Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1999/04/28 r AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Chula Vista, California 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 28, 1999 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PC5-99-03; Tentative Subdivision Map for Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, involving 749 single family lots, four residential super lots with capacity for 394 dwelling units, 3 open space lots and two public quasi-public lots on 322.8 acres located on the east side of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway - The Eastlake Company. Staff contact: Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-99-31/PCM-99-09; Consideration of an amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA 1 Commercial District Regulations to allow self-storage facilities subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Conditional Use Permit to allow a self- storage facility to be constructed at 860 Lazo Court in the C-1 Commercial District - Caster Group, L.P. Staff contact: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PSP-99-02; Request for change of policy related to names appearing on major community entry monument signs requiring only the planned community's name - McMillin Otay Ranch, uc. ....---..--.-.-.- ~--'--~----"-'-'-~-"~----- Planning Commission - 2- April 28, 1999 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. H:\HOME\PLAN NI NG\DIANA \PCAGEN DA. DOC 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date 4/28/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCS-99-03; Tentative Subdivision Map for Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, involving 749 single family lots, four residential super lots with capacity for 394 dwelling units, 3 open space lots and two public quasi-public lots on 322.8 acres located on the east side of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway - The Eastlake Company. The applicant, The Eastlake Company, has submitted an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map known as Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, in order to subdivide and develop 322.8 acres east of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and the future alignment of Olympic Parkway (see Locator). The Tentative Subdivision Map consist of 749 single family lots and four super lots with capacity for 394 dwelling units (1143 total dwelling units). The tentative map also includes three open space lots, a 31-acre community park/ open space, lO-acre school site, 4.5- acre Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) site and several specialty lots (Le. slopes and landscape buffer areas). The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that an Addendum to the FSEIR 97-04 is necessary to address the proposed tentative subdivision map. Thus, an addendum to the FSEIR has been prepared and is attached for your consideration (see Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Second Addendum to EIR 97-04 for the Eastlake Trails/ Greens Subsequent EIR 2. Adopt attached Planning Commission Resolution PCS-99-03; recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution. DISCUSSION On November 28, 1998, the City Council approved the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and associated regulatory documents, including Planned Community District Regulations for the Trails Neighborhood. The adopted Eastlake Trails SPA plan established the land use distribution and pattern; intensity and character of development; specific development goals and objectives; and development standards to guide the future detailed planning of the of the Trails Neighborhood. The proposed tentative map implements the SPA plan goals and objectives by more precisely lotting the land use pattern established in the SPA, and providing the required on-site and off-siteinfrastructure for the project. Site Characteristics r Page 2, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 The subject site is irregular in shape and limited to the north by Otay Lakes Road; to the south by the future Olympic Parkway; to the west by the Eastlake Greens residential neighborhood, across Hunte Parkway; and to the east by a future development phase of Eastlake (Vistas Neighborhood). The terrain slopes west to east about 100 to 150 ft. from Hunte Parkway to the bottom of the Salt Creek open space corridor, and 50 to 80 ft. from Otay Lakes Rd. to Olympic Parkway. Access to the site is via Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway. In the future, Olympic Parkway will also provide an alternative connection to SR-125 freeway and western Chula Vista (see Locator). The most predominant landform featured on the site is an open spacel drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the subdivision, known as Salt Creek. This open space corridor provides a natural buffer between the proposed subdivision and future development phases of Eastlake. Existing surrounding land uses are as follows: Zoni11f: and Land Use C.V. Muni General Plan Land Use Codel Zoning Designation Site PC South PC East PC West PC North PC Proposa 1 GDP Land Use District Existing Land Designation Use Low Density Res! Pub~ Quasi- Publ Park Low, Low Moo, Med Vacant Density Res. .PQ. Park. Open space Open Space Vacant (Otay Ranch) Eastlake III GDP Vacant Open Space Low Med. Density Res. Low Med. Res. Elk Greens Low Med.. Med., Med. SFDI Pvt. Park! Hg. resl park! Open Golf Course Low Med.. Med. Hg. Vacant Res. Elk III GDP Low, Moo. Density Res. The Trails subdivision is primarily single family detached in three lotting categories: I) the "traditional single family" lots, which are 5,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. lots; 2) "single family detached small lot, " 2,750 to 4,500 sq. ft.; and 3) multi-family category designed to accommodate attached residential product, such as apartments, condominiums and townhomes. The following paragraphs describe in more detail these three residential products: The traditional single family detached category is provided in three lot products: 7,000 sq. ft., at a density of 0-3 du/ac (Low Density); 5,000 and 6,000 sq. ft., at a density of 3-6 du/ac (Low Medium Density). The average lot size is substantially larger than the a. Page 3, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 minimum listed above (see Phasing table below). Forty four percent (506 dwelling units) of the total number of permitted dwelling units in the Trails are in this category, of which 317 (28%) are the 5,000 sq. ft. lot product. (see Phasing section of this report). This lotting category is similar to traditional lots in western Chula Vista, and usually accommodates the larger, moderate to high end price housing in master planned communities. b. The subdivision also contains three small lot products: 4,500 sq. ft. (50'x90'), 3,150 sq. ft. (45'X70'), and 2,750 sq. ft. (50'X55'). The average lot size in each category exceeds substantially these minimum lot development standards. Thirty three percent (451 dwelling units) of the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Trails are in this category. The small lot residential product was introduced by Eastlake in the 1980's as an alternative to attached townhomes and condominium units. Since then, the small lot residential product architectural design and individual amenities have been improved substantially. According to the applicant, this product continues to be highly desirable for first time home buyers. Small lot residential projects are subject to administrative design review to establish adequate development standards (building setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) and compatible architecture. c. Two multifamily lots are provided. Combined, these two lots could accommodate about 186 dwelling units (16 % of the total number of dwelling units permitted in the Trails) at a density of about 10 du/ac. The multifamily sites are centrally located near the school, park and neighborhood recreational facilities. Site design and building architecture are subject to Design Review Committee's approval based on the residential design guidelines established in the Eastlake Trails SPA. The tentative map also includes three open space lots (OS-I, OS-2 & OS-3); a 31.1 acre community park! open space area (lots P-I and P-3); lO-acre school site; 4) 4.5-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) lot and several specialty lots (see development Phasing Tables below). Phasing The subdivision is proposed to be developed in two phases. Phase I, hereby referred to as the "Initial Phase," consist of developing residential areas identified in the tentative map as TS-I through TS-7 (TS denotes Trails South), school site (lot S-I), which has already been graded, private park (P-2) and Open Space lots OS-I, OS-2 and OS-3. Phase II, hereby referred as the "Remaining Phase," is primarily the neighborhoods identified in the Tentative Map as TN-I - TN-6 ( TN denotes Trails North). As in the previous phase, this development phase provides a variety of residential types and densities, as well as support land uses such as: the community park and community center (lots P-I and P-3), and the 4.5-acre CPF lot. The following table illustrates the project break down in more detail. -,.---~---,---"" r Page 4, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 INITIAL PHASE - Residential Sub- No. Min lot Average MinLot No. of Dwelling Acreage Density % of Phase Neig. of lots size lot size Dimension Units (gross) (gross) Total No. of in sq. ft. in sq. ft. Units (626) TS-l 31 7,350 (9.269) 70' X 105' 31 lO.4ac. 3 du/ac 5% TS-2 71 6,000 (8,3\9) 60' X \00' 71 19.4 ac. 3.8 dulac 11% TS-3 189 5,000 (6.330) 50' X 100' 189 41.8 ac. 4.5 du/ac 30% TS-4 69 4.500 (6.229) 50' X 90' 69 17.7ac. 3.9 duJac 11% TS-5 103 3.150 (4,043) 45' X 70' 103 I8.0ae. 5.7 du/ac 16% TS-6 71 2,750 (3.756) 50' x 55' 71 I1.Iac. 6.4 dulac 12% TS-7 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A (92)''' a. 10:3 dU/1\c 15% Total 218 534 (92)' 127.3 ac. 5.4 du/ ac 100% Phase total 626 Non-Residential OS-1 22.5 OS-2 22.5 P-2 5.1 Total 50.1 REMAINING PHASE- Residential Sub- No. Minlot Average Min Lot No. of Dwelling Acreage Density 517% Neig. orlots size lot size Dimension Units in sq. ft. in sq. Ft. TN-I 30 7350 9167 70' X 105' 30 9 ac. 6.7 du/ac 6% TN-2 58 6000 7852 60' X 100' 58 15 ac. 4 dufac 12% TN-3 127 5000 6787 50' X 100' 127 32 ac. 3.9 du/ac 25% TN~5.'" N/A N/A N/A N/A (81) . 11.7 7.0 du/ac 15% TN-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A (127)' 20.0 6.4 du/ac 24% TN-7 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A (Q4Y'" ~ ~ .wi Total 218 215 (302)" 87.7 6 u/ac avg. 100% Phase total 517 Non- Residential OS-3 0.75 P-l 20.7 P-3 10.4 CPF ~ Total 35.7 ac . Figure represents the maximum number of dwelling units aligned for the particular lot. Actual number of units built could be less ----,-",-_.._-_.".. -._~~,~._-- --'-._-- Page 5, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 The Developer is requesting several tentative subdivision map design waivers. The waivers are typically considered and approved by the City Engineer, providing said waivers do not compromise public safety. Based on the Project Engineer's assertion that the waivers will not be detrimental to public safety, the City Engineer has approved the waivers as requested, except for waivers 7a, 8c, and 11 (see Attachment 3). The Developer would be required to modify the subdivision design to meet City Standards for the waivers not approved ( see condition 99 of the attached Draft City Council Resolution). ANALYSIS The Eastlake Trails subdivision is basically an extension of the Eastlake Greens Neighborhood, containing several residential densities and public facility sites as prescribed in the Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. Contrary to the Eastlake Greens subdivision design, where individual residential clusters are located around a continuous loop road (North and South Greensview Drive), the Eastlake Trails subdivision contains a variety of residential products interconnected by residential streets and arranged in a seamless urban pattern. This subdivision design approach provides multiple routes for pedestrians and vehicles, avoiding concentration of traffic on any single street. To complement the subdivision design, the majority of cul-de-sacs have been des igned with open ends to provide convenient pedestrian connections to other streets and neighborhood amenities. The two multifamily super lots are located in the central part of the Trails Neighborhood, north and south of Clubhouse Drive. These two sites, which are conveniently located near schools and recreational facilities, are intended to provide an attached residential product such as: condominiums, townhomes, apartments and, as an alternative, could also accommodate small lot development. Two other super lots located at the northwest corner of the subdivision boundaries, which when combined can accommodate a total of 208 dwelling units, at a density of 6.5 du/ac. These two lots are intended to be developed with the small lot residential product described above. A separate tentative subdivision map will be processed for these two sites at a later date. The site plan and architecture for these four super lots are subject to the Design Review process. Cir"ulation The subdivision is surrounded by three major streets: Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway and Olympic Parkway. The required off-site improvements for these major streets are as follows: I) Installation of remaining street improvements along the east side of Hunte Parkway (sidewalks, street lighting, etc.); 2) Full improvements for the remaining segment of Hunte Parkway between South Greensview Drive and Olympic Parkway; 4) Full improvements for Otay Lakes Road from Hunte Parkway to the eastern boundaries of the subdivision; and, r Page 6, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 3) Construction of full improvements for Olympic Parkway between SR-125 to Hunte Parkway. The improvements for the segment of Olympic Parkway east of Hunte Parkway are presently under construction and expected to be completed February 2001. The segment between Hunte Parkway and the Otay Water District water easement has been previously secured by a performance bond as part of the Eastlake Greens development. Thus, the above off-site street improvements will be completed as part of the Trails subdivision (see Condition 2 of the City Council Resolution, Attachment 2). Off-street improvements are necessary to provide adequate transportation facilities for the project and surrounding developments, and maintain compliance with the Transportation threshold standards prescribed in the Growth Management program With regard to the internal street system, the subdivision design provides three access points along Hunte Parkway (no direct access from Otay Lakes Road or Olympic Parkway). The main access road is the extension of Clubhouse Drive, which is a 120 ft. wide ROW with two 20-foot travel lanes separated by a 26-foot median. This street also features decompose granite (DG) pedestrian trail along the north side and standard concrete walk on the south side (see Figure lA-IE ). The other access points are primarily the extension of South and North Greensview Drive. Local streets have a strong orientation to the private Homeowner's swim complex near the community park. . The departure from the loop road concept features in the Greens results in a more cohesive community, where the different housing types and densities are blended into a seamless urban pattern with pedestrian friendly and low traffic residential streets. ~ The Eastlake Trails plan provides recreational opportunities within the Salt Creek corridor, including a private park (lot P-I) and a community parkl community center (lots P2 and P-3). These two lots, which combined produce a 31. I-acre site, will be improved with traditional active recreational facilities such as ball fields, sport courts, and a community center. City Staff is in the process of developing an overall park master plan for the City's eastern territories. Once completed, the master plan will provide community park design guidelines, and prescribe specific amenities prescribed for the community and neighborhood parks, including specific amenities for the proposed Trails community park. The community park abuts a single loaded street along the west side and Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road to the south and north respectively. The park location provides an attractive community recreational amenity, that when added to the southerly adjacent open space environmental preserve and home owners swim complexllake, produces a unique community focal point and visual corridor. r Page 7, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 The proposed park facilities satisfy the project's park acquisition and development requirements for the Trails (10.9 acres) and previous agreements between the City of Chula Vista and The Eastlake Company to provide 9 additional improved acres of park. Maintenance of public parks will be provided by the City, and private parks and open space specialty lots will be maintained by HOA or Community Facilities District (CFD). Gr~dil1g The Eastlake Trails SPA contains a preliminary grading concept plan identifying slope bank locations and landform grading to reflect the natural terrain characteristics and usable building areas (see Figure 2). The proposed grading, which follows the natural slope form in a balanced cut and fill, slopes from west to east approximately 100 to 150 ft. The grading also features a raised circular building pad with view to the Salt Creek open space corridor and the mountains to the east (see attached blueprints). Affordahle Housing The Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program has been adopted and incorporated into the Eastlake Trails SPA plan to ensure that a minimum of 10% affordable housing is provided. One of the tentative map conditions of approval requires that the Developer enter into a Standard Agreement with the City to guarantee construction and delivery of low and moderate income units as prescribed in the adopted Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing program. This agreement must be executed and properly recorded prior to approval of the first final map of the "Initial Phase." The Trails Subdivision also provides a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family, townhomes, condominium and various densities for persons of various incomes. Schools The Chula Vista Elementary School District has built two schools in Eastlake and a third elementary school will be built in the Trails starting in 1999. The design contract with the architect has been approved by the school board. The new school will be located near Hunte Parkway and Clubhouse Drive. The Sweetwater Union High School District will house students at Eastlake High School which has available enrollment of 1,867 and a capacity of 2,460 (593 remaining capacity). Middle school students will be served from the new Rancho del Rey Middle School. Eastlake Trails is expected to generate a total of 343 elementary students, 115 middle school students and 217 high school students. Each school district provides school facilities by requiring new projects to provide tax funding for new construction via a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. This fInancing method is superior to the normal school fees which simply do not produce sufficient funding to build new schools in a timely manner. Eastlake has established Community Facilities District No. I for the Page 8, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 4/28/99 elementary district and Community Facilities District No. I for the high school district to pay for new schools. Compliance with the Bastlake Trails Puhlic Facilities Financi11f: Plan The proposed Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan, which is included in the Trails SPA as Section 11.5, analyzes the impact of the Trails project and identifies the required public facilities or fees to mitigate the impacts (based upon the threshold standards in the Growth Management Ordinance). The proposed conditions of approval insure that the required public facilities are constructed, or DIF fees be paid at various stages of the overall development. The conditions of approval contained in the Draft City Council Resolution outlines more specifically the required public facilities and facilities installation timing. Staff has included a condition requiring that the Trails PFFP be amended to reflect the public facilities and installation phasing outlined in the conditions of approval. The PFFP amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration and approval at a later date. Compliance with Bastlake Gmens General Development and SPA Plan As noted above, this tentative map implements the adopted GDP and Eastlake Trails SPA and therefore, as conditioned is in substantial compliance with these regulatory documents. Compliance with Planned Community District Regulations The subdivision has been designed in accordance with the Eastlake Greens Planned Community District Regulations, which provides various residential densities and support land uses. All residential condominiums projects, small lot development and private park facilities are subject to Design Review. CONCLUSION For the reasons noted above, staff recommends approval of the project in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution. Attachments: I. Planning Commission Recommending Resolution 2. Draft City Council Resolution 3. Figuresl Tables 4 FSElR -97 -04 At1dendum 5. Disclosure Statement H\home\pla.nrung\luis\PCS-9903.RPT ~-::::. ::::--. ~, " I~ II~ -,---""---_.- II ~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR :~~~Fc~k Eastlake Company PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) PROJECT Eastlake Trails SUBDIVISION ADDRESS: Request: Proposal for Eastlake Trails Tentative Map. SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: I "NORTH No Scale PCS-99-03 J r h :\home\planning\carlos\locators\pcs9903a.cdr 4/22/99 ATTACHMENT 1 .2 I RESOLUTION NO. PCS-99-03 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-03 WHEREAS, The Eastlake Company filed a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on October 8, 1998; and, WHEREAS, said application requested approval to subdivide 322.8 acres east of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and the future alignment of Olympic Parkway into 749 single family lots and four super lots with capacity for 394 dwelling units. The tentative map also includes three open space lots, a 31-acre community park, 10-acre school site, 4.S-acre Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) site and several specialty lots (i.e. slopes and landscape buffer areas); and, WHEREAS, refined information available since completion of the Final EIR regarding the potential environmental traffic impact of the project does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 97-04 (Eastlake Trailsl Greens Replanning Program) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to said EIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State ErR Guidelines and the Environmental Review. 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 it mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., April 28, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS" the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum to FSEIR 97-04 (Eastlake Trailsl Greens Replanning Program). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 99-03 in accordance with the [mdings and subject to the conditions contained therein. .3 - ._---_._---_.~-_._._- -, --~.~---~-,---~_._---"--_..._--_.~~..._-_.~- ~-~----~-- ! BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28 day of April, 1999, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: John Willett, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary H :/home/planning/luis/PCS-9904. PCR <f ! s- ATTACHMENT 2 r DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS, CHULA VISTA TRACT 99-03 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A-I through A-5, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as Eastlake Trails Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 322.8 gross acres located on the east side of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and the future alignment of Olympic Parkway, within the Eastlake Plarmed Community ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on October 8, 1998 The Eastlake Company ("Developer") filed a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract 99-03 in order to subdivide the Project Site into seven hundred forty nine (749) residential lots; four super lots with capacity for 394 dwelling units; three (3) open space lots (OS-I through OS-3), three (3) park lots (P-I through P-3), school site (S- I); community purpose facility site (CPF); and various special lots (Le. slope lots) throughout the subdivision ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: I) a General Development Plan, Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion) General Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198 ("GDP") and amended by City Council Resolution No. 19275 on November 24, 1998; 2) the Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area Plan ("SPA"); 3) Eastlake Trails Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP); 4) Eastlake Trails Water Conservation Plan (WCP); 5) Eastlake Trails Planned Community District Regulations; 6) Eastlake Trails Design Guidelines; 7) Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 8) Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program, all previously approved by City Council Resolution No.19275, and Ordinance 2765 on November 24, 1998; 8) Eastlake III Development Agreement, approved on February 27, 1999; and 9) Eastlake I (p _._._--~._.__..- r Park Agreement, approved on August 8, 1998; 10) Escrow Agreement, approved on March 26, 1996; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on Apri128, 1999 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted ( _) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below. E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 4, 1999, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk 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, and its mailing to property owners within SOO ft. of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May 4, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Project held on April 28, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. PREVIOUS EIR-97-04 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FSEIR-97-04 (Eastlake Trails I Greens Replanning Program). IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA 4 7 ! The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed tentative subdivision map have been previously addressed by FSEIR 97-04 (Eastlake Trailsl Greens Replanning Program) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to said EIR. Refined information available since completion of the EIR regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council fmds that Addendum to FSEIR-97-04 reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to FSEIR 97-04 (Eastlake Trails/ Greens Replanning Program). VI. