designated for Village One West. Recently, the CVESD has finalized the purchase of the 1 O-acre elementary school on the eastern edge of the Sunbow Plarmed Community on the : south side of East Palomar Street. The school district plans to begin construction of the school facility in the next several weeks and open the school in the fall of 2003. CVESD has indicated that the proposed Sunbow site located adjacent to the western boundary of Otay Ranch will adequately meet the local student generation demands for the SPA One area. No impacts to school facilities are anticipated. XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact [] [] [] [] the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven Threshold Standards. Page 18 a) Fire/EMS [] [] o [] The City's 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 Chub Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and EMS Master Plan. Comments: The SPA One EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 state that potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services would be mitigated by compliance with the Master Plan and payment of fees. The proposed modifications to land use configurations and the deletion of the planned school site would not result in substantial changes in the ability to deliver adequate services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are anticipated with the proposed changes. Potentially Po~entiagy Significant Le~ than Significant Unless Significant No b) Police o o o [] The City's 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. t0% 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 wilt comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The SPA One EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 state that potential impacts to law enforcement services would be mitigated by compliance with the Law Enforcement Services Master Plan for Otay Ranch and payment of mitigation fees. The proposed modifications to land use configurations and the deletion of the planned school site would not result in substantial changes in the ability to deliver adequate services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to law enforcement services are anticipated with the proposed changes. c) Traffic [] o [] [] The City's 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: The proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily traffic trips within the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95-01 and EIR Page 19 97-03. The proposed amendments xvould not cause any additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated. d) Parks/Recreation r~ [] [] [] The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to the park acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands are anticipated. e) Drainage [] tn tn [] The City's 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 proposed amendments would not impede the project applicant's ability to comply with City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will result in a 24 percent decrease in peak runoffrates than those generated from the planned school site. On-site drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site development. No new impacts to drainage facilities are anticipated. f) Sewer [] [] [] [] 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 overall estimated sewer generation for the proposed project would be approximately 4,450 gallons per day (gpd) less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The project site would be served by sewer infrastructure to be provided through the development of Village One West South. No new impacts to sewer facilities are anticipated. Page 20 g) Water [] [] r2 [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growlh and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The overall estimated water demand for the proposed project would be approximately 52.5 acre-feet per year less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The project site would be served by water infrastructure to be provided through the development of Village One West South. No new impacts to water demand are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would ro,~,~u~ sic,ir,,,,, ~,~,, the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Communications systems? [] in [] ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or [] [] [] [] distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed amendments would not require new systems or substantial alterations to any of the planned service systems. The project site would be served by utility and service system infrastructure to be provided through the development of Village One West South. The proposed project would not result in any additional impacts to utilities and service systems than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. XIII. AESTHETICS. WouM the proposal: ~,~p~a Mitlgatt~l Impact Impact a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] [] [] a public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] [] [] [] scenic route? Page 21 c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] 12 [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] [] rn [] 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 197 e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] Comments: The reconfiguration of uses would not substantially change the visual character of the proposed development from that previously analyzed in for the proposed Olay Ranch SPA One project. The location of the proposed single-family units and its orientation to existing and planned residential land uses would not result in any land use compatibility impacts. Lighting impacts would be reduced with the deletion of the proposed elementary school. The proposed amendments would not result in any impacts not previously considered and the mitigation measures would be equally applicable to the new configuration of uses. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the eot,,,ti.,,a~, $ignillcan, L~sthan proposal: lmlt~ct l~titigat ed Impact Impact a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] [] [] [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or [] [] r~ [] aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a [] [] D [] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or [] [] [] ~ sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan ~ rn ri [] EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposed SPA One Plan amendments would not involve grading beyond the area previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. Applicable mitigation measures have been implemented during mass grading of the site and any potential impacts to cultural resources have been mitigated. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were previously analyzed in ELR 9%01 and EIR 97-03. Page 22 XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the [] D [] ~ proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleorttological resources? Comments: The Village One West South site is underlain by alluvium (Qal), Otay Formation (Oo), and San Diego Formation (Tsd). Both Oo and Tsd formations are likely to contain fossil resources. Applicable mitigation measures have been implemented during mass grading of the site and any potential impacts to paleontological resources have been mitigated. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. XVI. RECREATION. Would tile proposal: P~,,,i,,~ Sl,niGc,n, ~-~,h, a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D t3 [] [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] [] [] [] c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation ~n [~ [] [] plans or programs? Comments: The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to the park acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands are anticipated. Potentially XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Significant L~$ Ihan SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for ~,~t ~ia~,d ~ ~mvm mandato~y findings of significance, lf an EIR is needed, this section shouM be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade [] c~ c~ [] 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 proposed amendments would not degrade the quality of the environment because the changes are consistent with the existing land use types, quantities and intensities of within SPA One. No impacts are anticipated. Page 23 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ri [] [] [] short-term goals to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? Comments: The proposed amendments do not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Overall impacts to traffic, public services and drainage will be reduced with the proposed project. No impacts area anticipated. c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] r3 [] 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: Cumulative effects related to the development of Village One West South were considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The proposed amendments would not result in any cumulative effects that were not considered in these documents. d) Does the project have environmental effects, [] [] [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in any adverse effects on human beings that were not considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. Page 24 XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No additional mitigation measures beyond those previously identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 are required for the proposed amendments. XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval. N/A Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] N/A Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner's Name] N/A Printed Name and Tide of [Operator if different from Property Owner] N/A Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] Page 25 XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS pOTENTIALLY A~'~ ECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Sigaificant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,~ as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] Population and Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Paleontological [] Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources XXII. DETERMINJtTION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, [] and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, [] there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an [] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at [] least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed proj~:t could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case becaus~ all potentially significant effects · (al have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuaut m applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendm'n has been prepared m provide a record of this determination. Marilyn'R.F. Ponseggi Enviromnental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Page 26 EXHIBIT "C" Village One Dwelling Units Acreage Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park** CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Approx. Sp. Art. Total Pop. LMV 1,544 1,544 4.0 386.0 9.7* 386.0 4,941 MU 10.0 13.4 11.4 34.8 Mit 1,522 1,522 18.0 84.6 10.0 94.6 3,881 :::~- ......... ~ ............................................................................. !i!i!:.:.i:.: :ii~:~:~ ~i !ii! i~: ~ :~:~,~-~-~!!: OTHER 264.8 46.5 311.3 Exhibit 38 Village One Land Use Table EXHIBIT "D" Village Five Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Use SF MF Total Dens Res. Park*' CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. Open Art. Total Pop. Sp. LMV 1263 1,263 4.5 280.6 6.6* 280.6 4,042 MU 10.0 11.3 6.0 27.3 OTHER 70.4 15.4 85.8 *Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage. **Part of park acreage requirement have been allocaled to communi~ parks. Aclual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SIVA level. Exhibit 47 Village Seven Land Use Table EXHIBIT "E"