HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/12/11
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,CA
CALL TO ORDER: Hall
Madrid O'Neill Cortes
Castaneda
Horn
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
October 23, 2002
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on
any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on
today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Close of the Public Comment Period for the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental
Assessment prepared for the City of Chula Vista Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan.
2 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to adopt Resolution PCA 02-05 recommending
that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the
Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89
relating to the location, design and construction of
wireless communications facilities.
Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
3 PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-05; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for
Cingular Wireless to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility at 2800 Olympic Parkway.
Project Manager: Dawn Van Boxtel, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2 -
December 11, 2002
4 PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 03-01, PCS 02-09, GPA 03-01; Request to amend the
City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
(GDP) to eliminate the floating elementary school site from the
Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area and modify the
Otay Ranch GDP dwelling unit allocations within Village Five
and Village One West.
Project Manager: Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-05: Tentative Subdivision Map to create five lots
for purposes of developing five single-family homes in the
R-1-5-P Zone, at 387 Date Street.
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
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.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 23,2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Hall, Madrid, O'Neill, Cortes, Castaneda,
Commissioner Hom
Jim Sandoval, Assist. Director of Planning & Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Ann Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair Thomas
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1. ACTION ITEM:
PCC 02-32; Consideration of a Resolution of Denial
for a Conditional Use Permit to add a gasoline
service station adjacent to an existing
convenience store at 4300 Main Street in the CN-P
Zone.
Commissioner Madrid recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Background: John Schmitz, Principal Planner reported that on September 25th,
2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the above
application, at which time the resolution was to conditionally approve the
project, however, due to testimony and evidence presented at the public
hearing, the Commission voted to deny the project.
Staff has prepared for the Commission's consideration a resolution of denial of
the project at 4300 Main Street.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Cortes inquired if staff has subsequently met with the applicant
after the September 25th meeting.
---..---.---.,----..-.-,-,---... -.-.--" ..-.-........--
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 .
October 23, 2002
Mr. Schmitz responded that the applicant did contact him stating that they
would move forward with an appeal to the City Council. Staff advised the
applicant that before they appeal it to the City Council, perhaps they would
consider requesting 0 continuation of tonight's Planning Commission
consideration of the resolution of denial in order to allow the applicant time to
meet with the residents in an attempt to address and resolve some of their
concerns and later come back to the Planning Commission with 0 revised
submittal.
Mr. Schmitz further stated that the meeting was set, however, the applicant
never showed up.
MSC (Hail/O'Neill) (4-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution
denying Conditional Use Permit PCC 02-32 to add a gasoline service station
adjacent to an existing convenience store at 4300 Main Street in the CN-P
Zone, Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
Precise Plan and a Planned Sign Program for a
6,600-sf satellite retail building in an existing in-line
retail shoping center, located at 1210 Broadway,
southwest corner of Oxford Street.
Background: John Schmitz reported that the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on September 25, 2002 to consider this proposal. The
Commission was supportive of the project because of the revitalization of an
existing older commercial center. The evening's discussion centered around
two legal non-conforming pole signs.
The applicant discussed the sign issues with their tenants and reach
agreement with them that will allow the Oxford Street pole sign to be removed
if it can be replaced with a monument sign. The Broadway pole sign may be
replaced with the construction of the new satellite commercial building, but
the applicant would like to receive a three-year grace period and is willing to
post a bond prior to the occupancy of the new building if the sign is not
removed by then.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution
PCM 02-22 and PSP 03-01 that:
1. Recommends that the City Council approve the Precise Plan, subject to the
conditions and findings contained in the City Council Resolution; and
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
October 23, 2002
2. Modified the DRC action on the Notice of Decision with regards to the
Planned Sign Program to allow the applicant a 3 year time frame to
replace the existing pole sign on Broadway with a new pylon sign designed
to match the style of the shopping center, and immediately replace the
existing pole sign on Oxford with a monument sign.
Public Hearing Opened 6:20.
Dan Malcolm, 1206 Seacoast Drive, Imperial Beach, CA commended staff for
their support in helping them resolve some of the issues surrounding the project
and thanked the Commission for their direction and willingness to work with the
applicant to ensure that the project comes to fruition.
MSC (Castaneda/Cortes) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution
PCM 02-22 and PSP 03-01 that:
1. Recommends that the City Council approve the Precise Plan, subject to the
conditions and findings contained in the City Council Resolution; and
2, Modified the DRC action on the Notice of Decision with regards to the
Planned Sign Program to allow the applicant a 3 year time frame to replace
the existing pole sign on Broadway with a new pylon sign designed to
match the style of the shopping center, and immediately replace the
existing pole sign on Oxford with a monument sign.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November] 3,
2002.
Diana Vargas,
Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .:L.
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Proposal to adopt Resolution No. PCA-02-05
recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the
Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89 relating to the
location, design and construction of wireless communications facilities.
Pursuant to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan, the proposed wireless
communications facilities ordinance is intended to regulate the location, design and construction of
such facilities in order to serve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the City ofChula Vista. This is a revised version of
the ordinance that was brought before the Planning Commission on August 14,2002. It has been
amended in response to comments made by the Commission.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Enviroumental Quality (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as
defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section
15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
environmental review is necessary. Future wireless communications facilities proposed under this
ordinance will require environmental review in accordance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCA-02-
05, recommending that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending the Chula Vista
Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89, Wireless Communications Facilities.