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.S of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council fmds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for Eastlake Trails, Chula Vista Tract No. 99-03 is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following: a. Land Use The Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan provides for Low (0-3 du/ac), Low Medium (3-6 du/ac), and Medium (6-11 du/ac) residential densities, as well as Parks (P), Open Space (OS), Public Quasi- public support (PQ) land uses for 1143 dwelling units (S.I du/ac.). The proposed subdivision incorporates a variety of lot sizes within the density range allowed by the SPA and other lots to satisfy the park dedication and Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) requirements. Thus, the Project as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake Trails SPA. b. Circulation All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan. The public streets within the Project will be designed per City design standards and/or requirements. The westerly adjoining street system was designed to handle the anticipated flow of traffic from this and other area projects. The required and anticipated off-site improvements would be 5f r designed to handle this Project and future projects in the area. c. Housin~ The Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program has been adopted and incorporated into the Eastlake Trails SPA Plan to ensure that a minimum of 10% affordable housing is provided. In addition, a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family, townhouses, condominium and various apartment densities will also be provided for persons of various incomes. d. Conservation The Environmental Impact Report FSEIR-97 -04 and Addendum addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. e. Parks and Recreation. Open Space The Eastlake Trails Tentative Subdivision Map provides a community park, community center, private swim complex and regional as well as community trails consistent with the General Plan, Eastlake II General Development plan and Eastlake Trails goals and objectives. f. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. g. ~ The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services. h, ~ Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmental Impact Report FSEIR-97-04 and Addendum adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan. The project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA for all outside private patio areas. i. Scenic Hi~hway The project site is located adjacent to designated scenic highways (Olympic Parkway and Otay Lakes Road). An average 75' wide landscaped open 6 7 r- space buffer and a decorative wall will be provided along these two edges and extended along Hunte Parkway. j, Bicycle Routes Bicycle lanes have been incorporated within the Eastlake Trails design and will be connected to the existing Eastlake Greens SPA bicycle lane system. In addition, the public streets within the project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle travel within the interior of the subdivision. k. Public Buildi~s No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits. B. 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. C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum setting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Project Site is Improved with Project Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03 and FSEIR-97-04 and Addendum, except as modified by this Resolution. B. Implement Mitigation Measures Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation 7 10 measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails, FSEIR-97-04 and Addendum. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the FSEIR and Addendum. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project Unless otherwise conditioned, comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative Map, of: I) The Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP); 2) Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 3) Eastlake Trails Plarmed Community District Regulations; 4) Eastlake Trails Design Guidelines; 5) Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan; 6) Eastlake Trails Water Conservation Plan; 7) Eastlake Trails Air Quality Improvement Plan; 8) Eastlake Trails Sub-area Water Master Plan; and 9) Eastlake Trails Waste Water Master Plan, all approved by the Council on November 24, 1999, Resolution No. 19275 ("Plans"), prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. As an alternative, the Developer shall entered into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures as the City may require. Also assuring that, after approval of the Final Map, the developer will continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such Plans, The Developer shall also agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the condition. D, Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista, The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. E. Design Approval The Developer shall develop the lots in accordance with the Eastlake Trails Plarmed Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines and all single family lots less than 8 (I 5,000 sq, ft shall be submitted for review and approval under the City's Design Review process prior to submittal for building permits. VIII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following conditions of approval are based on two Final Maps or development phases, which are hereinafter referred to as "Initial Phase" and the "Remaining Phase." Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of the Initial Phase First Final Map, STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS I, Provide security in accordance with Chapter 18.16 of the Municipal Code and dedicate; and construct full street improvements for all public streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site, as required for each phase in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer. All streets shall conform to the City's Street Design Standards Policy adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15349 unless otherwise conditioned or approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 2. Construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure the full street improvements or remaining street improvements outlined in Table A below. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment and design of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. TABLE A STREET IMPROVEMENTS FACIUTY FACILITYI NO. STREET NAME LIMITS AGREE TO CONSTRUCT AND GUARANTEE CONSTRUCTION BY Clubhouse Drive Hunte Parkway to Street" A" First Final Map Initial Phase 2 Clubhouse Drive Street" A" to easterly terminus with Street "B" First Final Map Initial Phase 9 /J.. j - 3 Hunte Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse Drive First Final Map Parkway Remaining Phase 4 Hunte Clubhouse Drive to Oak Springs Drive First Final Map Parkway Initial Phase 5 Hunte Oak Springs Drive to Olympic Parkway First Final Map Parkway Initial Phase 6 Olympic SR-I25 to Hunte Parkway First Final Map Parkway Initial Phase 7 Olympic Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road Under construction. Completion date February 2001 Parkway 8 Otay Lakes Hunte Parkway to easterly subdivision boundary First Final Map Road Remaining Phase 9 Street "A" Clubhouse Drive to Street "L" First Final Map Initial Phase 10 Street "L" Hunte Parkway to Street "A" First Final Map Initial Phase a. FACILITY NO. I Construct Clubhouse Drive to the designed full-width street improvements, as approved by the City Engineer, and include an 8' meandering decomposed granite walkway on the north side of the street and an 8' meandering concrete walkway on the south side of the street. The timing for completion of improvement construction shall be prior to the opening of the proposed Eastlake Trails elementary school site which is scheduled to open the first quarter of the Year 2000. (Engineering) b, FACILITY NO.2 Construct Clubhouse Drive to the designed full-width street improvements, as approved by the City Engineer, and include an 8' meandering decomposed granite walkway on the north side of the street and an 8' meandering concrete walkway on south side of the street. (Engineering) c. FACILITY NO.3 Construct the missing street improvements along Hunte Parkway from Otay Lakes Road to Clubhouse Drive. The missing street improvements shall include the necessary grading and construction required to provide for an 8' wide meandering concrete walkway on the eastern side of Hunte Parkway and any other street improvements determined to be necessary by the City Engineer. Any additional street right-of-way required to complete said improvements shall be granted to the City prior to approval of the Initial Phase first Final Map, (Engineering) d. FACILITY NO, 4 Construct the missing street improvements along Hunte Parkway from Clubhouse Drive to Oak Springs Drive, The missing street improvements shall include the necessary grading and construction required to provide for an 8' wide meandering 10 (3 concrete walkway on the eastern side of Hunte Parkway and any other street improvements determined to be necessary by the City Engineer. Any additional street right-of-way required to complete said improvements shall be granted to the City prior to approval of the Initial Phase first final map. The timing for completion of improvement construction shall be prior to the opening of the Eastlake Trails elementary school site which is scheduled to open the first quarter of the Year 2000, (Engineering) e, FACILITY NO.5 Construct the full-width street improvements for Hunte Parkway from Oak Springs Drive to Olympic Parkway. Improvement plans for the subject portion of Hunte Parkway have been submitted and approved by the City, The City of Chula Vista drawing numbers corresponding to the street improvements are 90-1030 through 90- 1037 and 91-44 through 91-57. The bonds for material and labor and faithful performance for the two sets of drawings were posted by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and the bond numbers corresponding to the two sets of drawings are 158541802 (July 23, 1998) and 158541783 (July 23, 1998), respectively. (Engineering) f. FACILITY NO.6 Construction of Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to Hunte Parkway shall commence within twelve months of the completion of construction phase I, II and III of Olympic Parkway, or by March I, 2002, whichever occurs later. The City may, upon written request by the Developer, use its power of eminent domain to acquire the right of way for Olympic Parkway outside the EastLake property ownership. The developer has entered into an agreement with the City, dated May 26, 1998, whereby the Developer agreed to construct the ultimate full-width street improvements for Olympic Parkway (East Orange Avenue) from Hunte Parkway to the westerly subdivision boundary of the EastLake Greens subdivision. Construction security for material and labor and faithful performance for said street improvements was posted by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania on May 21, 1998 and the bond number issued to the securities is 158541752. An approved set of improvement plans for the subject ultimate street improvements does not currently exist, however, approval of such plans is anticipated in the near future. Due to the absence of approved plans, a contingency factor of 50% was added to the estimated cost of the subject street improvements and this contingency was acconnted for in the posted bond amount. (Engineering) g. FACILITY NO.7 Olympic Parkway was initially designed, as an interim condition, to be a 4-lane roadway from Hunte Parkway to Wueste Road. Construction security for material and labor and faithful performance for the 4-lane improvements was posted by 11 (<{ ----" American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania on July 23, 1998 and a Construction Permit for the improvement work of the interim condition was issued on November 6,1998. The City ofChula Vista drawing numbers corresponding to said securities and Construction Permit are 91-44 through 91-57 and the bond number issued to the securities is 158541783. Subsequent to the interim 4-lane roadway design approval, but prior to commencement of any 4-lane improvement work, a Construction Change was performed on the aforementioned drawings that resulted in the ultimate design of Olympic Parkway as a 6-lane prime arterial. The additional costs associated with constructing the 6-lane roadway was secured separately by the same surety company on February 4,1999. The bond number corresponding to the material and labor and faithful performance of the additional improvement work is 158541878. It is anticipated that a Construction Permit for the 6-lane improvement work will be issued in the near future. Any right-of-way needed to construct this portion of Olympic Parkway shall be granted to the City on the first Final Map of the Initial Phase. The meandering decomposed granite walkway proposed along the frontage of the Eastlake Trails southern boundary (northern side of the Olympic Parkway centerline) shall be 10' wide. (Engineering) h, FACILITY NO.8 Construct Otay Lakes Road as a full-width six lane prime arterial along the entire frontage of the Eastlake Trails northern subdivision boundary with transitions to the existing roadway easterly of the eastern subdivision boundary. All off-site and on- site right-of-way needed to construct the eastbound transition and the ultimate street improvements, respectively, shall be granted prior to approval of the Remaining Phase first Final Map. The schedule for construction of the above improvements shall be determined or approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the aforementioned final map. The proposed meandering sidewalk along the Eastlake Trails northern boundary (south side ofOtay Lakes Road) shall be concrete and 8' wide. The construction of the proposed sidewalk on the north side of Otay Lakes Road (along the limits of the subdivision boundary) shall be deferred until development occurs along the north frontage of Otay Lakes Road. (Engineering) 1. FACILITY NO.9 Construct Street "A" to the designed full-width street improvements as approved by the City Engineer. The timing for completion of improvement construction shall be prior to the opening of the proposed Eastlake Trails elementary school site, which is 12 (~ scheduled to open the first quarter of the Year 2000. (Engineering) J, FACILITY NO. 10 Construct Street "L" to the designed full-width street improvements as approved by the City Engineer. The timing for completion of improvement construction shall be prior to the opening of the proposed Eastlake Trails elementary school site, which is scheduled to open the first quarter of the Year 2000, (Engineering) 3. Provide traffic control devices, as required by the City Engineer, for the roundabout Street "MM." (Engineering) 4. Design all cul-de-sacs proposed to be a maximum of 150' in length to have a minimum curbline radius of 36' and a minimum right-of-way radius of 46'. The 5.50' Street Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement shall be granted throughout the cul-de-sac. (Engineering) 5. Design, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Street "GG," Court "D" and Court "E" to preclude on-street parking on one side. (Engineering) 6. Submit and obtain approval from the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer for all street names, No two intersections shall have the same street name and street name suffixes shall comply with City standards. (Engineering, Planning) 7. Provide, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire Chief, adequate pedestrian/vehicular street improvements for access to the school site prior to the opening of the Eastlake Trails elementary school, which is scheduled to open the first quarter of the Year 2000. The improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. All signs and markings related to the proposed elementary school. b. Pedestrian crossings across Hunte Parkway at King Creek Way, Oak Springs Drive and Clubhouse Drive. c. Concrete sidewalks along entire perimeter of the elementary school site, d. Paved roadways along the entire perimeter of the proposed elementary school site to allow for two-way traffic and comply with the Fire and Police Department requirements. (Engineering) 8. Obtain approval from the City Engineer for street light locations. (Engineering) 9, Construct sidewalk widths and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA) and City standards. (Engineering) 13 ((, 10, Obtain approval from the City Engineer for the design and construction of raised medians on Otay Lakes Road, Clubhouse Drive, King Creek Way and Oak Springs Drive in conjunction with improvement plans for each of these streets. (Engineering) 11. Provide a letter from the Otay Water District indicating that the subdivision will be provided with adequate water service and long term water storage facilities, (Engineering, Planning) 12. Design and construct all street intersections that are at or near horizontal and vertical curves to meet the sight distance requirements prescribed in the City standards, (Engineering) 13. Provide minimum 5' wide bicycle lanes on the following streets: a. Oak Springs Drive - from Hunte Parkway to Street "A". b, King Creek Way - from Hunte Parkway to Street "BB" /Street "CC", c. Clubhouse Drive - from Hunte Parkway to easterly terminus at Street "B". (Engineering) 14. Acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of-way necessary for the installation of required street improvements for the affected phase prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map,- (Engineering) 15. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to City Council consideration of the affected Final Map, if off-site right-of-way carmot be obtained as required above (On1y 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 and prior to the approval of the affected Final Map, the developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Tentative Map conditions of approval. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. The amount of the deposit is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. c. Prepare and submit all easement and/or right-of-way documents, plats and appraisals necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. If the developer so requests, the City may use its power of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to 14 (7 the tentative map, The developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. If the City does not acquire or commence proceedings for immediate possession of the property within the 120 day time limitation specified in Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act, the condition to construct the related off-site improvements, which fall under the purview of the above mentioned Section of the Subdivision Map Act, is waived. (Engineering) 16. Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, as determined necessary by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end of temporarily stubbed streets greater than 150 ft. in length (as measured from the nearest centerline intersection).- (Engineering) 17. Provide an interim eastbound deceleration lane along Otay Lakes Road for the entrance to park site (P-3) concurrent with the completion of P-3 if the ultimate south half street improvements for Otay Lakes Road are not completed at that time. (Engineering, Planning) 18, Provide interim traffic control devices, as required by the City Engineer, to detour pedestrian traffic to the nearest street crossing if a signalized pedestrian crossing is not available when the greenbelt trail is completed and connected to Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway.- (Engineering, Planning) 19. Design and construct, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the existing street center lines, travel lanes, striping and curb lines of North Greensview Drive, South Greensview Drive and Clubhouse Drive within Eastlake Greens to align with King Creek Way, Oak Springs Drive and the extension of Clubhouse Drive within the Eastlake Trails subdivision, respectively .11 (Engineering) 20. Design and construct the lane reduction transitions along Clubhouse Drive, King Creek Way and Oak Springs Drive within Eastlake Trails to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, (Engineering) 21. Install, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer ,street lights on traffic signal poles at the intersections of Hunte Parkway with Clubhouse Drive, King Creek Way and Oak Springs Drive. If traffic signals are not required at these intersections, install standard street lighting fixtures. (Engineering) 15 (I' 22. Design and construct underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards at the locations determined by the City Engineer, (Engineering) GRADING AND DRAINAGE 23. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets.!;(Engineering) 24. Accomplish storm drain design on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (#1797 as amended).I!;(Engineering) 25. Provide graded access to all storm drain clean outs or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer .11' (Engineering) 26. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer. (Engineering) 27. Designate on the plans as private, to the point of connection with the public system, all storm drain systems that collect water from private property. (Engineering) 28. Design and construct storm drain cleanouts to not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipmenu,!(Engineering) 29. Designate as private and maintain by a Home Owner's Association the storm drain between lots 117 and 118 in neighborhood TN-3. Include in the CC&R's conditions and restrictions to assure proper maintenance,!;i(Engineering) 30. Design and construct all public storm drains as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering) 31. Designate as private and maintain by a Home Owner's Association all storm drain clean outs carrying private property water and determined by the City to be in areas inaccessible for maintenance equipment, Include in the CC&R's conditions and restrictions to assure proper maintenance. (Engineering) 32. Design and construct brow ditches to not flow over a slope greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than a 3: 1. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried to the bottom of the slope in an underground storm drain.!! (Engineering) 16 (9 33, Provide runoff detention facilities or demonstrate the adequacy of existing detention facilities, to be approved by the City Engineer, to assure that the maximum allowable discharges after development do not exceed pre-development discharges. The developer also needs to provide for the future maintenance of the facilities via the landscaping maintenance district. (Engineering) 34, Design and construct local storm drain system to prevent discharge into the proposed private park lake (lot P-2). (Engineering) 35. Provide energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities .m! (Engineering) 36, Request, if necessary, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for the area influenced by the Eastlake Trails project. A revision may be warranted for the project area due to improvements to Salt Creek and the possibility of proposed residential units for the project currently being shown within a flood zone. (Engineering) 37. Design and construct the improved access extending easterly from lot P-2 to the easterly subdivision boundary so that access is not impeded for pedestrians and vehicles due to upstream runoff. Potential solutions may include a bridge over the creek or an adequately sized drainage pipe under the improved access or any other solution satisfactory to the City Engineer. (Engineering) 38. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans.- (Engineering, Planning) 39. Submit a detailed mitigation plan, prior to issuance of grading permits, for the creation and enhancement of riparian vegetation within the Salt Creek Corridor. The plan will be subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building. The mitigation plan shall include components addressing performance standards, maintenance requirements (e.g, pest control, weeding, and plant replacement), monitoring and report preparation. The wetland mitigation area shall be maintained in accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Plan. (Planning/ Environmental) 40. Provide a minimum of 3 feet of flat ground access area from the face of any wall to the beginning of the slope rounding for wall maintenance, unless as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.!!!i!(Engineering) 41, Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as approved by the City Engineer. Lots shall 17 02.0 be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property.1iI11 (Engineering, Planning) 42. Design and construct all grading and pad elevations to be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building.1iI1 (Engineering, Planning) 43. Obtain notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work requiring said off-site grading. (Engineering) 44. Submit a list of proposed lots, prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map, indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations prior to approval of the first Final Map.!!(Engineering) 45. Design and construct the inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope to not be steeper than 2: I ( two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defined. All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both geological and soil properties, A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5: I) contingent upon: a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and engineering geologist to certify that in their professional opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons or property, and b, The installation of an approved special slope planting program and irrigation system, c. A "Minor Slope" is defmed as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical dimension in either cut or fill, between single family lots and not parallel to any roadway. (Engineering) 46. Enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City is held harmless from any liability from erosion, siltation or increase in flow of drainage resulting from this project. (Engineering, Planning) SEWER 18 DL( 47, Design all sewer access points (manholes) to be located at street centerline or at the center of a travel lane or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer, (Engineering) 48. Provide a sewer profile study for all deep "Local" and "Trunk" sewer lines (15' in depth or greater) which indicates that no other feasible alternative exists except for deep sewer lines. If the profile study is approved by the City Engineer, the deep sewer lines will be permitted for construction, (Engineering) 49. Install parallel sewer lines for sewer lines greater than 15 feet in depth if lateral lines are to be connected to these lines unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. For sewer lines greater than 20' in depth, C900 P.V.C. shall be used from manhole to manhole. (Engineering) 50. Submit a letter of credit, prior to recordation of the subdivision Final Map for said lot, for all sanitary sewer facilities required for development of any lot subject to Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF. (Engineering) 51. Pay in full, prior to recordation of the subdivision Final Map for said lot, all sanitary sewer facilities required for development of any lot subject to Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF, (Engineering) 52. Provide improved access to all sewer manholes to withstand H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.I' (Engineering) 53. Design and construct sewer access points to not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment.:!j!' (Engineering) 54. Provide sewer manholes at all changes of alignment of grade, Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. (Engineering) 55. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a manhole placed at the center of the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer ;11 (Engineering) 56. Provide for the costs associated with the maintenance and the potential upgrading of the sewer pump station located at 2660 Otay Lakes Road in accordance with the agreement between the City, Pacific Bay Homes and The Eastlake Company, dated January 20, 1998. (Engineering) AGREEMENTS 19 cJo"l 57. Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur: a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached. b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities andlor services exceed the adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. (Engineering, Planning) 58, Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers 1 or employees, to attack, set aside, void or armul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. (Engineering, Planning) 59, Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.J(Engineering, Planning) 60. Developer agrees to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of the drainage channel in Salt Creek or for the maintenance of landscaped medians, open space, and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subdivision.ii(Engineering, Planning) 61. Agree to reserve lot 8-1 (school site) for school purposes to be offered for dedication in fee 20 ..2.3 to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, in accordance with a schedule as indicated in a Mello Roos community purpose facility district, as approved by the school district, which shall be established to the satisfaction of the District. (Planning) 62. Agree to provide noise study prior to issuance of the Initial Phase first building permit to identify noise impacts generated by surrounding streets and determine the necessary mitigation measures to insure that all dwelling units will be design and constructed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise impacts, (Planning) 63. Agree to participate in a regional or sub-regional multi-species coastal sage scrub conservation plan prior to approval of the Initial Phase first Final Map. (Planning) 64, Enter into an agreement with the City to provide affordable housing units as specified in the adopted Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program prior to approval of the first Final Map, (Community Development) OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 65. Grant Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IOD) on the Final Map for Open Space lots within the subdivision. (Engineering) 66. Either a Home Owner's Association (HOA) or a Community Facilities District shall maintain street medians and enviromnental open space lots, If the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) is selected for the maintenance of street medians andl or enviromnental open space lots (OS-I), Developer shall request that the City form a Community Facilities District, prior to approval of the fIrst Final Map of the Initial phase, and submit an application packet for the formation of said The Packet shall include, but is not limited to, associated diagrams, cost estimate, description of work and a deposit in the amount determined by the City Engineer at the time of submittal for processing the formation of the Community Facilities District. If the HOA is formed to provide maintenance to the enviromnentallot OS-l and other lots, structure the HOA maintenance program, including maintenance crew qualifications and other contractual arrangements to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. (Engineering, Planning) 67. Pay for all costs associated with the preparation of an Engineer's Report and establishment of a Community Facilities District / Open Space Maintenance District for the maintenance of all open spaces which will not be maintained by private property owners or a Home Owner's Association,ii::(Engineering, Planning) 21 .:2'( 68, Provide a plan for the City's approval that includes the acreage, landscaping code for each open space area, the proposed means of maintaining the area and the cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of maintaining improvements within CFD maintained open space lots,ii(Engineering, Planning) 69, Conform to the design elements of the City's Landscape Manual for all landscaping which falls within the maintenance responsibility of the Community Facilities District. (Engineering, Planning) 70, Establish a Home Owner's Association (HOA) to provide for the perpetual maintenance of, but not limited to, private open space lots, slope areas, landscape and irrigation, including perimeter wall within open space lots, public street improvements and medians and parkways on Clubhouse Drive, King Creek Way and Oak Springs Drive prior to the approval of the associated Final Map. (Engineering, Planning) 71. Maintain all decomposed granite (D. G.) walkways by a Home Owner's Association or CFD. All proposed decomposed granite (D,G,) walkways including, but not limited to, the walkways proposed along the north side of Clubhouse Drive and north of Olympic Parkway, shall not have vertical obstacles and obstructions such as public utility vaults, boxes, etc. constructed within them.li(Engineering, Planning) 72, Provide proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building that all improvements located on open space lots will be incorporated into and maintained by a Home Owner's Association or a CFD. The final determination of which open space areaslimprovements to be included in the Community Facilities District and those to be maintained by a Home Owner's Association shall be made during the CFD formation proceedings.iiI(Engineering, Planning);, 73. Enter into a maintenance agreement and grant easements as necessary for landscaping maintained by a Home Owner's Association within City right-of-way or such other areas required by the City. (Engineering, Planning) 74. Avoid installation of 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 22 c..2~ 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. 4. 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. (Engineering, Planning) 75, Pay all costs associated with apportiomnent of assessments for all City assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary prior to approval of the each Final Map. Submit an apportiomnent form and provide a deposit as determined by and to the City to cover costs .Ii (Engineering) 76. Prepare a disclosure form to be signed by the home buyer acknowledging that additional fees have been paid into the Assessment District or the Transportation DIF Fund, and that these additional fees are reflected in the purchase price of the home for those units, should the development have a density change from that indicated in the Assessment District Engineer's Report. (Engineering) 77, Submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure forms for each model size or EDU for the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 78, Comply with the terms and conditions of the Acquisition/Financing Agreement for Assessment District 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by Council Resolution 17483 as said terms and conditions may be applicable to this development. (Engineering) 79, Design and construct all of the utilities that service open space within the limits of the open space or dedicated City right-of-way, (Engineering). 80. Agree that walls which are located within open space shall have owners of adjoining lots sign a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the wall is on Open Space property and that they may not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto Open Space property. These restrictions shall be reflected in the project CC&Rs, and a copy of said restrictions shall be provided to the City for its approval. 23 02~ (Engineering, Planning) 81. Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit for the Project, enter into the City's standard three party Agreement with the City of Chula Vista and a landscape architecture consulting firm for the preparation and processing of the Project's Community Park Master Plan (P-I & P-3.). (Planning) 82, Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit for the Project, prepare, submit and obtain the approval from the Director of Planning and Building for the Project's Community Park Master Plan (P-I and P-3.) The Community Park Master Plan shall include facilities and amenities prescribed in the forthcoming City-wide Parks Master Plan as adopted by City Council. In the event that the forthcoming City-wide Parks Master Plan is not adopted before the community park design begins, the Director of Planning and Building shall determine the appropriate park facilities for the community park. (Planning) 83. Design, construct and dedicate park facilities as prescribed in the following park development phasing program: a. Obtain the necessary City approvals and complete park master plan construction documents prior to approval of the 600th building permit. b. Select contractors, as approved by the Director of Planning and Building, and begin grading and construction of the community park, including all facilities and amenities, prior to the issuance of the 650th building permit. c. All improvements to the community park, as defined by the Approved construction documents, shall be completed to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Planning and Building prior to the issuance of the 780th building permit. d. Provide maintenance of the completed community park for a period of one-year from the completion of the park to acceptance ofthe facility by the City. e, Final alignment, design (including signs), width and construction specifications for the greenbelt trail along the east edge ofthe Salt Creek open space corridor shall be approved by the Planning and Building Director in conjunction with and subject to the development phasing of the overall community park design. f, The Director of Planning and Building may, at his discretion, delay the park development phasing and construction sequence should conditions change to warrant such delay, If, in the opinion of the City, delay is caused by the City, the Developer may be allowed to delay construction of the park. (Planning) 24 .:27 84. Prior to approval of the first Final Map of the Initial phase, prepare, submit and obtain approval ITom the Design Review Committee for the private park (P-2) design and complete construction prior to issuance of the 150th building permit. (Planning! Parks) 85. Prepare, submit and obtain the approval of the Director of Planning and Building for a comprehensive Landscape Master Plan for the Project. (Planning/Parks) 86, Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building for detailed landscape and irrigation plans, including water management guidelines in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Section IIA, Design Guidelines, of the Eastlake Trails SPA for the associated landscaped areas in each Final Map prior to the approval of each Final Map. If Poplus species trees are incorporated in the Eastlake Trails Landscape theme, appropriate installation methods acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building shall be prescribed in the landscape improvement plans, (Planning/ Parks) 87. Construct -pedestrian walkway connections between streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building at the following locations: a. From the cul-de-sac ends on Streets "GG" and "HH" through open space lot C to Clubhouse drive, b. From the cul-de-sac ends on Streets "K" and "J" through open space lot F to Clubhouse drive. c. From street "MM" through open space lot E to Street "LL" Approval shall be documented prior to the approval of the corresponding Final Maps. (Planning) 88. Include in the Grading plans for the Project's Community Park an inventory of all existing trees to be retained and those to be removed prior to issuance of grading permits involving the community park site, Final decision as to which trees are to be retained and which are to be removed shall be made by the Director of Planning and Building, and in conjunction with the Community Park Master Plan. (Planning) 89. Relocate at Developer's own expense, the necessary above and underground utilities serving individual homes to accommodate the required street trees within the street tree planting easement if determined necessary by the City. (Planning) 90. Pay the land acquisition portion of the PAD fee for the Initial Phase of the Eastlake Trails subdivision, which consists of 626 dwelling units, prior to the recordation of the fIrst fmal map for the Initial Phase (approximately $1,315,530). Developer also shall pay the Eastlake III Development Agreement advance PAD fee of $1,522,000 (Adjusted by ENR index from the effective day of the Agreement to the time of payment) prior to the 25 .Jf' recordation of the fIrst fmal map for the Initial Phase. The land acquisition portion of the PAD fee ($1,315,530) shall be decreased so that the sum of the park land acquisition portion of the PAD fee and the advance PAD fee stipulated in the above mentioned Eastlake III Development Agreement, does not exceed the total PAD fees required for the number of units in the Initial Phase, However, the applicant may elect to make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the community park parcels P-I and P-3 as depicted in the tentative map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03, in lieu of the above park land acquisition fee stipulated above. (Planning)ml:'! EASEMENTS 91. Grant on the corresponding Final Map minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista, as required by the City Engineer, for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities. (Engineering) 92. Grant on the corresponding Final Map minimum 15' wide easements to the City of Chula Vista, as required by the City Engineer, for construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities. (Engineering) 93. Grant on the corresponding Final Map 10' wide general utility easements, as required by the City Engineer, along street right-of-way adjacent to open space lots, (Engineering) 94. Grant easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of any Final Map requiring those facilities. The easements shall be the size as required by City standards unless otherwise approved.:,!! (Engineering) 95. Grant 20' landscape buffer easements adjacent to Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway. (Engineering) 96. Grant to the City on the corresponding Final Map easements along all public streets within the subdivision as shown on the tentative map and in accordance with City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, (Engineering, Planning) 97. Dedicate for public use all the streets shown on the subject tentative map within the subdivision boundary, except private streets.,,:'! (Engineering) 98. Grant to the City a drainage and access easement, as determined by the City Engineer, across the proposed private access that connects lot P-2 (private Park) to the easterly subdivision boundary, (Engineering) 26 <>2'7' MISCELLANEOUS 99. A summary of City responses to each of applicants waiver requests from City standards is contained within the following Table I, which includes the "Approved" or "Not Approved" status of each waiver. The summary descriptions for each waiver within Table I are brief and the approved Tentative Map should be consulted for more complete descriptions of the waiver requests. WAIVER NO. 5b TABLE I: TENTATIVE MAP WAIVERS BRIEF DESCRIPTION Decrease minimum centerline radius on Street "MM" from 200' to 126'. 2 Construct a 2% superelevation on Street "MM" with a 45' width R.O.W., a 28' curb to curb width and design as one-way. 3 Decrease the minimum R.O.W. width on Street "GG" and Courts "D" and "E" from 56' to 52', 4 Decrease the minimum curbline radius from 40' to 36' for cul-de-sacs 150' in length or less. Sa Increase the required 5.5' wide "Landscape Easement" on Clubhouse Drive to 22' in width. Delete 5.5' "Landscape Easement" for Street "B" from approximately Street "CC" to Street "G" on the side adjacent to P-I and for Street "BB" from approximately Street "CC" to Street "G" on the side adjacent to P-l. 5c Increase "Landscape Easement" inclination from 5:1 to 2:1 for the following comer lots which have adjacent streets lower than the pads: TS2 - Lots 6, 45 TS3 - Lots 7, 9, 41, 44, 53, 75, 76, 97,107,121,130,146,153,154 TS4 - Lots 35, 49 TS5 - Lots 1, 7, 8, 14,22,23, 30, 37, 38, 69, 70, 89, 90, 96 TS6 - Lots 6, 47, 71 TN3 - Lots 21,29,55,56,58,80,93, 101, [[3 6 Less than Standard 35' Lot Frontage for: TS-5: Lots 1, 7, 8,14,15,23,37,38,52,62,64,65,70,77,80,81,82, 89,90,96,97 and 103. TS-6: Lots 6, 10 aod 11. 7a "Local" sewer exceeds 12' in depth. 7b "Trunk" sewer exceeds 20' in depth. 27 dt; STATUS * Approved *Approved * Approved * Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Approved Approved COMMENTS None None On-street parking will only be allowed on one side of the street to be determined by the City Engineer. None None None None None May be approved by City Engineer at the time that improvement plans are submitted for approval C900 P.V.C. will be used from manhole to manhole. 8a Replace standard 8' meandering concrete sidewalk on Otay Lakes Road to a Not None 10' meandering D.G. walkway. Approved 8b 8' meandering D.G. walkways on N. side of Clubhouse Dr. and E. side of Approved None "B"I"SB" Streets and 10' meandering D.G. Walkway on N. Side of Olympic Parkway. 9 Medians on Clubhouse Dr., King Creek Way and Oak Springs Dr. Approved None 10 Street intersections within horizontal curves or within 100' tangents of "'Approved None horizontal curves. 11 Sewer Laterals Deeper Than 15' in Depth. Not May be approved by City Approved Engineer at the time that improvement plans are submitted for approval 12 Slope Rounding and Bench Per Detail on Tentative Map and 3' Bench with Approved None No Slope Rounding at Slopes North of Oak Springs Dr. and North of Olympic Parkway. 13 Maximum height from top of wood fence to top of wall footing is 8.5' if on Approved None property line. If greater than 8.5', a 4' separation between wood fence and wall is required. The following lots are exceptions: TS2-1O. TS3-121, TS6-5 and 46. · The City's approval of the waiver request is coutiugeut upon suhmittal of a letter from applicants Engineer-of- Work explaining that, in their professional opinion, no public safety issues will be compromised. (Engineering, Planning) 100, Submit "as-built" improvement and grading plans as required by the City Subdivision Manual. Additionally, provide the City said plans in a digital D.X,F, file format. (Engineering) 101. Submit a copy of each subdivision in a digital D.X,F. file format prior to approval of its associated Final Map or as requested by the City Engineer, The digital file shall be based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and the NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System. The digital file shall specifically include each of the following items in a separate drawing layer: a. Lot Boundaries, b, Lot Numbers, c. Subdivision Boundary, d, Right-of-Way, e. Street Centerlines, and f, Approved Street Names. Submit the digital file in accordance with City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 1/2" disks or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In addition, submit as-built grading 28 3( and improvement plans in a digital D.X.F. file format. Provide security to guarantee the ultimate submittal of grading and improvement digital files, Update electronic files after any construction pen and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and resubmit to the City. (Engineering) 102. Amend the Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) prior to approval of the fIrst fInal map of the Remaining phase to reflect the revised construction schedule for all off-site street improvements, including omong other necessary revisions, but not limited to, the segment of Olympic Parkway from SR-125 to Hunte Parkway. (Planning) 103. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System - Zone VI (1983). (Engineering) 104. Include in the H,O.A. CC&R's that the maintenance of all public facilities and improvements within open space areas and R,O,W. are managed by Home Owner's Association if, in fact, the H.O,A. has such responsibility. Submit to and gain approval of said CC&R's by the Director of PI arming prior to approval of the associated Final Map. (Planning) 105, Include in the Declaration of Covenants, conditions and restricting provisions assuring maintenance of private facilities including the private streets, sewer and drainage systems the maintenance of all public facilities and improvements within open space areas and R.O.W. Name the City ofChula Vista as party to said Declarations authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions in the Declarations in the same marmer as any owner within the subdivision, (Engineering Planning) 106, Future property owners shall be notified during escrow by a document to be initialized by the owners, and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building of the maintenance responsibility of the H.O,A, and their estimated annual cost, (Engineering, Planning) 107. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer the Proposed CC&R's for the subdivision prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. (Engineering Planning) 108, Modify the Eastlake Trails Water Conservation Plan to incorporate all new water conservation policies adopted by the City Council. Comply and remain in compliance with said policies. (Planning) 109, The installation of transit facilities along Hunte Parkway shall be concurrent with transit service availability. Since this may not coincide with project development, the Developer shall deposit cash in the amount of eight thousand Dollars ($8,000,00) per shelter (3 29 3J.. shelters) required by the City's Transit Coordinator. Exact location, bus shelter design, lighting, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to bus shelter installation. (Engineering/ Transit Coordinator) 110. Prior to approval of the first Final Map in the Eastlake Trails, submit the necessary Planning application to incorporate the Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program and Eastlake Community Purpose Facilities Master Plan, as adopted by City Council Resolution 19275 in the Eastlake III General Development Plan and SPA. (Planning) III, The Developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer, The property owner may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of the development and the construction of improvements affected. In such cases, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the Director of Planning and Building. (Engineering and Planning). 112. Provide the City with a copy of the disclosure to homeowners of cost associated with Mello-Roos assessment and open space districts as require by Ordinance 2275, prior to approval of the first Final Map, (Planning) 113. Submit and obtain Design Review approval for neighborhoods TS-4, TS-5, and TS-6 prior to approval of the Final Map containing these neighborhoods. The following minimum lot dimension and lot area are established for these neighborhoods. Minor deviations may be made during the Design Review process provided the minimum standards are maintained as an average: TS-4 TS-5 TS-6 Min. lot width: 50 ft. 45 ft. 50 ft. Min. lot depth: 90 ft. 90 ft 55 ft. Min. lot area 4,500 sq. ft. 3,150 sq. ft. 2,750 sq. ft. Cul-de-sac lot 35 ft 35 ft. N/A width (Planning) 114. Contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a ITequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final residence, in 30 3.3 each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. The developer shall also provide the City Conservation Coordinator with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service. The memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. (Engineering/ Conservation Coordinator) 115, Provide the Initial Cycle offrre management! brush clearance within lots adjacent to natural open space areas subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and Director of Planning and Building. (Fire) 116. Install fire hydrants every 500 ft. for single family residential units and every 300 ft. for multi-family residential units. Install and make operable the hydrants and 20' fire access roads prior to delivery of combustible building materials. (Fire) 117. Submit to the Planning and Building, and Engineering Departments service availability letter ITom the Otay Water District prior to approval of each Final Map. (Planning and Engineering) 118, Install potable and recycled water infrastructure improvements as prescribed in the Eastlake Trails Sub- area Water Master Plan prepared by John Powell and Associates, September, 1998, including but not limited to the following improvements: a. Provide a letter from OWD confirming that upon completion of the potable and recycled water infrastructure facilities, the Developer shall dedicate the improvements to the Otay Water District. b, Extend the existing potable and recycled water mains in Hunte Parkway south to Olympic Parkway, and construct mains in Olympic Parkway from Hunte parkway to the Olympic Training Center. c. Remove the temporary 12" pipeline that crosses the Eastlake Trails project after the water lines prescribed in the Sub-area Water Master Plan are installed, (Engineering) 119. Prepare and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building for a detailed mitigation plan for the creation and enhancement of riparian vegetation within the Salt Creek Corridor. The mitigation plan shall include components addressing performance standards, maintenance requirements (e.g. pest control, weeding and plant replacement), monitoring and report preparation, perimeter fencing, signage and a sales disclosure document advising home buyers that OS-I is a protected environmental preserve lot. (Planning) 31 3'1 120. Obtain State Department of Fish & Game (1603 Stream bed Alteration Agreement) and Federal (Section 404 Clean Water Act) permits prior to approval of grading permit for the Initial Phase. (Planning/ Environmental) CODE REQUIREMENTS 121. 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. (Engineering, Planning) 122, Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, (Engineering) 123. Pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including, but not limited to, the following: Prior to issuance of the first building permit: a, The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees, b, Signal Participation Fees. c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees, d. SR-125 impact fee. e. Telegraph Canyon Pump Sewer Fee. f. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Fee. (Planning, Parks & Engineering) 124, Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act, The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstration said compliance as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering, Planning) 125. Design all dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and shield all exterior private open space to limit noise exposure to 65 dBA. (Planning) 126, Comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Enviromnental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E,S,) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City ofChula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations 32 ~J or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N,P.D.E,S. General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. (Engineering) IX. 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, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy 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. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution, X. 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, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction top 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 Director of Planning and Building John M.Kaheny City Attorney H:\shared\Attorney\PCS-9903.CCR 33 3~ 31 ATTACHMENT 3 , I' · .' 'I'! · ! !i'iid" I; i, II ! PI~ Ii i 11 iI! I,dll : I !! I II i! Ii! Ii; I'n I" Ii! i' ;' · II !I' ! ii!11 ! d ,i P !!d!! !ili !:!! ! HII i ';PI!,n!nJ.,p'jil!qllll !dHI ij i II' I!li 1,','1 i,' ! I' ill; Ii ;1:,' i iill ! !: idi ! .i! II Ii ~ Ii ~~1_" 1 d ~' ,. ~ . _ Ilia 41 II ji;1 !!IHlli!!, !,i! 1,111 i,B:ill! \!!,III!I! I,'j !;I! !I! ! I!il~ I 'I. ~~)"'!i . ~ Ii - "I q~" S II "t~ I il>~ i! J . I ~ if >>!!.~. -}! h! ".1. I ~l! t '~: '.. i ,t ti I if i "' " ij III I"I II! !11~ii I; 111m!: i! !b h! I: Ii IiIlH!hll! H ~ ..... ~.... .....,~~~ t II ~ ,'Il( 1111 1l.1:i. - '1' I II f t I I .. n .,.. t . ~ t i 1 -1ijj!~~a8,li '1 ,jl HI'lliJ 1011 I It ~:: [i ID t I I I dl I II I I ! ! " i! I I' I II' I !I ! ILl" ! ,I i I !!: iill'!i'i!illl~\i!1i !q!I,'lhLilj'!,I llij ~ . "liollllllllllln: Ih ~ U~! __101 i $I i IIi;h~1 111I1\i:lj!:i 3 iI)lu~!21 .~ iiUU<<,c ~ , I~! ~g; E5 Il\IIi~ :i \:) ~ 'I i _J"'" _ __---1 - , . .. '~ t , , o ,!! I Ii, G) illlHii111H8 ~, II I I ~tl , ! I; n Ii i:l 1m ,-p, ~ I II 11111 iI! i i ~il CJ) I :$ .... ., z - 0 a: Q.,<C~~ <C a: .::::; 0< ::E~~o. w 0< > W i:!~ - ~....> I-~<< <C<C!h5 !z ...J :; 5 C? w~:5~ ~ I-CJ)~> 0.... <C 0 W j. ' il!,1 ,'.1' ,,"" Ii 'r.'~ I "II,' fhll !il"f' '131 11;1: i!. !:JIII! ,Ibl' III' " ~ ;11 ib ~ II.. ..1 ~ ~ ~ x ~ /1.% \-~ %,% i :& .z':/.' i ":-.;::::;. ,,~, _% 1'1' "III . !' 1 ,i" "I . 1,./ 1.1 I u, I", I . I '" I ., ' , !, ",I . ,1'1111 i I. i !III I 'ii' II! ,.... ;" :.:: I ill' I! 'I'" i I, :!: I" ,. II ,II ,,.,,.,,iiil,,t., I 1'1'" "Ii , 1:1111 I. ;,:,~ i!i ! I 11 i;i I ~ ii i' j I I ' I iii Ii iiI! !m~~!liiii!!~! I I:,! I ill! , 1,=1",' ip:,' ,: 'r :1 ~ I' IIhl tili :11 i jl;l! I~! ;!: I'I'!I!!'! iiiiiiii!!!miii ,i 11" P !!,i ! II!! ;'11' U i,ll,' !, Ii :1 I .. .. .. " I, I dl . ", I 'j II .a 'j'l I I~U2 I I I _I ! .. 1 _fP1 'lit k' ~ ~! -I h II\'.~. ~..j;.. . ~j~ ~I" ',' I 1.1i',',!lii. ',I'I'I'!'I'I~ I.' i II ' · ii ,- b I;,,,,~II ,. i' 'II '1 '1'1 liii~'~;~)"~~"!) :!j!IH ; I', ~I! II 1:1 ,"., " 111:"11111 I'iiiiiil N ,I Ii: Iii II ,,,s!iliiiiiliiili Ii 111m: I'I! I ~II iill I.n: !!I II ! " II!:! ~ !: 1:1 :Iii;.;; : .; !i ;~I !I Iii! iiimmmmm !ii !:t'~I! 1m ~ ~ x ~ ~ i I I ml,!;,i~1 II"~ I ~ ~ _li'l "'{ ~u~ ~ . I: I: d=! II!I liilii' !:j!iI ~ '!III ,I. I" . tl !, II, U -I ! ~.I . :. 11'- I ., j all I II lit it i!;~: ~ ilii i'l I:','I! 'I, "~~~I ' I" I 1m II ,!i!!:i ! i 'Iii " I ~ 11.1 f il!! ;: I! ~mlm lilt"il. 1:1 " , r~ > ! I i ;f ~ I . 'I !! ~~ ~ I t I I I ~ j~ t~~ ~~ I- ,- ~i ~ ill'. 'I 'I , - , I H~ ~w ,- ).. " . f~ I ,a.m. ! L I I ' ~. ~ t -,i !:(:.c: ~ \: I "1 . I I I ' I !oj , ,1! plllill q; ~ ../~..., ".~i ' ,;}I..al ' , - . I I! .J w 10 I i II'i . !. Ii i;. ~i.... i1i 1----, eJ I'iiiiii; i i I . :-~I rii~! ,---- pll! . :r' ~'I ! jm ~ 1_ !1Bjl: i !C j ~ \ J ~~~):..~;.. Job :Cb ' , I I ' ~ j ~ !1!IiII~.1 ~ ! . I!/ . ~ ',' nb Frll '~~ ' ' " -- '1" ""': r ;: " ~' .: \'1- ~ ~~ p 1~ 1 I, i p il! ~ ~ 118 1 1 I . I I I I ~Hi ~ M I -.1 \ "i I @) ,., ; q ! 'pi I III ]".1"- i i i I i ~ J . ~ '...::L.-, . t 'I I i.~, i>! ~ ~ if! i, 'r: i ,1.1.; i ; ,I: ,,~ til'l i I 5 If, . 8 Nil " ~I:I~ I!' "I"", . I' ;'1: 1 ' I '--- III;I.~.~.;I -~ ---I ~i ; rib-I. lii,Oj . . ~r .' '1'1" I ~ ' bt ~ ~ i' \ . , ~! I 1'111, ! /--', I ~ HI I:! ii I B~!! .---.... :! (1) [ !!,! i i ~ ill Z , II' I , E ..I" , . I !. . ,II , I 0 , 'f' ;" ,- " t5 , '. I I I I ~ ' w (1) 1 tu I W ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Q w , ~ I 'Ii. I 't a.. .. . ! i! )1 I , ' \ I ~ ~I fI' i I \ '.... I- :f .: " i !I ~ I '0 ,I i ,; "I r 'I : 'fC' 11'111 ;1'-- 1111;1 : +---j I,h a.. "~" ii' .. ~! ill; I I!! . ~ ~) JS I ! ~ , 11 'i ~! r' 'I Pr-- '" 'i " ,i . ,i Ii- .1 Ii!~ I, . . I I I I ~o .u e . ; I irt> ~ I hk tI , , _w " ! -![~i !fl 0(1) II I f !c-. ztu 3 ~ ~ I I ti I I - ~w ,,' I . xtE ~ \I ~ WOO I. 31 ~ jl -=1= :,C0~1 .4 ~! .1 ~ ~~ hii ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ II + + . + + + . I..,. ~i... _t.,.. -~~., . _"..1 -i... ..,.1,.... _I... -i.,. ~ ~I .. '-fD . ~ G)I~ !t' ~I= '1 : III~~; ~ "'1 i $!! ..... ,~,~" . """". /1' i I II;~ ~ -"f'" -~... J JI -i.... !I ! ,II II iii<~ -,..,. .~ ~i=! ~ 'glm ! . I ill ~ Itll . . . + . . .> . . . . !lil . . '-It . . ," . :1 . . + . . . . . + . . . . + . . . . . . , + ~ II ,I !; 'I , ~ I! .; " . . + + , . , , , . ~ " _J..... -/"'" ...J..... ...!~... ..,I~,~ ..../..... _!~,. , -..... ...!.... ....1.... _!~,. ...... ",.J...., , ...-.. C{t) ! ~ ! ~'~H -"'!~i!J ' I . II t I I TI I ~ IIi!' I' : " I' . I ' , I ~ 1! ~~~11<$~~~ltttm. I II .. Ii ! itl.... ......... ..... M,.;, i~ '\ .. go 4 IItil~ ~!"!.I!II ~ .~! , ~ , ~'I .", }!tj,;;'~ !..~;n. Illiii "Pi . '" I I II "'~~~~ ~5 h ~~ U1 n f !!~ II!i ~~ , i 1:~,,~,j~i~\'iiiii!l~ I !~IIII j !Ii i! .1 ;i I: I r , .~ . , i. t , 'fJ... " I' :1:1 iO il il -=3= , H . '..! II; I Ii) I II ; ,I " I 1:, 1]'1 ~,,', ~ I ~~'iI' -- ~!! 000 j , ~ ,. I "I ~t - n-.1 i ii ~ I<! I i I I j'. 1,111 "1111.111111111 I'll '.1 III , .' I II . i I r ':; 1 ~ i. I illlllllill'lli, i, i i i " , I ' i-' ~ , " " 7 i " . I" .11" ~ IiI I S " ;,1 ~'.""I".'..'" II, " , . 'Q ,,:,; 1111 " 'I . ill ! I, I ! I 1", I ""I'I'~' . " II, - ,:,: I '! ,1,:: ~,t~!. , I : I, I+'~'" PI' 'I'"'''' 'I i~, I'~~'" " II ' ", I I ' . 1 i : 1', r : , 1"1.j ~ " . '~+I ", d ~ il! '~ ~ 1,,1 ~ ~ 'II "' ... I I~ ~ !!III'~~ II ~ ~ I. I !Ii" HI'ill' ,0' iii In, . .j rn- .. i L__.. , rn- ,I . I L___ I - . }, ~\~ In--~. 0' I , I Ln .,. . , ~'?~ ~'t'/ .~ :t-~Y ~T",,~ ..~Y.o'V\ ~~. ~7r<' \ ~.~ ) iQ ~ .~~ at, /",A/' '\( \. (1~~~~-/fCl.40 ' "/ x.. ....." .__.-~ ~,. \ \\"\ )) ..~..~ \. I :-. AI) ..~-. "'6'./ I I !>' ---. , \;:..1~~~___ I :'~to~~~ '7f; / Z^)y ~I ,~----::::.~"'-\ grodInglnSoll / ~ /,....,........r::'..,.. )~ r-1=-'::;J..~ C_kCooIdor /,../ 1/ f,J ( )(;0'/ /~*;'(, I j',' <<: /,'l-tI ~ I\J~I{ soI/ / / /~\.. (. / ..., Jr6 ;//f' {' J r.J\ \ //"J"o..-'O\r!- #.~ j I / ~ I :1 cI> \\) <#lj/ ~ I / Q I I' , ~ ~",,> /L~-J!\ ( l I 1\\ :1 J / /:'--:Jl r'(T ~ ) I ,:6 I II \ . r1 J --r-f.~I--) 7 I &\ \ j/ I I 0 Ii \ i "S",' '-t-+-I---1. t..'!""--1-- \ l I J jfil !! \ : " f I r-L f--y... I I bY I ~.. \ \ \ > \\ I --.L-/ 1-// . " \ \ \\~ \\\ J ,- '--1-.--/ / , \ ~ \~ )\\\ I I I '\ \ : \X'\ ,,,J ~ ("'~ \~ \ \ \ t ,,______, \ .. "~4b 4b~>:::"< t~~~ \ \, \) '-I r \ ~,,/ t;t.~(--';:3\ , ) / l J I : '~~''-) \~ \ i d'~\ ""\11' ~:~1 ~ "'.~./ )~' \ I [I r ~\.'" I#' ,<'\ I jl,'-520) 1\ : ,\,,,-0/'.)/ '-/,.....l J \ \ \ '\ ~ ~yr'\ ) "'~ 1;:::. _J.J . rV ) ~\-.-",4btl ,,1 --1\- ., ~ '. ,t7' ,....-- . ~ ~tI/r (J ~. ......<.i , './ ~\ '~ ......-"")\ /~~~RKW~Y . \~.. '.?-/.~ ~ ,.. '\~' ~;:,..$~----""",..---.....,... j.:./~........"""'. ~-- GRADING PLAN Source: P&D. Inc. :4~?o!ld~~El~11~ u n..n IV-3 T.3 ~inti~ Land Planning !WIIMfIiIO,CA('I9IW-1. FIGURE 2 ..._--_.,--~~.._-----~--_..-~.._-- - TABLE A REQUESTED WAIVERS No. Requested Waiver 1. Reduce Street "MM" centerline radius from 200 ft.. to 126 ft. a. Modify street design from standard crown (2 % fall on each side of street centerline) to a constant slope across the full length of the street (2 % fall from curb to curb). 2b. Design Street "MM" with a 45 ft. right.of-way width, a 28 ft. curb to curb width and as one-way. 3. Reduce right-of-way width of Street "GO" and Courts "D" and "E" from 56 ft. To 52 ft. 4. Reduce cul-de-sac curbline radius for cul-de-sacs 150 ft. in length or less from 40 ft. to 36 ft. Sa. Delete 5.5' "Landscape Easement" for Street "B" from approx. Street "CC" to Street "G" on the side adjacent to P-l; and from Street "BB," from approx. Street "CC" to Street "G" on the side adjacent to P-l 5b. Increase "Landscape Easement" inclination from 5:1 to 2:1 for various lots listed in the Tentative Map Waiver request No.5 6. Reduce the required 3S ft lot frontage for several lots listed in the Tentative map Waiver No 6. 7a. Allow the installation of local sewers deeper than 12 ft. 7b. Allow Trunk sewer to exceed 20 ft. in depth. 8a. Allow 8 ft. wide DG sidewalk on the north side of Clubhouse Drive and the east side of Streets "BB"I"B". 8b. Anow 10 ft. wide DG sidewalk on the north side of Olympic Parkway 8e. Allow 10 ft. wide DG sidewalk on the south side of Otay Lakes Rd. 9. Incorporate a street median where a median is not normally required. 10. Allow street intersection design that includes horizontal curves to exist within the intersection or within approximately 100 ft. past the nearest curbline. 11. Allow sewer laterals to be installed deeper than 15 ft. 12. ModifY the typical slope rounding requirement to provide for a 3 ft. maintenance walk. 13. Maximum height of retaining walll fence combination to be 8.5 ft. Stall's Position Recommends approval of the waiver provided that traffic control devices, as approved by the City Engineer, are installed. The modified crown will compensate for the tighter radius proposed in Waiver No.1 above. Thus, staff recommends approval of the waiver as requested. The modifications to typical City residential street standards are approved based on adequate dimensions for the Fire Department and public vehicular traffic being provided for. Design these streets to preclude parking on one side of the street. The Fire Department has endorsed the reduced radius provided the cul-de-sac length does not exceed 150 ft. in length. The street is adjacent to a public park. TItus, easement not necessary . A street tree planting solution for these corner lots shall be submitted to tht City prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. All these lots, which are corner lots and cul-de-sacs, meet minimum lot width. Staff does not favor deep local sewers because it may be a potential maintenance problem. Use C900 PVC from manhole to manhole. Project: internal amenity. DG sidewalk is a segment of the city's greenbelt system. The existing sidewalk along Otay Lakes Road, west of Hunte Parkway is concrete. Thus staff does not recommend approval of this waiver. Adding a street median is in excess of city standards. Staff recommends approval of this waiver based on submittal of a letter from the applicants Engineer-of-Work that no public safety issues will be compromised. Staff does not favor deep sewer laterals because it may be a potential maintenance problem. Staff endorses the proposed waiver because it does not significantly affect the slope banks. Most of these retaining walll fences occur along rear property lines. '-It Statns Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not approved Approved Approved Approved Not approved Approved Approved Not Approved Approved Approved ATTACHMENT 4 'i~ SECOND ADDENDUM TO EIR-97-04 (EASTLAKE TRAILS/GREENS, SUBSEQUENT) Initial Study IS-99-16 PROJECT NAME: Eastlake Trails Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03 PROJECT LOCATION: East of Hunte Parkway, south ofOtay Lakes Road, nortj of Olympic Parkway and west of Salt Creek, Chula Vista, CA.. PROJECT APPLICANT: The Eastlake Company PROJECT AGENT: Michael Lake CASE NO,: IS-99-16 DATE: April 20, 1999 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista allow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if one of the following conditions is present: I. The minor changes in the project design which have occurred since completion of the Final EIR (EIR-97-04) have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR. 2. Additional or refined information available since completion of the Final EIR regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the project, does not show that the project will have one or more significant impacts which were not previously addressed in the Final EIR. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional information and analysis concerning traffic, service and land use impacts as a result of the proposed tentative map. FEIR 97-04 analyzed the impact of the development at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level. It did not analyze the currently proposed tentative map, which is the subject of this addendum, As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Final EIR have not changed. Noise and public service impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project and were previously addressed in EIR 97-04. Specific traffic impacts related to the project were identified in the EIR. The ErR concluded that with the exception of the Year 2010, there would be no project specific impacts, An 'f' .'<:> ---'~--"." additional SANDAG traffic model run for this addendum did indicate project specific impacts in the year 2005, if Olympic Parkway is not connected between East Palomar Street and Hunte Parkway. Cumulative traffic impacts remain as identified in the previous EIR. The additional traffic model was prepared to clarify the need for this portion of Olympic Parkway in the year 2005, In fact, the models assumed Olympic Parkway would be in place as the mitigation for future traffic impacts from much of the development anticipated in the Eastern Territories. The additional traffic model indicates the need for EastLake Trails to participate directly in the construction of this portion of the Olympic Parkway, The Tentative Map has been conditioned to clarify the level of involvement associated with this project for the connection of the Olympic Parkway. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to EIR-97-04. II. PROJECT SETTING The 322-acre project site lies within the Eastlake plarmed community, a large, partly developed mixed-use community on the urbanizing eastern fringe of the city ofChula Vista. The Eastlake Trails is bounded by the Eastlake Woods Neighborhood to the north, across Otay Lakes Road; the Vistas Neighborhood, which is part of Eastlake III, to the east; the Otay Ranch Village lilies across Olympic Parkway; and the Eastlake Greens Neighborhood is located across Hunte Parkway. The site consists of gently rolling terrain with site elevations generally ranging from 700 feet to 750 feet above mean sea level (msl). In general, the land presently being developed has been historically disturbed by agricultural activities, These activities have generally removed the native vegetation from the majority of the project site. Even so, some small areas of native vegetation persist, particularly along the Salt Creek corridor on the eastern boundary of the Trails property. The project area for the most part does not represent suitable habitat land for any of the sensitive animal or plant species. III. PROPOSED PROJECT The project consists of a tentative subdivision map for the Eastlake Trails development proposing the development of 957 single-family residential lots and 186 multi-family residential dwelling units, Additionally, the tentative map also shows the proposed elementary school site, community and private parks and the community purpose facility (CDF) site as well as open space designated areas. Access is via Otay Lakes Road and eventually Olympic Parkway. The entire 322-acre project site is proposed to be graded, The grading would involve the excavation and movement on ,300,000 cubic yards of soil. This would result in a maximum depth cut of 60 feet and a maximum depth of fill of 65 feet. Public work projects including '17 __ _______.~__,~___....__m..._ streets, water and sewer lines will be constructed as per the adopted plans and as evaluated by Eastlake Trails EIR #97-04. The proposed dwelling units should exceed code requirements and would vary from 1,100 square feet to 4,000 square feet. The maximum height of structures would be two-story or 35 feet. The percent of lot coverage would be in accordance with the adopted planned community regulations. Comparison of Adopted to Proposed Proposed 1st Addendum Difference Tent. Map to EIR 97-04 SF Units 957 957 NONE MF Units 186 186 NONE School 11.0 ac. 13.2 ac, 2.2 ac, (-) Parks (public) 31.1 ac. 25.3 ac. 5.8 ac,(+) CPF 4.6 4.6 NONE 1. Public Park: The project proposes to add 5.8 acres of new park area to serve the residents of the subdivision and surrounding development. 2. School Site: The difference in the school site area is due to the topography in the area and the final graded useable area as stipulated by the school district. These would be considered minor technical changes corresponding to the overall adopted land use designations for the Eastlake Trails Development plan. Tentative Tract Map No amendment to the adopted Eastlake Trails plan will be required to adopt the subject tentative tract map, Conditions of approval would not need to be amended to reflect the minor tentative tract map changes. IV. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element designates land uses for the Eastlake Plarmed Community. For the subject site, the Chula Vista General Plan is implemented through the Eastlake General Development Plan. The Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the Eastlake Trails is consistent with the General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan, The General Development Plan provides for various uses, including an elementary school site, neighborhood private and public parks, CPF site, low and medium- 'is high density housing and open space areas, These general land use concepts will be implemented through the proposed tentative map, V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. Public Services Impacts Fire The Fire Department states that adequate level of fire protection for the proposed development can be provided at present and at ultimate built out with implementation of the Eastlake Fire Station Master Plan which includes building of new stations with manpower and equipment over a phased time period. The Fire Department states that additional comments will be provided when detailed construction plans become available. Police Department The estimated response times for Priority I calls and for Priority 2 calls are above the recommended city thresholds. Significant impacts to police services shall be addressed on a city-wide level upon the availability of specific site plan development through the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF). The Public Facility Master Plan will address the possibility of relocating the current police facility to a more central location. . 2. Utility and Service Systems Schools The Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District state that school impacts associated with the proposed project have previously been negotiated. Full mitigation would require the developers participation in the formation of a Mello-Roos community facilities district (CFD) prior to the issuance of final maps. Mitigation requires the Developer to provide the required acreage, grade the land and pay the school fees, The school district would be responsible for constructing the new elementary school. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour, Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. V"r --._...._--".,_...~..._---------~ The overall long-term transportation and circulation issues have been adequately addressed in the Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR 97-04. Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) prepared a subsequent traffic study for the proposed project. The purpose of the subsequent traffic study was to refine mitigation measures identified in the EIR related to the timing of and responsibility for the construction of Olympic Parkway from East Palomar Street to Hunte Parkway 3, Open Space The project proposes to designate 22,5 acres as open space with the area along the southerly portion of Salt Creek also being utilized as a public park area. No impacts or changes to the designated open space would result from implementation of the project. 4. Noise The primary noise source, once full build out is reached at Eastlake Trails will be from vehicular traffic, Noise sensitive receptors include residences, the school site and the park play areas. Noise impacts would tend to increase as regional traffic volumes increase due to growth and the widening of roadways. The degree ofimpact to these sensitive noise receptors would depend on their location in relation to the roadways, finished grades and project design. The specific noise attenuation measures, including the location, design and size of proposed sound walls will need to be resolved prior to the filling of the final map, The general noise issues have already been adequately addressed in EIR #97-04, Specific sound attenuation measures outlined in the RECON Noise Study dated March 25, 1999 (Figures I & 2), including design, height and location of sound walls and berms shall be made a part of the conditions of approval of the tentative map, VI. 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.. Douglas D, Reid Environmental Review Coordinator )b REFERENCES Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City ofChula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Eastlake Community General Development plan (1982) Eastlake Sectional Planning Area (June, 1982) Master EIRfor Eastlake E1R 81-03 (Dec., 1981) Eastlalee Trails Prezone & Annexation E1R 86-04 (April, 1986) RECON Noise Study, (March 25,1999) LLG Traffic Letter dated April 20, 1999 JI r- Case No.IS-99-16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 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: The project site is currently contains two small houses, two barns, two storage sheds and miscellaneous structures. There are presently no improved roads. The one resident caretaker will be vacating the premise prior to construction. No amendments to the Eastlake General 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4. Name of Proposal: 5. Date of Checklist: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? J..:l.... The Eastlake Company City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 900 Lane Ave., Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA. 91914 (619) 421-0127 Eastlake Trails Tentative Subdiv. Map January 27,1999 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated No Impact Less than Signifiea ntImpact o o o IRI o o o IRI o o o IRI o o o IRI Page No.1 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significa nt Impact No Impact Development Plan (GDP) or the SPA Plan are needed. The issues related to land use compatibility, consistency with adopted plans, and the conversion of former agricultural land to an urban use have been adequately addressed by Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03 and the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. I. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e,g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Comments: The overall project is in substantial compliance with approved plans. Project implementation would assist the City's ability to meet housing and employment needs within the area, As a component part of the overall Eastlake General Development Plan, the proposed residential development project will contribute to meeting the projected demand per SANDAG estimates for housing and employment. No adverse impacts to housing are noted from the proposed project. The issues of housing and growth were adequately addressed by Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. o o o [RJ o o o lEI o o o lEI II. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 lEI 0 geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 lEI 0 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface .0 lEI 0 0 relief features? )"3 Page No.2 d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? )"y Potentially Significant Impact o Potentially Significant Less than Unless Signlfiea No Mitigated ntlmpact Impact 0 ~ 0 Page No.3 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 charmel 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? Potentially Potentially Significant Less tban Significant Unless Slgnifica No Impact Mitigated ntImpact Impact 0 0 lID 0 0 0 0 lID o o lID o Comments: The Eastlake Plarmed Community site is located in the transitional area between the mountain-valley section and the coastal plain section, The inner Continental Borderland is part ofa broad zone of northwest-trending faulting associated with the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Based on a review of published geologic literature and maps of the project area no active faults are known to directly underlie the project site as was analyzed and determined by the Final Eastlake Environmental Impact Report, (Dec, 1981). During the last 50 years, the San Diego region has been characterized by little seismic activity, The most probable seismic event likely to affect the proposed development would be an earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault, which is located about 15 miles northwest of the project site. Mitigation has been included that would require site-specific geotechnical studies prior to construction to evaluate soil conditions and characteristics, areas of potential slope instability, landslides, faults, liquefaction potential, and rippability characteristics. The proposed tentative tract map would not change adopted mitigation nor does it propose more intense use of the land. No further mitigation would be required and no significant adverse impact is noted. These issues have been adequately addressed by Master EIR for Eastlake EIR- 81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replarming Program EIR # 97-04. III. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? <)s- o [RJ o o Page No.4 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Potentially Significant Unleu Mitigated o o o o o [gJ o o Less than SignifieR ntImpact o o o o o o [gJ o No Impact [gJ [gJ [gJ [gJ IXI o o IXI j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in Master ErR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final ErR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, The Drainage Plan for Eastlake provides the framework for addressing the issues relating to urban runoff, sedimentation, stormwaters, encroachment, and water quality. The increased flows expected at build out can be mitigated through: I) the provision of the storm drain facilities and detention basins as recommended in the Drainage Plan, and 2) the payment of the drainage fee established at the time final maps within the basin are recorded. The project site is not in an area of significant groundwater recharge. Due to the filtering of pollutants during percolation, in addition to the poor quality of existing ground water within The Trails as described in the existing setting no significant impacts to ground water quality are anticipated. The proposed mitigation measures s-/, o o o IXI Page No.5 Potentially Potentially Significant Leu tban Significllnt Dnless Significa No Impact Mitigated nt impact Impact and project design levels would reduce the ground-water and surface water impacts to below a level of significance. No new significant adverse impacts are noted from the proposed tentative map. 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: These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. These EIRS' considered pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources associated with the proposed development. Mitigation measures were made a part of the FEIR that covered the following areas of potential sources of impact: construction, land use policies, sitingldesign policies, and transportation-related management actions. The construction related impacts would would be temporary in nature until the sale of homes is complete. The implementation of this project will not result in any significant direct air quality impacts. No mitigation for cumulatively significant air quality impacts is available other than compliance with the goals and objectives of the Regional Air Quality Strategy. IV. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? V. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ')7 o o IXI o o o o o o o IXI IXI o o o o IXI o IXI o o o IXI o o o o IXI Page No.6 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ')8 Potentially Potentially Significant Lesstban Significant Unless Signlflca No Impact Mitigated ntImpact Impact 0 0 0 [EJ Page No. 7 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e,g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) A "large project" under the Congestion Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips,) Comments: The overall issues involving transportation and circulation traffic impacts were adequately addressed in the Master ErR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, Traffic engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) prepared a traffic study in June 1998 for the proposed project. Several computer model runs were prepared for that analysis. Two models were prepared for the year 2005, one with and one without SR-125. Both models assumed Olympic Parkway was connected between East Palomar Street and Hunte Parkway. The results of the analysis contained in the EIR show that all traffic impacts from the project are cumulative with the exception of one project specific impact in the year 20 I 0 to Otay Lakes Road. Mitigation measures for the cumulative impacts as well as the project specific impact remain as identified in the EastLake GreenslTrails Replanning Program ErR. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Potentially Potentially Significant Lesstban Significant Unless Signific8 No Impact Mitigated at Impact Impact 0 0 0 [EJ 0 0 0 [EJ 0 0 0 [EJ o o [EJ o o [EJ o o During the preparation of this Addendum, the City was preparing feasibility and financing plans for the construction of portions of Olympic Parkway. Since it was not apparent that Olympic Parkway would be in place in the year 2005, it was determined that another model run that did not assume the connection of Olympic Parkway east of East Palomar Street to Hunte Parkway was necessary. New SANDAG Model Run A Year 2005 SANDAG computer model run was completed utilizing the identical network 's1 Page No.8 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unle5$ Signifies No Impact Mitigated nt Impact Impact used in the EIR traffic study but without Olympic Parkway connected between East Palomar Street and Hunte Parkway. It was assumed that SR 125 was not constructed. That model showed that Otay Lakes Road between EastLake Parkway and Rutgers Avenue is estimated to carry 64,000 ADT if Olympic Parkway is not connected between East Palomar Street and Hunte Parkway. This corresponds to LOS F according to the City ofChula Vista standards, which does not meet the City's threshold requirements. As indicated by the outcome of the models with and with the Olympic Parkway connection, EastLake Trails would be responsible for about 12% of the future "Average Daily Trips" (ADT) on Otay Lakes Road between EastLake Parkway and Rutgers Avenue, The threshold in the EIR for a project impact is 5%, Therefore, there will be a need for Olympic Parkway to be connected between East Palomar and Hunte Parkway in the Year 2005 as a result of development within the EastLake Trails. proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g" heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 [ID 0 0 planning efforts? Comments: Impacts to biological resources have been adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. With the exception of vegetation in the Salt Creek Corridor, the Eastlake Trails site was previously VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ~o -~----- o o [ID o 0 0 0 [ID 0 0 0 [ID 0 [ID 0 0 0 0 [ID 0 Page No.9 ,---'.- Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Slgninea No Impact Mitigated nt Impact Impact farmed for oat production, Because of these farm operations, vegetative habitat and associated biological resources are absent from the project site. No new impacts to biological resources are noted as a result of the proposed tentative subdivision map. The project shall comply with mitigation relating to riparian impacts within the Salt Creek Corridor and conditions of the grading permit as reqyuired by State and Federal Regulatory Agencies. VII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 [EJ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 [EJ and inefficient marmer? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 [RJ protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments; These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replarming Program EIR # 97-04. No new adverse impacts would result from the proposed tentative subdivision map, VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ~I o o o [RJ o o o [EJ o o o [EJ o o [EJ o Page No. 10 e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? /..Q~ Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Signifiea No Impact Mitigated ntImpact Impact 0 0 0 [BJ Page No. 11 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Signlfica ntImpact No Impact Comments: The project proposes residential development and would not pose a health hazard to humans nor would hazardous materials or substances be stored within the project area, These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 [B] 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 [B] 0 0 Comments: The primary noise source throughout the project area at full build out of the Eastlake Trails Development would be from vehicular traffic, On-site noise impacts would occur as development takes place on the project site, Off-site noise impacts would increase as regional traffic volumes increase due to growth and roadway segments are widened. The degree of impact would depend on the location of the noise-sensitive receptors (homes, play ground areas, schools) in relation to those roadways as well as the proposed grading and project design. The overall noise issues were adequately discussed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. Specific sound attenuation measures including design, height and location of sound walls shall be resolved prior to filing of the final map. No additional mitigation will be required. X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a needfor new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 [B] 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 [B] 0 0 c) Schools? 0 [B] 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 [B] 0 0 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 [B] 0 0 Comments: Project impacts to governmental services have been adequately analyzed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR Page No. 12 l&>3 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Signlfica No Impact Mitigated nt Impact Impact # 97-04. Appropriate mitigation has been adopted to address potentially significant impacts from the overall project. The proposed tentative subdivision map does not propose any new additional development not previously analyzed. o o o [8] XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Pire/EMS o [8] o o The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases, The City of Chula Vista Pire Department indicates that this threshold standard will be met. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard through compliance with the Pire Station Master Plan. Comments: The Pire Department states that the nearest fire station is located 5 miles away and the estimated response time is four minutes. The fire department will be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed development. The previously adopted Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-8l-03, the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04 adequately addressed this issue. b) Police o [RJ o o The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62, I 0% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response time for both Priority I and Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project are slightly above these Threshold Standards. Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in the previously adopted Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97 -04. The police Department indicates that adequate service will be provided to the project site and future development. Associated mitigation shall be provided incrementally and simultaneously in order ~'f Page No. 13 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Signlflca ntImpact No Impact that the proposed development can proceed forward, c) Traffic o IX) 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! -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. This Threshold Standard will be complied with by the proposed project as each phase progresses and implementation of area wide major road improvements occur, Comments: No new adverse impacts to traffic/circulation directly attributable to the project are noted from the submittal of the tentative subdivision map, The engineering Division shall be evaluating the performance of the surrounding major roadways to determine the appropriate and timely implementation of mitigation dealing with roadway improvements and completion. dO Parks/Recreation o IX) o o The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll,OOO population. The overall residential project will comply with this Threshold Standard, Comments: The park and community purpose issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR #97-04, The proposed project will be providing both private and public parkland in compliance with stated mitigation. o IX) o o eO Drainage 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 Engineering Department indicates that the project site is not within a flood plain. The developer proposes storm drains that will flow towards Salt Creek. These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Page No. 14 ~s- Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Signiflca No Impact Mitigated ot Impact Impact Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. The proposed project will not change the overall drainage concept and specific development will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. fO Sewer o o !XI 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, Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on sewers. The project will connect to the existing sewer main in Hunte Parkway. The Engineering Division indicates that these will adequately serve the proposed project. The proposed project does not propose changes that would cause new impacts to the Sewer Master Plan nor Engineering Standards. gO Water o o !XI 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. Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, No new impacts, not previously analyzed, to water resources are noted from the proposed tentative map. XII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: aO Power or natural gas? bO Communications systems? 0 0 !XI 0 0 0 !XI 0 Page No. IS IQIo Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless SlgnlOca No Impact Mitigated ntImpact Impact cO Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 IE] 0 distribution facilities? dO Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 IE] eO Storm water drainage? 0 0 IE] 0 f() Solid waste disposal? 0 0 IE] 0 Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, No further mitigation will be required. XIII AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: aO Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 IE] 0 the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? bO Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 IE] scenic route? cO Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 [B] 0 effect? dO Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 IE] 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? eO Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 IE] Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in Master ErR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, XIV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Page No. 16 '-'7 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Signlfica No Impact Mitigated ntlmpact Impact aO Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 [RJ or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? bO Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 00 or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? cO Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 00 cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? dO Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 00 or sacred uses within the potential impact area? eO Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 00 0 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: These issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, XV PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? o 00 o o Comments: This issue was adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Pinal EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04, XVI RECREATION. Would the proposal: aO Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? o 00 o o bO Affect existing recreational opportunities? c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans or programs? o o 00 00 o o o o Page No. 17 ~~ Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significa No Impact Mitigated nt Impact Impact Comments: The park and community purpose issues were adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR -81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. No further or additional impacts to parks and recreational opportunities are noted from project approval, No further mitigation will be required. XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. aO 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 ofthe major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Because of the highly disturbed nature of the site and the analysis and mitigation provided in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake TrailslGreens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04 which will be implemented, none of these potential impacts would result. o o !B] o bO Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project conforms to all long-term goalslplans for this area and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage oflong-term goals. o o o !B] cO Does the project have impacts that are 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of o !B] o Page No. 18 ~i Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Lesstban Slgnlftca ntImpact No Impact other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Cumulative impact analysis of the overall project was evaluated in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replarming Program EIR # 97-04, The proposed project would not result in incremental effects not previously analyzed. dO Does the project have environmental effect 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? o o !2S] Comments: This issue in was adequately addressed in Master EIR for Eastlake EIR-81-03, the 1989 Final EIR for Eastlake Greens SPA and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Eastlake Trails/Greens Replanning Program EIR # 97-04. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No new mitigation will be required for the proposed project other than previously required and found in the aforementioned environmental documents, Proj ect Proponent Date XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Page No. 19 7D The above completed Initial Study checklist DID NOT find any enviromnental factors enumerated below that would be potentially affected by this project, nor an impact that could be considered "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated". 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 Mandatory Findings of Significance XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent, 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 enviromnent, Page No. 20 (, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the enviromnent, but at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and that the project site and surrounding area (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) overall potential impacts have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or provision of mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project as applicable. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination, ~~je!tq~JI~&- City of Chula Vista Januarv 27.1999 Date 7J..... [8] Page No. 21 ATTACHMENT 5 l3 TIlE <. .' OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE s1 EMENT You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action On the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e,g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. The EastLake Co., LLC 2. If any person- identified pursuant 10 (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in thc corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person- identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4, Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any meXer of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelvc months? Ycs_ No If yes, please indicate person(s): 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. P&DI CTE Enqineers 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Ycs_ NoX If yes, state which Councilmember(s): - - - (NOTE: Attach additional pages as D Date: S {7.'7 }1o '7'(" Print or type name of contractor/applicant Bruce N. Sloan, The EastLake Co., LLC . Perso" iJ' defincd as: "Any irJ(Jj~'idual, [inn, co-pamlCTship, joint VCTllUrc, associalion, social club, fratmliJl orgaJlw:uion, corporation. estalt:, trust, receiva, syndicate, this Qnd allY other COUIJIy, dl)' and cDumr)', city municipality, district, or other political subdi~'is;o1L, or any vuu:r group or camhuuz/ion aclillg as a waiL n PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 4/28/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCC 99-31 / PCM 99-09: Consideration of an amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations to allow self- storage facilities subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and associated Conditional Use Permit to allow a self-storage facility to be constructed at 860 Lazo Court in the C-I Commercial District - Caster Group, L.P. Staff Contact: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner The applicant, Caster Group L.P., is requesting: I) an amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations in order to allow self-storage facilites as a potential land use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit and 2) a Conditional Use Permit to allow a self-storage facility to be constructed at 860 Lazo Court in the C-I Commercial District on a 1. 8-acre site. Based on an addendum prepared for EIR 87-01 (for requested amendment to SPA plan) and an Initial Study ( for the requested Conditional Use Permit), the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects associated with either application. Said Initial Study has been posted and is currently under the public review process. Upon completion, the Environmental Review Coordinator recommends the Negative Declaration issued on IS 99-22 be adopted for the Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions PCM 99-09 and PCC 99-31 recommending the City Council deny the proposed amendment and associated Conditional Use Permit based on the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolutions. DISCUSSION: I. Site Characteristics The self-storage facility is proposed for a 1.8 acre site located at the northwest comer ofLazo Court and the terminus of Paseo del Rey. The site is relatively isolated from existing development to the north, east and west due to topography and separation by roadways. It is adjacent to a bowling alley to the south. Page 2, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/28/99 2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use RDRI CURRENT GEN.PLAN ZONING SPA LAND USE Site: Retail PC C-l Vaeant North: Open SpJce PC OS-l Open Space South: Retail PC C-l Bowling Alley East: Retail PC C-I K -Mart (retail) West: Retail PC C-l PetSmart(retail) 3. Project Description The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Rancho del Rey (RDR) SPA I Commercial District regulations to allow self-storage facilities to be considered subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a self- storage facility on the subject site (860 Lazo Court). Land Use Under the C-I Commercial District Regulations (Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan), self-storage facilities are not considered a permitted or conditional use. The applicant requests I) an amendment to the Commercial District Regulations to allow self-storage facilities to be considered subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and 2) Conditional Use Permit to allow a self-storage facility with associated office on the subject site (860 Lazo Court) within the Commercial District with associated office. Commercial District Regulations The project, as submitted, requests a deviation from the allowable building height/story restriction contained within the development regulations of the Commercial District. The Development Regulations state the maxium height is 35 feet or 2 stories whichever is less. Any deviations from these standards are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project is three stories (maxium height of 32 feet excluding architectural projections) and, therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is requested. -.-.----.-----.- Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/28/99 Parking The applicant is proposing a total of 13 designated parking spaces (including four handicapped spaces) as well as nine parallel parking spaces adjacent to the central driveway through the facility. There are no specific parking requirements for self storage facilities contained in the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan or the Municipal Code. Designl Architectural Review If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the SPA amendment and associated Conditional Use Permit, the Design Review Committee will review the project at their meeting of May 3, 1999. 4. Analysis Amendment to Specific Plan: Land Use/Market Compatibility The applicant initially requested that self-storage facilities be considered under the Commercial District regulations based upon paragraph 24 of the C-I District Regulations which reads: Any other retail business or service establishment supplying commodities or performing services which is determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the above mentioned retail business or service uses and open during normal business hours of the above uses. Prior to submittal of the project, staff determined that a self-storage facility is not similar in nature to other permitted uses (i. e., retail, office and restaurant) and, therefore, this clause could not be used. Staff discussed this with the applicant and also explained that the type of use proposed is allowed in other areas of the Rancho del Rey SPA area. Self-storage facilities are a permitted use within the Employment Park District. However, at this time, staff does not believe there are any parcels of land available for development within that District. As a result, the applicant is requesting the proposed amendment to the Commercial District Regulations. Essentially the proposed amendment will affect only the subject site since it is the only remaining undeveloped parcel within the Commercial District. All of the other parcels within the Commercial District are currently developed. Page 4, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/28/99 The applicant has prepared a ''Development Proposal Information Package" for the proposed storage facility at the subject site. This package includes a market analysis indicating the need for storage facilities. Staff understands that the number of smaller size lots in the newer planned communities has, and will continue, to generate the need for additional storage space in the City. We believe, however, other solutions to the emerging need for off-site residential storage should be exhausted before considering allowing a less compatible use within the commercial district. There are several self-storage facilities that have been approved in the City within the last six months. These include: I)"L Street Self Storage" which is located just west ofI-5 between K and L Street and 2) "Vanguard Self Storage" located on Trousdale Street, south of Highway 54 and east of North Fourth Avenue. A third self storage facility is being proposed in Eastlake at the corner ofEastlake Parkway and Miller Avenue. There is also an existing facility known a~ "EastLake Self Storage" located at 2351 Boswell Road. Additionalland has been set aside to provide for future expansion of this facility. All of these existing and proposed facilities are located within areas that allow this land use by right. The Community Development Department has concerns from an economic development perspective regarding proliferation of these types of facilities and will be working with Planning Staff to evaluate potential measures to address these concerns. Staffs' reasons for not supporting the proposed amendment are as follows: . The proposed self-storage use was never envisioned as being a compatible land use at the time the Commercial District was established in this area of Rancho del Rey. . Developing the site with a "commercial" use would not necessitate an amendment to the development regulations of the SPA plan. . Although the site is located over 1,000 feet from East "H' Street (making some types of retail development somewhat unfeasible) there are many types of "commercial" uses which could occur and would be compatible with the surrounding land use (i.e., restaurant or offices). Other feasible commercial uses could include those which are more dependent on repeat customers from the surrounding area rather than those which are dependent upon visibility. Uses that could benefit from the proximity of the bowling alley would also be viable. . The Community Development Department has stated that from an economic development perspective, there is inadequate justification to amend the District regulations. An allowed use such as office or restaurant would be preferable in terms of job creation and/or tax revenue as well as overall synergy with surrounding uses, including the adjacent family- oriented bowling alley. Page 5, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/28/99 . Self-storage facilities can create security problems incompatible with a commercial retail center. . The proposed self-storage facility would be allowed by right in the nearby Employment Park District allows the proposed self-storage facility. Conditional Use Permit: Development Regulation: Height/Stories As previously stated, the applicant is requesting a deviation rrom the development standards concerning maximum height/stories allowed in the Commercial District. The standard indicates that a maximum of two stories or 35 feet (whichever is less) is allowed unless otherwise approved by a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has reviewed photos of other three story storage facilities and has visited other locations containing multi-story facilities. In addition, at staff's request, the applicant submitted a photo-simulation study to show how the proposed facility would appear visually from the surrounding area. Staff concluded that the facility could be architecturally designed in such as way as to minimize the appearance of three stories and, thereby, "blend in" with the surrounding area in terms of overall height and bulk. Therefore, if the project were to receive approval of the Conditional Use Permit, staff would recommend the requested waiver to allow three stories be adopted. Parking The applicant is proposing a total of22 striped parking spaces consisting of nine regular and one handicapped size space near the office in rront of the facility. In addition, three additional handicapped spaces are proposed inside the facility close to access corridors and elevators and nine parallel spaces adjacent to the one way drive aisle proposed through the middle of the facility. It should be noted that roll-up storage doors opening to the outside will only be provided on the ground floor adjacent to the central driveway. Since neither the PC District Regulations of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan nor the Municipal Code contain parking requirements for self-storage facilities, staff has analyzed the adequacy of parking proposed for the project based upon: I) information provided by the applicant; 2) review of recently approved self-storage facilities within the City and; 3) survey of parking requirements for other jurisdictions within San Diego County. The applicant has conducted their own survey of parking demand based upon other facilites they operate throughout California. This survey indicates that a maxium of nine vehicles per peak hour can be anticipated for the size of the facility currently proposed. The applicant has also provided a summary of parking provided for all of the existing and recently approved self-storage facilities in Chula Vista (see Attachment 6). Page 6, Item No.: Meeting Date: 4/28/99 Staff has reviewed the parking criteria used for the most recently approved self-storage facilities in Chula Vista. In these two instances, staff only required designated parking spaces for the office or caretakers residence and none for the self-storage use itself At the same time, the driveways were of sufficient width to accommodate parallel parking of vehicles adjacent to the ground floor units. It should be noted that both of the recently approved projects consisted of a combination of one and two story buildings. In contrast, the applicant is proposing two buildings consisting of three stories each which increase the need to provide for parking adjacent to the buildings to provide access to the upper floors. Staff surveyed other cities in the area to determine what parking standards they applied to self -storage facilities. The majority of cities surveyed indicate they had no specific parking requirement other than for the office/caretaker use. At the same time, they require wide drive aisles to accommodate tandem parking of vehicles closest to the ground floor storage units. A few cities have recently adopted an actual parking ratio for self-storage facilites. These ratios ranged from requiring 1 space per 1,500 square feet of storage area to I parking space per 5,000 square feet of storage area. In conclusion, staff believes the proposed parking is adequate for the size of the facility proposed and is consistent with other approved self-storage facilities within Chula Vista as well as with th" standards used by other cities within the County. No additional parking areas (in the form of parallel parking spaces, parking lane or extra wide driveways) along other elevations of the proposed buildings will be necessary since ground floor storage units will not be accessible from the outside aisles. CONCLUSION: Due to incompatibility ofland use, the fact that self-storage uses are allowed by right in the nearby Employment Park District, and many locations throughout the City, staff recommends denial ofboth the SPA amendment and the associated Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached Resolutions of Denial. However, should the Planning Commission decide to support the proposal, Resolutions of Approval have also been provided for your consideration. Attachments: I. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft City Council Resolutions 3. Locator and Figures 4. Negative Declaration prepared for IS 99-22/Addendrnn to EIR 87-01 5. Portion ofRDR I SPA Sote Utilization Plan 6. Applicant provided list of existing/recently approved self-storage facilities in ChuIa Vista 7. Comments from Community Development Department 8. Ownership Disclosure H:'HOMlN'LANNINGVEFF\AJSELF\3fin.rpt . RESOLUTION NO PCM 99-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENY AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA I PLAN TO ALLOW SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ., WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan Commercial District Regulations was submitted to the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 24, 1999 by Caster Group, L.P, ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval of an amendment to the Commercial District regulations of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan to allow self-storage facilities to be considered with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendment have been previously addressed by ErR 87-0 I (Rancho del Rey SPA I) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to that document; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior ~o the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 28,1999 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 considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to this application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the facts submitted with the amendment and presented at the hearing establish those findings as set out in Section 19.48.100 of the Municipal Code and contained within the City Council Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution including findings denying the amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan Commercial District Regulations. , I Rp<ol11t;on prM (j(j-O(j p"rp ? BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. "; PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIJEFFlPCRESOIAJ. SPD ~ RESOLUTION NO PCC99-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY AT 860 LAZO COURT WITHIN THE C-l COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF RANCHO DEL REV WHEREAS, a duly verified application fOf a Conditional Use Permit was submitted by the Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on February 24, 1999 by Caster Group, L.P. ("Applicant"}; and WHEREAS, said application requests approval to allow for the construction of a self storage facility at 860 Lazo Court within the C- I Co=ercial District of Rancho del Rey (SPA I); and, WHEREAS, the Rancho del Rey SPA I Co=ercial District Regulations do not provide for these types of facilities within the area eithef by right or with a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project will have no negative impact and pfepared a Negative Declaration for IS 99-22 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building DirectOf set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Permit application and notice of said hearing, togethef with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exteriof boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 28, 1999 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 considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt attached City Council Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. -3 R,..nlnt;nn prr QQ-':\l p"ir ? PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIJEFFlPCRESOIAI.CUD '-/ RESOLUTION NO PCM 99-09 ." A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO DEL REY SPA I PLAN TO ALLOW A SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for an amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan Commercial District Regulations was submitted to the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 24, 1999 by Caster Group, L.P. ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval of an amendment to the Commercial District regulations of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan to allow self-storage facilities to be considered with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendment have been previously addressed by EIR 87-0 I (Rancho del Rey SPA I) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to that document; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 28,1999 at 6:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to this application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the facts submitted with the amendment and presented at the hearing establish those fmdings as set out in Section 19.48.100 of the Municipal Code and contained within the City Council Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution including fmdings approving the amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan Commercial District Regulations. 5"" R,..."l11ti"n prM QQ-OQ p"V' 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Sec:etary H:\HOME\PLANNINGIJEFFlPCRESOW.SPA 6 RESOLUTION NO PCC 99-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA A.PPROVE A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY AT 860 LAZO COURT WITHIN THE C-l COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF RANCHO DEL REY. WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted to the Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on February 24, 1999 by Caster Group, L.P. ("Applicant"); and, WHEREAS, said application requests approval to allow for the construction of a self storage facility at 860 Lazo Court within the C-I Commercial District of Rancho del Rey SPA I; and, WHERES, the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations have been amended to allow self-storage facilities pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project will not have a negative impact and prepared a Negative Declaration for IS 99-22 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Conditional Use Permit application and notice of said hearing, together with its propose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 28,1999 at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSSION, does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draftuCity Council Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council and the Applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 7 Rp<nl11f;nn prr QQ-':\1 P~ep ? OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of April 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: John Willett, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIJEFFlPCRESOW.CUA 8' A TT ACHME~ 2 :t; RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN TO ALLOW FOR SELF STORAGE FACILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. RECITALS ;1" A, Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A (project Site) B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 24,1999, Caster Group, L.P, filed an application for an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is to allow self storage facilities within the boundaries of the Commercial District of Rancho del Rey subject to approval ofa Conditional Use Permit; and ff' C. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on April 28, 1999, and voted _to recommend that the City Council deny the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, D. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 18, 1999 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to the same. , II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 28, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendment have previously been addressed by EIR 87-0 I (Rancho del Rey SPA I) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to that document. IV, SPA FINDINGS A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE P-C ZONE, ANY ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. Self storage facilities are generally classified as a "light industrial" use type and, as such, are not in conformity with "commercial" types of uses which are typically allowed within the Commercial District. Allowing a self-storage facility to be considered within the Commercial District necessitates amending the adopted Commercial District Standards, Staff does not support this proposal as it will reduce the amount of commercial services which would otherwise be available within the District. Allowing a self-storage use will result in an incompatibility of site and building design within the commercial area. "Light industrial" uses typically are less attractive to the general public in terms of noise, fumes, dust, less vehicular accessibility and parking. At the same time, "light industrial" uses typically do not have the same need for visibility to the public as a commercial use would have, There are enough types of commercial uses which are permitted within the Commercial District that a suitable commercial use can be found for all properties within the District without requiring further amendments. The proposed amendment will not affect the Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan nor the City's General Plan, since both will retain the commercial/retail designation. B, THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN. The proposed amendment will not promote orderly sequentialized development of the area. The subject site is the only undeveloped parcel remaining within the Commercial District. All previously developed surrounding sites contain commercial type of development. A self- storage use is not compatible in a "commercial" area in that the nature of the use is "light industrial". There are many types of "commercial" uses, ranging from retail to recreational which are allowed by right in the Commercial District. Depending on the particular site characteristics, some of these allowable uses may be more appropriate than others. However, self-storage facilities do not share enough common characteristics with commercial type development in terms of site/architectural design and services provided to make it a consideration, Finally, it is anticipated that the proposed use will not lead to job generation which would otherwise occur as a result of commercial development. C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, The proposed amendment could adversely affect adjacent land uses in that it would allow "light industrial" land uses within an otherwise commercially developed area. The subject site is the only undeveloped parcel remaining within the Commercial District. All previously developed surrounding sites contain commercial type of development. Staff does not believe the project is an Ii) Resolution No. Page No.3 appropriate land use in this area. Allowing a "light industrial" use at this location will reduce the amount of commercial development available to service the surrounding areas. At the same time, the proposed self-storage facility would be a compatible (and permitted) land use in the nearby Employment Park District. V. COUNCIL DIRECTION The City Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby directs that the commercial district regulations not be amended to allow self-storage facilities to be considered in the Commercial District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION The denial of this amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA Commercial District Regulations shall take effect immediately. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John M, Kaheny City Attorney II RESOLUTION NO. ..- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY AT 860 LAZO COURT IN THE C-I COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY. 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A (project Site) ,f: B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 24, 1999, Caster Group, L.P. filed an application for an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit request was submitted for consideration of a self storage facility at 860 Lazo Court within the Commercial District Regulations; and WHEREAS, the applicant further requests a deviation from the development standards contained in the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations in order to allow an increase from two to three stories for the proposed facility; and C. Planning Commission Record on Application ., WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on April 28, 1999, and voted _to recommend that the City Council deny the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, D. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 18, 1999 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to the same. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD ., The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 28, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: t-:t III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS 99-22, of possible environmental efftcts and prepared the Negative Declaration issued on IS 99-22. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record, that permits the stated fmdings to be made. A. 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 proposed land use at this location is not compatible with the surrounding area or developed properties. This type of use is typically classified as "light industrial" which is generally not compatible within a "Commercial" District. This type of service is more appropriate on a property which is already designated for "light industrial" types of uses such as the nearby Employment Park District. "Light industrial uses" typically are less attractive to the general public in terms of noise, fumes, dust, less vehicular accessibi1ility and parking. At the same time, "light industrial" uses typically do not have the same need for visibility to the public as a commercial use would have. Given the surrounding exisvng commercial/recreational development, staff believes other types of commercial uses are much more appropriate for the subject site and would allow additional commercial services available to the surrounding residents. B. 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 INmRIOUS TO PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY. Staff believes the proposed use has the potential to be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in comparison to a commercial development on the site. Allowing a "light industrial" land use into an otherwise commercially developed area will not allow for additional commercial services to be provided to the surrounding area nor create the positive synergistic effects that a commercial development would provide for other businesses within the Commercial District. From an economic development perspective, there is inadequate justification to amend the Commercial District regulations; an allowed use such as office or restaurant would be prefereable in terms of job creation and/or tax revenue as well as overall synergy with surrounding uses, including adjacent family-oriented bowling alley. C. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS CODE FOR SUCH USE. The proposed land use can only be considered upon approval of the associated request for an amendment to the Commercial District Regulations of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan. If approved, the only deviation from development standards of the Commercial District is that regarding the maximum number of stories permitted. The applicant is requesting an increase from two to three stories 13 Rpc;,o1nt;oTI No p~V" ' while maintaining an overall height limit comparable to surrounding existing commercial developments. Staff supports this deviation as long as the facility is designed in such as way as to minimize the appearance of the additional story. D. THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OR ADOPTED PLAN OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not affect the City's General Plan or the Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan. Presented by Robert Leiter Director of Planning John M. Kaheny City Attorney Ii' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) 1 PLAN TO ALLOW FOR SELF- STORAGE FACILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A (project Site) B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 24, 1999, Caster Group, L.P. filed an application for an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the SPA Plan, consist of amending the land use allowances of the Commercial District to allow self-storage facilities subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and C. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on April 28, 1999, and voted _to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, D. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 18, 1999 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to the same. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 28, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: L~- Rp.~nl11tinn Nn p~V" ? III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the proposed amendment to the Commercial District Regulations have been previously addressed by EIR 87-0 I (Rancho del Rey SPA I) and has, therefore, prepared an addendum to that document. IV. SPA FINDINGS A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE P-C ZONE, ANY ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. If adopted, the proposed amendment would allow self storage uses to be incorporated into the conditionally permitted land uses of the C- I Commercial District. Said uses would require further review for site specific land use compatibility and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed amendment will not affect the Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan nor the City's General Plan, both of which will retain the commercial/retail designation. B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN. It is anticipated that the proposed amendment will not affect the orderly development of properties within the Commercial District in that all properties within the Commercial District other than the subject site are already developed. In addition, the use will still require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to insure land use compatibility. C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. It is anticipated that the proposed project will not adversely affect adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment or environmental quality. The project site is physically isolated from surrounding developments on three sides by slopes or roadway separation. The applicant will utilize a combination or landscaping and architectural treatment in order for the facility to be compatible with the surrounding area. It is anticipated there will be no adverse impacts on circulation or environmental quality in that the site has been previously rough graded and the traffic generation will be less than that of a typical commercial project. V. COUNCIL DIRECTION The City Council of the City ofChula Vista hereby adopts the addendum to EIR 87-01 and amends Chapter IX-B of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations to add self storage facilities as a conditionally permitted uses within the boundaries of the Commercial District and subject to further review Ii..- Resolution No. Page No.3 and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION The approval of this amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA Commercial District Regulations shall take effect immediately. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning John M. Kaheny City Attorney 17 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY AT 860 LAZO COURT IN THE C-t COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN RANCHO DEL REY PLANNED COMMUNITY. 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A (Project Site) B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on February 24,1999, Caster Group, L.P. filed an application for an amendment to the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Permit request was submitted for consideration of a self storage facility at 860 Lazo Court within the Commercial District Regulations; and WHEREAS, the applicant request a deviation from the development standards of the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations in order to allow an increase from a maximum of 2 story structures to 3 story structures; and C. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on April 28, 1999, and voted _to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, D. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 18, 1999 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to the same. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on April 28, 1999, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: lit III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Rf"~n1ntinn Nn p~V" ? The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS 99-22, of possible environmental effects and prepared the Negative Declaration issued on IS 99-22. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as hereinbelow set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis, in addition to all other evidence in the record, that permits the stated fmdings to be made. A. 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 applicant has provided a market analysis indicating the need for self-storage facilities in the City of Chula Vista. According to the applicant, this location is desirable due to its close proximity to surrounding residential areas (existing and future) which contain a substantial number of small lot products. B. THAT THE 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 INmRIOUS TO PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY. Staff believes the project, as proposed, will not have a detrimental effect upon health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The site is somewhat isolated from surrounding development due to slope conditions and separation by roadways, except for the Bowling Alley located directly to the south. In addition, staff believes the combination of architectural treatment and landscaping proposed will allow the use to appear visually compatible with surrounding development. Roll up doors will not be visible from surrounding properties. C. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REGULA nONS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS CODE FOR SUCH USE. The proposed use must comply with all development standards contained within the Commercial District and overall Planned Community Regulations of the Rancho del Ray SPA I Plan with the exception that the adoption of this Conditional Use Permit will allow construction of a three story facility. The Commercial District Development Standards restrict buildings to two stories unless otherwise approved through adoption of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff believes the proposed three story facility will be constructed in such a way as to minimize any negative impacts of allowing an additional story. Overall height is consistent with other surrounding existing developments. In addition, approval ofthe proposed use is contingent upon compliance with all conditions contained within this Resolution. D. THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OR ADOPTED PLAN OF ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY. /1 The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not affect the City's General Plan or the Rancho del Rey SPA Rp<:.olntinn Nn p~~,. , I General Development Plan, both of which will retain the commercial/retail designation. V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC 99-31 subject to the following conditions whereby the Applicant shall: I. Prior to submittal for building permits, applicant shall submit revised site plan/architectural elevations incorporating all conditions of approval of the Design Review Committee. 2. Comply with all requirements of the Building Division including, but not limited to, the following: A. Loading at handicapped parking needs to be on passenger side of spaces at Building 2. B. Applicant shall provide calculations for fence. C. Applicant shall provide location of exiting for all sections of building to show compliance with maximum distance to exits and compliance with all handicapped requirements. D. Applicant shall show one hour wall and non combustible construction for walls adjacent to driveway between buildings (less than 20 feet to center of driveway). 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit a detailed lighting plan (incorporating the use of transition lighting) to the Planning Division and Crime Prevention Unit for review and approval. Interior lighting shall be shown for storage rooms, hallways, lobbies, office and elevator. Exterior lighting should include pole and building mounted night lighting inside the complex in addition to perimeter lighting. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, contact the Crime Prevention Unit at (619) 691-5127 to schedule a security evaluation. Incorporate recommendations into design of the facility. Storage units should be designed and constructed to prevent thefts and burglaries. 5. Comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Department including the following: A. 4000 GPM water flow required. If not available, water lines must be upgraded B. 2AIOBC extinguishers required. Travel distance not to exceed 75 feet. C. Knox switch required for gate. D. Dry standpipe required per Fire Department. E. Submit fire sprinkler plans to Fire Department for review and approval. 6. Comply with all requirements of the Engineering Department including, but not limited to, the following: A. Prior to issuance of building permits, fees for sewer connection, development impact and traffic signal fees must be paid as applicable. B. Obtain a construction permit to perform work within the City's right of way. Applicant shall construct one driveway approach per Chula Vista Standards. C. If the total on-site excavation exceeds the requirements prescribed by the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance Number 1797 Section 15.04.150, a grading permit will be required. 7. Comply with all City ordinances, standards, and policies except as otherwise provided in this resolution. Any violation of City ordinances, standards, and policies, or any condition of approval of this Conditional Use Permit or any provision of the Municipal Code, as determined by the Director of .2D RplO:,()lntinn Nn p~V" 4 Planning, shall be grounds for revocation or modification of this Conditional Use Permit by the City of Chula Vista. 8. No storage units shall be used for any commercial, office, or retail uses other than any office/retail space necessary for the operation of the storage facility itself. 9. Applicant/operator shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and cost, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and, (c) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns. 10. This permit shall bc subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. II. This Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted without prior or concurrent approval of amendment to the Rancho del Rey SPA I Commercial District Regulations to allow self-storage uses to be considered within the District subject to a Conditional Use Permit. 12. A seperate sign permit shall be required for any signage proposed for this project. 13. Hours of operation shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. everyday. Any change in hours of operation must be requested and approved by the Zoning Administrator. VI EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL Applicant shall execute and have notarized the attached Agreement indicating the Applicant has read, understands and ag..ees to the conditions of approval contained herein, and will implement the same. VII. 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 and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by J../ Rp'~n111tinn Nn p~V" ~ Robert Leiter Director of Planning John M. Kaheny City Attorney .2~ \ -_&- . . " i CHULA LOCATOR C) VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT , ~~c31r: Caster Group, L.P. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SPA AMENDMENT PROJECT Commercial District ADDRESS: Rancho Del Rey SPA I .23 Request Proposal for Amendment to Rancho Del Rey SPA I Commercial District. SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: NORTH No Scale PCM-99-09 h:lhomelplanninglcarlosllocatorslpcm9909.cdr 3/12/99 Related Cases: 189922, DRC9942, PCC9931 ) (f) ....... o .C ....... (j'J b CD (f) ::> u r- - cu -1 i / I \ I - I R :; J I "---- "- \. / ~- / ./ c / , ./ \ ./ '. I '../ \. ". ,. ........... ........ . ! - u . . . . c :: - , f ~ - - . U ?: ;: ;: - , o ; 0- f ~ It ~ '! w ~ CI c:: - Vol c ;;::: : ~ ~ ~ Z ; i ~ ~ ~ ;; 6 r::. - 0 a: ~ g ;.~ ~ =: : ~ u : ~ [) u . o .. .. ii ~ u ;; = ~ ~ ~ : ~ s ~ ; . Ii ~ :~:~i .., .. ... w g :5 : i 5 a w _ .. ;;: '" ~~~~~ :( e 2 9 0 ... : : : : ~ c C .. II: I pl:lrJJ ; ~~tJQ : [jL:JLJI..:.! = ~[J L , \ -J. \ ~ ) / I ILV I I / I ) ~_/ l -....., \ -- \ "- I I ) r-: "-'" ~ .....-.! ..~ \ ~ \ \ ) i ! I \ i \ > \ ~ \ \ \ \ i... . , () E o Q ~ ~ ~ . 5 ij ~ i:i wEee = fI} ;;: ;;:;; 9 ;: i5 act:: o .. .. ft ~~*~ ~ :; i ~ ~ :; 0<=g g o . . E 6 8 ~ ~.'_I~I_'. nl ";.1.,, 1_&, \41:010 0 ;;;1-1 __ .:l-L/ (- ( ( '\ \ \ I f / \ I 1\ \ '\ \ \ ........ t \ )- . . o ~ ~~ ;;~"\ " = I ' , \ ~ \ \ . \: \ \ . \ I \-;---~ \L.. , I I I I I I ~ I . I \ \ I t $1 .- .~.; r,- '" ;,~ (':: ._",1; _ -"'-~ -i':;; :::U~.="" jlrr ..,~ ~! Ii ~~E He <~ \ . '-......./ N o m N .. ~~ EjJ :>, .. ~= ~8 Qj ;I Q~ '" E: ~ ., negative ATTACHMENT declaration A I "- "" PROJECT NAME: A-I Self Storage PROJECT LOCATION: 840 Laze Ct., City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: Caster Group, Limited Partnership PROJECT AGENT: Rick Marrs, Inc, Arcl1irect CASE NO.: 18-99-22 DATE: March 26,1999 A,... PROJECT SEITING The enviroDffiental setting for the project consists of a graded vacant parcel presently designated for commercial development by the fumcho del Rey (RDR)Secrional Pl~nning :""rea (SPA) I planned community document and locared at the southwest corner of Paseo de Rey and Lazo Ct. Tne rectangular shaped sire consists of approximarely 1.8 gross acres. Surrouncling land uses include Rice Canyon across Paseo del Rey to the north. a "K" Ma..'1: store to the east across Lazo Court and a st..'"ep ascending man-made slope, a bowling recrearional center to the south and a Petsmart store to the west beyond a steep descending man-made slope. . The sire is relatively flat and contains non-native grasses and weedy plants throughout. There are no sensitive plant or anim~l species found on this 1llghly disturbed sire and no cultural resources . would be impacted by the proposed project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project seeks to amend the RDR SPA 1 plan to allow mini self-storage facilities in the C-I commercial dis1rict with the issuance of a conditional use permit and concurrently process the conditional use permit and Design Review Committee applications for the proposed developIDent of a 950+- unit self-storage faciliry. The Initial Study has addressed the impacts from the proposed self-storage facility at the proposed site but further enviroDffiental assessment will be required for similar development associated .with other parcels should the proposed amendment to the RDR SPA I plan be approved. Tne self-storage facility would consist of two buildings, each three stories high with building" 1 " conL<!inin~ 43,020 gross sq. ftwith a 14340 sq. ft footprint and building "2" containing 51,900 gross sq. ft with a 17,300 sq. ft footprint. No caretakers unit is proposed, however, a 937 sq. ft office area will be provided. A total of fifteen parking stalls are proposed which will require the approval of a zoning variance to the RDR SPA I regularions. . Access to the project site is via Laze Court off of Pas eo del Rey both being two-lane roads built to industrial road standards. Paseo del Rey conneC'.s with East "H" Street, a six -lane prime arterial. .l.~ ~~ft.. -.,.- ._--...;.~ C. Compatibility with Zonin: and Plans The Rancho Del Rey SPA I plan designates the site as C-l (Commercial District). The proposed project is presently not listed as a permitted use in this district. The applicant is seeking to amend the co=ercial district regulations to allow a mini self-storage facility to be p=itted subject to the issuance of a conditional use pennit The plmm;ng Comm;~sion will be requested to deliberate and determine whether the proposed project is deemed compa1J1>le with surrounding commercial uses. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. public Services Impacts Fire The nearest Fire Station is located about 2.5 miles from the project site. Tne estimated response mne to the project site is less than 7 minutes. The Fire Department can adequately deiiver seT\>jce to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. The:fire department however, states that the UFC requirement can be reduced by 50% if the applicant provides an automatic sprinklered system for the facility. The Fire Department states that additional comments will be provided when detailed develOpment plans become available. Police Department Crime Prevention staff indicate that the Police Department can maintain current levels of police service to the area and no mitigation is required. Upon the availability of specific site plan development,. the Police Department recommends a. security evaluation by crime prevention personnel. 2. UtiliTv and Sen>jce Svstems l'"oise No significant noise impacts are e>..1Jected to result from the proposed constI1lction or operation of the project site. The SUITOunding coIDID.ercial uses are not considered by the City's noise ordinance to be sensitive noise receptors. 4- r.:\home'.pianning\linriab\ClrE302.adm l"agt: _._.__._--~- Schools "This project is in the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Umon Hi!!h School District. The entire RDR project is within the Mello-Roos Co=uniry Faciliti~s District No.3. All properties, including non-residential, are assessed a special tax to fully mitigate impacts on school facilities. The fee is split between the two districts. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requjres 'that all in.tersections must operate at a Level of Servic:: (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception 'that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at si!:"HH7t'".d in.tersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "F" during the average weekday peak nour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Policy. The City Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed project and has det=ined that it would not adversely affect the existing level of service on roads or intersections in the area. The project would be associated with a Level of Service "c" for Pasco Del Rey and East "H" Sueet. No traffic mitigation would be required. Drainage Th= are existing storm drain inlets in both Laze Ct. and Paseo del Rey. The Engineering Division in.dicates 'that additional information will Deed to be provided by the applicant in the form of a drainage study. This information will be evaluated by the engineering division at the design stage. A National Pollution Discharge EHm;nHtion System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit will not be required. No mitigation is required at this time. Soils Th= are no anticipated adverse geotechnical conditions on the project site. The applicant will be required to prepare a soils report and comply with the recommendations found in the soils investigation as a standard requirement. 3. Open Space No impacts to open space are noted. 4. AestheticslLi~htin~ The proposed project will be subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Committee. The proposed site plan, architectural design, landscaping and lighting plans will be reviewed by pJHnn;ng staff and the DRC to ensure the finished product will complement surrounding development and conform to any existing adopted designlJandscaping plans. .1'7 h:\home\plannin,glJinciab\t:irS30:.aam Pa~= 3 E. Mitigation Necessarv to Avoid Significant Effects No mitigation will be required for the proposed self-storage facility development on parcel one. F. ConsuJtation 1. Individll~l. !IIld Or~~n17"rions City of Chula Vista: Doug Reid, phmn;ng Benjamin Gucm::ro, Phmn;ng Majed AJ-Gbafry, Engineering Duane B=1, PlannIDg Gany WilHam.. PlannIDg Brad Kemp, BuilQing Division Rod Hastie, Fire Marsball Stephen Preuss, Crime Prevention Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner Peggy McCarb::rg, Acting Deputy City Attorney Chula Vista City Schoo] District: Dr. Lowell Billlings Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright Applicant's Agent Rick Mam;, Inc. Architect 3. Initial Studv 1bis environme:ntaJ df,tPTm;n,mon 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 judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista P]ann;ng department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. 91910. <<1iL I~:/ . Dc1U(;L.b"S . RErri, E!'\'VIR.ONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR Environm Review Coordinator REFERE..~CES Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of ChuIa Vista Environmental Review Procedures Rancho De] Rey FEIR 83-02 ol'f h:\home'piann1ng:\1indab\CuS302.aam Pagc:4 Case No.IS-99-22 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKY JST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Caster Group, LP. . 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cbnla VISta 276 Fourth AVeDlle Chula VISta., CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Nmnber of Proponent: 4607 mission Gorge Place San Diego, CA. 92102 (619) 287-8893 4. Name of Proposal: A-I Self Storage 5. Date of Checklist: March 25, 1999 POtaltiaI!j" Potcmial!y s4;nificmt " Loas than sigmikant Unlcss significmt No t Impact Mitipted Impact Impact 1- LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with genera1 plan designation or 0 0 0 181 zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 181 plans 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 co=unity (including a low-income or minoriry co=unity)? Comments: The applicant is seeking to amend the existing RDR SPA I plan to allow the proposed construction of the self storage facility in the C- I (co=ercial) district. The proposal will be be subject to review and approval by the City's Planning Commission. No significant adverse impacts are noted at this time. .,)..Cf Page: No.1 Potenti:dh" Pote:ntialh' Significant Less than Sil:l1iii:ant Unless Significant No lmpa<t Mit4:=d lmpac: lmpac: n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 t8I local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 t8I directly or indirectly (e.g~ through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 t8I affordable housing? Comments: The proposed project will not :induce population growth or displace housing. The project proposes to construct a se]f storage facility to serve the needs of existing residential development No impacts to population or housing are Doted. ID. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impaczs involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 t8I geologic subs1ruc:tures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 D. t8I overcovering of the soil? c) Change :in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 t8I relief features? d) The des1ruction, covering or modification 0 0 0 t8I of any urrique geologic or physical features? e) .'\ny increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 t8I soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 !81 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? 30 P.agt No.2 g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or ";mil,,,. hazards? Potmtialiy Potc:ntiall:y Significant 1.= trum Signuu:ant Unless Sit;nific:ant No Impact Mitigated lmpoa Impact. 0 0 I8I 0 Comments: The site has been fully graded. A soils investigation has 110t been performed. However, one will be required and the appli=t shall comply with the reco=endations as standard conditions of project approval. The surface soils consisting of alluvial elements, appear to be suitable for the proposed structural loads. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associared with the project site. The closest known fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located aDout 2.5 miles west of the project site. The site is not =t1y v.oithin a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on the anticipated earthquake effect that could occur and the composition of the upper surface soils, a relatively minor seismically- induced settlement is likely to occur. Potential geology/soils impacts are deemed to be less than significant. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: t ~ a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage . patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) EJ.:posure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other altermion of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved O)(ygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in cUITents, 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? 91 .-..--^"-.-- o o I8I o o o o I8I o o o I8I o o o I8I o o o I8I o o o I8I PaJ!~ No.3 Poterttiall~. PoterttiaUv Signific:mt l.cssthan Significmt Unless Significant No lmpaa Mitip1ed Impact Imp2Ct g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 I8I groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 I8I , i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 I8I waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 I8I water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The applicant proposes to convey drainage flows through an existing city storm drain facility. The s drainage facilities appear adequate to serve the site, however, the City Engineering Division will require, as a standard condition of project design permit approval, that the applicant prepare a drainage study to clearly identify the method water will be conveyed.. The project site is not within a flood plain. The project applicant will not be required to develop and implement a storm water pollution plan (SWPP) but will be required to comply with Chapter 1420 of the Chula Vista Mmricipal Code, relating to management prnctices associated with construction activity. No significant impacts to water or drainage Me noted. No mitigation is required at this time. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proj ected air quality violation? b) E,,:pose sensitive receptorsto pollutants? o o o I8I o o o I8I c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change m climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? o o o I8I o o o I8I e) Create a substantial mcrease m stati onary or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? o o [81 o J::J... Pa~~ No.4 Pota1ti:Uly Sipifit:mt Impact Potaluilh' Signifi~t Unless Mitigatod L:ss than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: Final Gradillg and construction of the proposed industrial buildings would tmIporarily create dust and emissions associated withacrivity from earth moving equipment and construcrion vehicles: These short-term emissions are not considcredsignificant impacts, however, standard dust control measures would be implemented, includingwatcring exposed soils and street sweeping. The Average Daily Traffic(ADT) <:a1cu1ated to be generated by the proposed self storage project is estimated to be 190. Due to the relatively low number of1rips no significant air quality impacts n-om auto emissions are noted. . VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 0 0 [81 congestion? b) Hazards to safety n-om design features. 0 0 0 [81 (e.g~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 [81 nearby uses? d) Insufiicient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 0 [81 off-site? r e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 [81 bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 [81 altemarive transportarion (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) :Rail, waterborne or air ttaffic impacts? 0 0 0 [81 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 [81 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: Based on the proposed use the ADT for the self-storage project is calculated to be 190. The traffic generated would not adversely impact the surrounding primary access roads including Pasco Del Rey and East "H" Street which would remain with an L.O.S. of.C'. No other impacts to traffic or circulation are noted for this proposed project. No mitigarion ",ill be required at this time. 3J Page No.5 i, PotmtiaIh' Potentiali,.. Signifian't Las than Significant Un!... Significant No 1mi=' Mitigated Impact. Impa<t vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would lhe proposal result in impacts .to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 [gI concern or spec~es 1hat are candidates for listing? b) LocaIJy designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 [gI 11"= )? c) LocaIJy designated mrtura1 communities 0 0 0 [gI (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) WetJand habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 [gI vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 [gI f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 0 0 [gI planning efforts? Comments: The project site and .surrounding developed area are loca1ed in a fully urbanized community and cOntain no native habitat. The site has been fully graded. No animal or plant species listed as:rare, 1breatened or endangered by local, State or Federa1 resource conservation and regulatmyagencies are known 10 be present in this higb1y disturbed area. No adverse impacts to biological resources are Doted. No mitigation will be required. i ~. , i , L , i- ~. ! ! r VITI. E1\'ERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ~ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a 0 0 0 [gI wasteful and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 [gI resolITce protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. IX. HAZARDS. Would xhe proposal involve: 3'1 Pagc NO.6 i 1 L a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possi'ble interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? J}oterttially J>otentiall)' Si~ifiant Less than SiJ;Dific:ant Unless Signific:mt No Impact Mitig=d Impact Impact 0 0 0 I8I o o o I8I 1" ! j. i r c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 I8I potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 I8I potential llealth 1I.azards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 I8I fhrrnm~hle brush, grass, or 1rees? _. Comments: Project linplementation would not pose a health hazard to humans. No hazardoUs mau:rials or substances will be permitted to be stored on site. Therefore, there cannot be a risk of an explosion or release ofbazardous substances in1he event of an accident or upset condition. No mitigation will be required. i , k ~~ . t l :x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 I8I 0 b) E"..posure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 I8I 0 t , Comments: Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term nature of the noise, and the fact that adjacent uses consists of commercial uses and a canyon, results in less than significant impacts to the surrounding area. No mitigation is required. XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an ejJec:t upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? o 0 0 I8I 0 0 I8I 0 0 I8I Pagr No." b) Police protection? o c) Schools? o :35-- I)otc:ntia1I~. POtential I" Significmt Las tbon SipUficmt Unless Sii:l1ificant No Impaa Mitiptcd lmpact Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 [8J roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 [8J Comments: The project would not have an effect upon or result in a ne--...d for new or altered governmental services. o o o [8J xn. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impac1 the City's Threshold Standards? A5 described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS o o o [8J T The Threshold Standards requires that :fire and medical.u:nits must be able to respond to calls 'within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and 'within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista Fire DepaT1ment indicates that this threshold standard will be met The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire DepaT1ment indicates that the nearest me station is 2.5 miles away and that the estim"t...d response time is 4.5 minutes. b) Police o o o [8J The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I calIs within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes orless. Police units must respond to 62.1 0% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response rime to all Priority 2 calIs of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response rime for Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls appears to be 'within the recommended Threshold Standard. Comments: The police DepaT1ment indicates that adequate service can be provided to the project site. Any additional construction plans should be forwarded to the crime prevention unit for evaluation. No mitigation will be required. c) Traffic o o o [8J 3(., Pa!!t No.8 PotauiaIl,:r Potcnt.iall,. Signifiant Less t:han SipUficant UnlCS5 Significant No Impact Mitigotcd Impact Impact 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 dming the peak two hours of the rlay at sign" 1;7".(1 intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate ataLOS belowtbeir 1987LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during theavi:rage weckdaypeak hour. 1ntcrsections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this StJmdard. The proposed project will comply with thisThresbold Standard. Comments: No adverse impacts to 1raffic/circu1ation are noted from the proposed project. d) ParkslRecreation o o o 181 The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The se1f-storage facility is not considered a residential project and will thus comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted. e) Drainage o o o 181 - The Threshold StJmdards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. lndividual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Thresho1d Standard. L . , Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that existing off-site drainage facilities appear adequate to serve the proposed project subject to the submittal of a drainage study and review and approval of all grading and construction plans. No mitigation will be required. f) Sewer o o o 181 The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. lndividual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent v.'ith Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The project 'will comply v.'ith this Threshold Standard. 57 P.a~t' No.9 Potentially SipUfic:ant Impaa !Jotenti:aJl" Significm"t Unless Miti!;.lwl l.e>sthan Significmt Impaa No Impact Comments: The proposed project is not expected to create a need for any new utilities or service systems. A 10" PVC sewer main is located in Laze Court adjacent to the project site. This line flows southwesterlyt a 12" sewer main in East T Street. The Engineering Division indicates that existing sewer facilities appear adequate serve the proposed project. No adverse impacts to sewers arenoted. No mitigation will be rCqujred. . g) Water o o o ~ The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and tran,,",;~sion facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to parricipate 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 adverse impacts to water quality are noted from project approval. xm. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. , Wauld the proposal result in a need for new L_ , systems. or substaniial alterations to the , following utilities: a) Powerornatura1 gas? 0 0 0 ~ b) Co=unications systems? 0 0 0 ~ c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~ distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~ e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~ f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~ Comments: This project v.@ not result in a need for new systems, nor result in alterations in any utiliti es. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 3.1'" Page No. JO Potentially Pot.t:ntwly Sitnificm1 Las than Siplific:mt Unless Significant No Impact Mitil'"'C'l Impact Impaa a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 I8I 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 I8I scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 I8I 0 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 I8I conld increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chnla Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill 0 0 0 I8I light? Comments: The project will be subject to the Tequirements of the Design Review Committee process. This process will help ensure that the proposed project is in hannony with SUIrounding development with respect to the site coverage, proposed building heights, lann""aping, lighting and . operations. No mitigation will be required. . x-v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 I8I or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal Tesult in adverse 0 0 0 I8I physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 I8I cause a physical change which would affect uni que ethnic cnlrural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing 0 0 0 I8I religious or sacred uses Vlithin the potential impact area? 3'7 Pag,= No. }l e) Is the area identified on the City's Genern1 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The project site bas been fully graded and disturbed by human activity. Adjacent properties are also fully deVeloped and disturbed by human activity. No adverse impacts to cultural resources are noted. No mitigation will be requierd. ])otentialiy Pou:n.tialiy Siplific:ant Le" th= Significant Un1ess SignifiClnt Impact Miti~tcd Impact 0 0 0 No lmpoct [gI XVL PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project, which is 10cated in a fulJy deve10ped urban setting. o o .0 [gI }"'VII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neigbboIhood or 0 0 0 [gI regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 [gI c) Interfere with recreation parks & 0 0 0 [gI recreation p1ans or programs? Comments: No impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans are noted. XVIII. MA.l\;J>ATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF1CANCE: See Negative. Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. ~o Pa~e No. 12 a) Does the proj ect 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 be10w se1f-sustaimng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ~nim~ 1 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or ~nim~1 or elimin~te important examp1es of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting. The project site has been . completely disturbed by human activity. Small patches ofnon-IUltive grass are found on-site. No impacts to wildlife population, habitat or culturallhistorical resources are noted. b) Does the proj ect have the potential to acbieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? potentiall)' SignifiCU1t lmJ=t I'Dtentialh- Significan~ Unless Mitigated No lmpaa Less than SiJ;l1ifiCU1t lmJ=t o o o [gI o o o [gI Comments: The project does not have the potentia1to aclrieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage ofJong-term goals. The Project is consistent with both the Zoning and General P1an designation for the site. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o o o [gI Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Project implementation will result in an improvement to an existing vacant industrially designated lot. -<II ~-_._-~- Pagt No. 13 PotentialJ,. Si.gnificant Impact ]'otcnti21i~' Si.;;nificant Unless Mitiptcd l.= than Significant Imp"" No lmpaa d) Does the project have envITonmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or .directJ? m y. Comments: The analysis cOntained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectJy. o o o [gI XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No mitigation will be required. . .Project Proponent . Date xx. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEl'<"TIALLY AFFECTED: None have been checked. The enVlTOmnental factors checked be10w would be potentially affected by this project, invoJving at1east one impact that is a "Potential1y Significant Impact" or "Potential1y Significant Unless Mitigated.," 2S indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and P1anning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services o Population and o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Housing Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Minera1 o Aesthetics Resources o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o llir Quality o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance 'I~ Page No. 14 XXI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I :find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [81 f 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 IDeasures 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 1MP ACT REPORT is required. o o 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 1MP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remam 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 potP.ntial1y significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately:in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pmsuant to that earlier E1R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Unposed "Upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. o b~(l~~~ew~ City OfCh~~:f March 26, 1999 Date <(3 Page: No. 15 SECOND ADDEJ\"'DUM TO EIR-87-] (R4...l'ICHO DEL REY EIR FOR SECTI01'\AL PL4... "I!'i'1NG AREA (SPA) 1) Initial Study 15-99-25 PROJECT NAME: Rancho del Rey SecrionaJ Plarming Area (SPA) I lunendment PROJECT LOCATION: 808.6 acres East ofInterstate-805, City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: Caster Group, Limited Partnership PROJECT AGENT: Rick Marrs, Inc., Architect CASE NO.: 15-99-25 DATE: April 8, 1999 I. INTRODUCTION The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista aliow the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) to prepare an addendum to a Negative Declaration or Envrronmentallmpact Report (EIR) if one of the following conditions is present: 1. The amendments or minor changes wmch have occtmed since completion of the Fmal EIR (EIR-87-0l) have not created any new significant environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Final EIR.. 2. Additional orrefined information available since completion of the Final EIR regarding the potential environmental impact of the project, or regarding the measures or alternatives available to mitigate potential environmental effects of the proj ect, does not show that the project will have one or more si~i;;cant impacts wmch were not previously addressed in the Final EIR. This addendum has been prepared in order to provide additional infOlmation and analysis concerning traffic, public service and land use impacts as a result of the proposed amendment to the C-1 commercial district found in the RDR SPA 1 plan. FEIR-87-01 analyzed the impact of the development of the C-I disnict for commercial development with ancillary commercial related land uses. As a result of this analysis, the basic conclusions of the Final EIR have not changed. Traffic public service and land use impacts are found to be less than significant for the proposed project and were previously addressed in EIR-87-01. Therefore, in accordance \\.jth Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the following addendum to EIR-87-01. <lIf. ,--"-~--_._-- II. PROJECT SETTING The RDR SPA I plan area consists of 808.6 acres located within the City of Chula Vista east of Interstate 805. Commercially designated land makes up for only about 80 acres. The great majority of this land has been developed. See attached D1JIjJ showing RDR SPA boundaries. ill. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists. of a legislative action that seeks to amend the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan in order to allow self-storage facilities within the C -I commercial district A project proposing the development of a 1.8 acre lot in the RDR SPA I planning area is being assessed by a separate environmental document IV. COMPATIBILI1YWITH ZONING Al\'D PLANS The proposed project would provide the mechanism by which to permit a specific land use category in the C-I commercial district subject 10 the granting of a conditional use permit. The proposed RDR SPA I amendment would be subject to the review and approval of the City's Planning Commission and City Counci1. V. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS , 1 1. Public Services lmt:1acts Fire No impacts to fire resources are noted since the proposed project consists of a legislative action and any future potential project would be subject to further environmental review. Police Department The Police Department indicates they can maintain current levels of police service to the Rancho del Rey area. 7 UtiIirv and Service Svstems Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requITes that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. !() ---- " The proposed project represents a legislative actiOD aDd aDY proposaJ seeking the physica1 deveJopment of a site would be subject to further environmental analysis aDd the preparation of the appropriate environmental document. The RDR SPA 1 FEIR 87-01 reviewed the development of the 84 acres of non-residential land for more intense comrnercialland uses. No advcrne impact to traffic/circulation is noted from the proposed action. 4. Land Use The applicant is seeking to amend the existing RDR SPA I plan to allow self-storage facilities in the C-1 (commercial) district subject to the issuance of a conditional use p=it. The proposal would be subject to review 2nd approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposal represents legislative action onJy at this time aDd as such wmi1d not have the potential to divide an established community nor conflict with any applicable conservation plaD Dr natural community conservation plan. 5. ODen 5uace No impacts to open space would result from project approval. The RDR SPA I FEIR 87-01 satisfactorily addresses the issue of open space. VI. CONCLUSION Pmsuantto 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 mmor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate under CEQA.. ;LALfilLt/ Doug1~:i~ . Environmental Review Coordinator REFERENCES Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area One (June, 1987) Rancho del Rey SPA I Final EIR 87-01 (Dec., 1987) L(<o h:\hom::\pianninglJindab'~tT8301..acim Pag.: 3- A TT ACHMENli-S , CHAPTER U:-B: COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT IX-B. 0 Purpose In addition to the objectives outlines in Chapter VII, the Commercial District is included to provide for a quality environ- ment and to achieve a harmonious mixture of retail and service commercial uses. Specifically, the Commercial District is intended to meet the following objectives: To reserve appropriately located areas for retail stores, service establishments and offices, offering commodities and services required by residents of the city and its surrounding market area; To provide an opportunity and appropriate development stan- dards for larger warehouse/discount retail commercial and support facilities; To encourage retail and service commercial uses, and related support uses, to concentrate for the convenience of the public and for a more mutually beneficial relationship to each other; To provide adequate space to meet the needs of modern commer- cial development, including off-street parking and loading areas; To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them; and, To promote high standards of site planning, architecture and landscape design for commercial developments within the city of Chula Vista. A. commercial District (C-1) This district is intended as an area for large scale retai.l commercial facilities, along with complementary support, recre- ation, and entertainment commercial uses, which can meet the high performance and development standards of the Rancho del Rey Planned Community. C{1 IX-B-l :I:X-B.1 PERM:I:TTED AND COND:I:T:I:ONAL USES The following uses shall be permitted uses where the symbol lip" appears and shall be permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit where the symbol "c" appears. Uses are not permitted where the symbol "N" appears. LAND USE A. 1- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I 7. - ~ 8. 9. 10. 11. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT service and Commercial C-l Animal hospital or veterinary clinic and/or office Automobile andlor truck services C c Bakery, retail p Barber or beauty shop P Blueprinting and photocopying p Car washing establishment subject to provisions of Section 19.58.060 CVMC c Clothes cleaning pick-up agencies with incidental pressing p Clothing sales p Day care, nursery school C Drug store, pharmacy p Eating and drinking establishments: a. Restaurant, restaurant with cocktail lounge, coffee shop, and full delicatessen (may serve alcoholic beverages) p b. Refreshment stands & snack bars within a building as accessory to permitted use Fast food restaurants with drive-in or drive-through p p c. 12. Gasoline dispensing and/or automobile service station c If? IX-B-2 -- LAND USE 13. Grocery, fruit or vegetable store 14. Health or atheletic club 15. Hotel, motel; subject to provisions of section 19.58.210 CVMC 16. Liquor store (package, off-sale only) 17.. Medical and dental offices, and clinics, medical, optical and dental laboratories, not including the man- ufacture of pharmaceutical or other products for general sale or distri- bution 18. Movie theater, multi-plex 19. Offices: administrative and execu- tive offices; professional offices for lawyers, engineers, architects; financial offices including banks, real estate and other general busi- ness offices 20. Plant nurseries and similar outdoor sales 21. Recreation, commercial including bowling alley, billiard parlor, skating rink, and miniature golf course subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.040 CVMC 22. The retail of such bulky items as furniture, carpets and other similar items 23. Retail distribution centers and manufacturer's outlets which require extensive floor areas for the stor- age and display of merchandise, and the high volume, warehouse-type sale of goods and uses which are related to and supportive of existing on-site retail distribution centers of manu- facturer's outlets. V,? IX-B-3 ._~-------_. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT p C C C C P p C C P P ~ LAND USE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 24. Any other retail business or service establishment supplying commodities or performing services which is determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the above mentioned retail business or service uses and open during normal business hours of the above uses 25. Stores, shops and offices supp~ying commodities or performing serv1ces for the residents of the city as a whole or the surrounding community such as department stores, specialty shops, banks, business offices, and other financial institutions and personal service enterprises B. Public and Semi-Public Uses 1. Day nurseries, day care schools and nursery schools 2. Educational institutions, public or private including vocational schools J. Post offices and post office terminals 4. Recreation, private, semi-private, or commercial 5. Public and quasi-public uses appro- priate to the district, such as professional, business and technical schools of a pUblic service type, but not including corporation.yards, storage or repair yards, and warehouses 6. School and studio for arts and crafts; photography, music, dance and art galleries, in accordance with the provisions of Secti9n 19.58.220 CVMC Any other public or semi-public use which is determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses 7. \ 57J IX-B-4 P P C C C C C C C \ . LAND USE c. Accessory Uses 1. Accessory structures and uses located on the same lot as permitted or conditional use 2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities 3. Incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use, including day care, recreational facilities, showers and locker rooms 4. Roof mounted satellite dishes subject to the following standards or conditions: a. The dish shall be s~reened using appropriate mat~hing architectural material. or parapet walls; b. Dishes shall be of a neutral color, match the building, or as otherwise approved by the CitY1 ' c. A building permit shall be required; and, d. No advertising material shall be allowed on the satellite dish antenna. Satellite dish antennae containing advertising material shall be considered signs. D. Temporary Uses 1. Temporary uses as prescribed in Chapter XI :>( IX-B-S COMMERCIAL DISTRICT p p p p p Rear yard setback (feet) 9. Rice Canyon top of slope setback (feet) 10. Building height, maximum3.5 I, , ~, > 4. 5. 6. 7_ 8. , t ~ IX-B.2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following property development standards apply to all land and buildings other than accessory buildings authorized in the Commercial District. Any legal lot may be used as a building site, except no building permit shall be issued for any lot having a lot size less than 10,000 square feet. A. General Requir_ents The following requirements are minimums unless otherwise stated: Development Standard 1. Lot area, net sq. ft. (OOO'S)1 Lot width (feet) Lot depth (feet) 100 10 2. 100 3. Front yard setback (feet) Side yard setback, each (feet) Public street ROW setback (feet) 256 102 20 East "H" St. ROW setback (feet) 607 102 50 Bldg/20 Parking 35 feet or 2 .tories, whichever i. 1... 11. Maximum lot coverage (percent of net lot}4 40 12. Parcels 1, 3 and 4 should have a minimum of 100,00 sq. ft. single tenant building. IMap for condominium development doe. not need to meet lot area requirement. Minimum lot area may be-reduced to 10,000 sq. ft. for master planned building complexes with Precise Plan approval. Such Precis. Plan. shall b. for a total trea of no less than 60,000 sq. ft. May be reduced to zero (0) with Site Plan approval. 3Heights which vary from these standards may be approved via a Conditional Use fermit and Site Plan approval. Open space lots or other special setbacks along East "H" Street shall be included in the adjacent building lot area for purposes of the lot coverage falculation. Architectural feature, entry.. identification, or roof-top screening allowed to SO ft. in height · Refer also to Design Guidelines for individual parcel criteria. 7 Existing lots 4,7 & 8 of Final Map # 12267 (T.T. Map 88-2) shall have a minimum of 40 foot East "H" St. ROW setback for building less than 100,000 square feet_ The East "H" St. building setback for all lots shall be used as a landscape buffer area. Any encroaclunent into this area for parking, driveways, or hardscape shall be subject to the approval of the Design Review Committee. .r..:l. IX-B-6 B. special Requirements 1. Along all street frontages situated across from any residen- tially zoned property, the use of berms, fences, and landscap- ing shall be used consistent with the Buisness Center Design Guidelines. 2. Streets capes shall be enhanced to provide an easy transition from the street to. the building. Patios, circulation and parking spaces can be included in setback areas to help buffer adjoining parcels from one another. 3. For Lots 1 and 3 of Subdivision 93-01 and Lot 1 of Subdivision 92-05 the minimum building size shall be 100,000 square feet and shall be occupied by a single user. IX-B.3 GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following performance standards are general guidelines intended to describe the overall minimum design standards for the Commercial Center. The design guidelines which occur in Chapter VI of the SPA Plan and the separate Employment park/Commercial Center Design Guidelines text provide specific recommendations. \ . A. Landscaping In the commercial District the required front and exterior side (street side) yard setbacks shall be landscaped. parking, driveways, and other decorative hardscape areas will be permitted within the required rear yard, interior side yard, East "H" Street, and Rice Canyon top-of-slope setbacks. (Refer also to Business Center Design Guidelines for areas abutting Rice Canyon), Landscap- ing shall consist predominantly of plant materials and shall be irrigated by automatic sprinklers. All planting and irrigation shall be in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual and the Business Center Design Guidelines. All landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a clean, healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds, trash and debri~. . B. Equipment All ground mounted mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units and trash receptacle areas, shall be completely screened from view of surrounding properties. (See also Business Center Design Guidelines) C. utilities \ All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the site so as not to be exposed except where required by utility provider. (See also Business Center Design Guidelines) -rJ IX-B-7 , I '" in :> '" "S J: o .5 III ~ "5 '" u.. "tJ - II> III > II> 0 U ~ ",a. a. a. en<t 0>015 t: 0> :g:5 '" III .1. .~ ~w II> . E III 0> Ci)1? " " 00 -0 00 t: N 0", II)~ io a."" E~ 0", 00> '" ~ o 1i5 - OJ en ~ < "tJ II> III o a. o ~ a. ~ - II> II) o E ~ o .9 ctI ~ en Co ...Jaw ~- 11>'" E II) o II> - " II) '" " a. Oen ci z o a:: o II) II) II> ~ " " <t ~ 13 '" u. Q)-g0) O>-t: '" "'- ... CJ-t: .e=t5m C/) ~c.. GO " 13 i Ii 0 1: > N IV '" > ~ A TT ACHMEN: 6 oo~~~~~~~~.!!:!~mm~a:I c:c:c:c:c:.c::c:c:c:ce:t:c:c ------o,--------ca ~~~~~~~c~~~c~~~c 0000000000000000 -~-------------- ~~~NNMOM~~~M~~~~ t: co..,. 00 mc:D '" '" ..,. ~~ ...- ...-...... ..............................-0')...... ........-...................____......__CD ~~c;;~~a;~~~~~~cnc;; Q) 0) .,.. OJ Q) ......'" C>> OJ en 0) CD CD _ ...... CD.. 0<( <t"'()<t()()<t()()()()()()"c.: <t O<t .0 - _0 _ _ _ . _ _;;; '" u -OS' -S.!2 cU'SSS!!!SS-1;; .S' -UJ's0cn-U)CI)U)CI)U)rn>s; S'5~5~555>55555~m ~ -r:a>CUctl cucaCUctlCUctl,E"3 >~>"3m"3"3~"3"3"3"3"3"3u~ m='ctI~'3J::.c::::J..c::.c..c:.cJ::.c U ~5~~G~~D~~~~~~~~ U~O~~~m~mmmmQ)ma::OIl> ~>~c:mE~m~EEEEE = Q)'i::Q)Q)~--,-------=CI) cPCCD>-cCl)CI)U5C1)CI)CJ)CI)CI)Cf.)QJc: =m-=<(mcc: C:C:C:C:C:C:=:(ij CI)-CI)~OmmSmmmmmmcn~ ~~b~~~~J~~~~~~S"'C ~ ~c OMI.()It)-,....COQ)Il)C'\I&O......'" ~Er:~~~~~~~~:er::i8~~ ......t-~............NN(CNNMMMMNN e:- ll> 2: a; o II> 015 ~o>m ~~ c- O) Q) ~ co '" ~ " C) 0) CD t'D .... ..9 CD .:K:: mm~Q).9.9 .9VJ ~~ oo.9~ en en ~ ....0.. ~~~15 :E~~CD:g~~CDCD15CD Q5CD:5:= Q:)::E~~ 0)"'-Ci5 0)0>_ 0> '" '" ::I Q) ~1D >.0.. ~ tC ~ _ ~ E CD ~ -'CQ.."'i5Q)'CCDBCi.iU:::mB.9"'B ~ tti~!::-.::.!:: O>"'>~CJ)cnCJ)~CIJ ....='.c~cnCl)tC~o -c.!::~ wo>~om!::~o=~~oo~.~~ ~ffi~:g~1ti~w-g.E~~iUa;~-g I::>CIJ:::Ew~I-<(a.OCIJICJ)ClJWo.. :::JY " .Q ro E o :E "tJ ro II) 0> t: "2 "iii 15 o .E .?> "3 u E '6 II> ,:; .9 C II> E " " ""0 .2! " "E~ ",2> II> ~ 0> ~ eo!!! .Q II> II)J: _0 - .E "g"tJ 16~ " " :013 ~.E II) .!!1 II> ~ U II> "'.0 a. E II) " 0> t: ~ CD ~ ,:; '" a."; II):;S J~! 0> " :;;: ro Q. CD s>> J: U ro ::;: " II> OJ " a; ii5 .Q "tJ ~ "E .0 " II) '"' c;; " o :; II> is. '"' "tJ " ii5 ~ :;s c;; '" II> U. ;; -!: '" ::;: II> 0> '" o ii5 - a; en II> ,:; " II) ;; II> J: II) '6 " '" ~ "5 ~ II> U " II> Ii; ;; a:: ~ ATTACHMENT-7 ~Vt-- -11- - - - - -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 619.691-5047 - 619.476.5310 FAX cvcomdev@ci.chula~vista.ca.us MEMO CJ1Y OF CHUIA VISTA Wednesday, April 21, 1999 FROM: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner S . Chris Salomone, Community Development Director {,. Cheryl Dye, Economic Development Manager (f}Jj) TO: VIA: RE: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT PCC 99-31jPCM 99-09 The Community Development Department recommends denial of the above mentioned project for the following reasons: . The proposed mini-storage use was never envisioned as being a compatible land use at the time the Community District was established in this area of Rancho del Rey. . Although the site is located over 1,000 feet from East 'H' Street [making retail development somewhat unfeasible] there are many types of 'commercial' uses which could occur and would be compatible with the surrounding land use [Le. restaurant, offices]. . From an economic development perspective, there is inadequate justification to amend the District regulations; an allowed use such as office or restaurant would be preferable in terms of job creation and/or tax revenue as well as overall synergy with surrounding uses, including the adjacent family- oriented bowling alley. . Mini-storage facilities can create security problems incompatible with a commercial retail center. J~ ATT'NOHMI!NT a 'IHE ~ _ IT OF CHt.n.A VISfA Drsa..osuRE ~ _ .i,1EMENT You are required to file a SLatement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on tbe part of tb. Ciry Council, Planning Commission, and all other orncial bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. 4- , [)p./:I.D 2. *"' f)8V.JD '*3. '. DfjllJ>> ~4. pevJJJ 5. 6. Date: Ust the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the oontrnct, e.g.. owner. applicant, contrnctor, suhcontrnctor. material supplier. i. ("C(~-I~.r ~V..Af' L, P. ""2. 94'.>("<" CoMt'r,\ t-77:> I I.. ,. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporntion or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporntion or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. I, "/ef'/fo1c:.e. Cti:.~v t. f5r1tM &>-/~" 7. Dc.:1 do/Ji.. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust - Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No.$; If yes, please indicate person(s): Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, ooDSultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. bfJl< )r (l:rr71 IW7 KE/JM$ )' niJ//I j) Ei<N5T 7?R:r,e.AJ Q}57E-R ]df- ~,cf e./.s . Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Cauncilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No...::;( If yes, state which Cauncilmember(s): . . . (NO'IE: Altach additional pap as - '--'Y) . . . ~t~~nt I O/YlI::E/.?/f /.lEY ~ Print or type name of oontractor/applicanL. ~ Zjl'Z.h9 . Pmoll is tkfillcd "" 'All)' indi~]inn. c"'~P, jow muu"" tmOCjati",~ socW cJub, fraJmUJl orpUz.atim~ cmporatiot~ <:rID1<, I7WI, ra:ci""" 'J"II!ic0l<, this Qlu! tDry other COIWI9~ city and t"OWIlI')', dry 1PIU1Ii.cipDliry, dirrrkt, M 0lhD' polilicaJ .fUhdivWotl, or any otMr group or combinlJljon DClUJt as Q WUl.. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: -3 Meeting Date: 04/28/99 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PSP-99-02 - Request for change of policy related to names appearing on major community entry monument signs requiring only the planned community's name - McMilIin Otay Ranch, LLC City staff and representatives from McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC met and discussed the issues and are working on a resolution at an administrative level. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission not take any action on this project in order to close the matter. H:\HOME\PLANNING\MARTIN\MCMILLIN\PSP-99-05\PC.RP'T