BACKGROUND:
On August 14, 2002, Planning staff brought a draft of the wireless telecommunications facilities
ordinance to the Planning Commission. (See minutes, Attachment 2.) After discussion, the
Commission moved to continue the item so that staff could further analyze their concerns and
recommendations for incorporation into the new ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
Below are four concerns and recommendations made by the Planning Commission regarding the
ordinance at the August 14,2002 public hearing, and staffs response.
1. That any proposal located in the R-I zone, and public facilities be subject to review
by the Planning Commission.
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
The underlined verbiage was added to section 19.89,050 Permit processing: "All
other wireless telecommunications facilities applications for conditional use permits,
including any facility located on a residential lot in a single-family or two-family
residential zone, shall require public hearings with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission."
It was staff s understanding that the Planning Commission had serious concerns
about wireless telecommunications facilities being located on lots being used
residentially in the R-I zone, as opposed to lots being used for other purposes (such
as for schools, churches, etc.) in the R-I zone. Therefore, the change to the ordinance
qualifies that residential lots in the single- and two-family residential zones require
public hearings with the Planning Commission.
Regarding public facilities also being subject to review by the Planning Commission,
section 19.89.040 Applicability to city property and rights of way ofthe ordinance
has not been modified. Planning staff, the Special Operations Manager in the City
Manager's Office, and the City Attorney's office are finalizing "rules, policies,
programs, or agreements" consistent with the general policies established in the
ordinance. These policies will require approval by the City Council.
2. That, depending on the impact of a far;ade-mounted facility on a building that
underwent DRC approval, the proposal shall a/so be subject to Design Review.
The ordinance has not been modified to incorporate this recommendation. The Chula
Vista Municipal Code currently authorizes the City Zoning Administrator to act in
the place ofthe Design Review Committee for building additions up to 20,000 square
feet. Section 19.]4.581.1. of the Municipal Code stipulates that:
"The Zoning Administrator has the discretion, with the concurrence of the applicant, to act
in the place of the design review committee in the case of minor projects, including signs;
commercial, industrial or institutional additions which constitute less than a 50 percent
increase in floor area or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less; and the residential projects of
four units or less. The zoning administrator may also act in the place of the design review
committee in the case of new commercial, industrial or institutional projects with a total fioor
area of 20.000 square feet or less when such projects are located within a planned
community area with its own design guidelines and design review process."
Fayade-mounted antennas and associated equipment for wireless telecommunications
facilities generally have much less of a visual impact than a 20,000 square foot
building addition. Therefore, a fa9ade-mounted wireless telecommunications facility
under the purview of the City Zoning Administrator seems appropriate,
3. That a recommendation he forwarded to City Council recommending that revenues
generatedfrom leasing a/public parks or recreationfacilities he channeled back into
the hosting facility or the Parks' and Recreation budget.
:L
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
This does not pertain to the ordinance itself. As noted above, Planning staff, the
Special Operations Manager and the City Attorney's office are developing a process
for public facilities, and this is a more appropriate venue to address these issues.
Before Planning staff begins review of any project that is proposed to be located on
City property, prior review and sign-off has to first be given from the Parks
Department andlor from the Special Operations Manager, who deals with financial
negotiations and leasing of City-owned property.
4. That staff's report incorporate language reflecting the Commission's desire to have
an annual report provided to them.
This also does not pertain to the ordinance itself. Essentially, the Commission is
requesting that they be provided with a periodic update report as to the location,
description and number of facilities that have been approved by the Zoning
Administrator. Staff has taken note ofthis request and will include it in the report to
City Council. A report can be prepared for 2002 that will be presented to the
Planning Commission in early 2003.
Discussions between Planning staff and the City Attorney have also lead to eight additional
alterations proposed for the ordinance, including:
I. In section 19.89.030 Definitions, the words, "including flag poles" have been deleted
from the definition for "Monopole" (page 3). A second sentence has been added
stating, "Flagpoles of typical height, diameter, and location are not considered
monopoles."
2. In section 19.89.030 Definitions, the words, "and flag poles of typical height,
diameter, and location" have been added to the end of the definition for "Stealth
Facility".
3. In section 19.89.050 Permit processing, the following sentence has been omitted
from the second paragraph: "Conditional use permit applications for wireless
telecommunications facilities that are not to be co-located shall contain a written
statement that a good faith effort was made to attempt co-location at another site."
4. In section 19.89.060 Development criteria, A.1.c. (Design standards, stealth
design), the underlined verbiage has been added to the following sentence: "Any
proposed change that deviates from the original approval shall be submitted to the
City's Zoning Administrator for review and approval."
5. In section 19.89.060 Development criteria, A.3. (Design standards) Co-location has
been added. Planning staff and the City Attorney's office agreed that the first version
of the ordinance did not adequately address the issue of co-location, especially
-3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
regarding residential lots.
6. In section 19.89.060 Development criteria, A.9. (Design standards, Equipment
enclosures), the following sentence has been added: "Enclosures may not exceed 10
feet in height measured from the base of the foundation unless a greater height is
necessary to maximize architectural integration and shall be screened by landscaping.
7. In section 19.89.060 Development criteria, B.3. (Operation and maintenance,
Facility maintenance), the underlined verbiage has been added: "Routine
maintenance of equipment located in residential zones or within one hundred (100)
feet of a residential district not requiring the facility to be taken "off line", shall be
conducted only during the weekday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., holidays
excepted. In other areas, and when a facility must be taken "off line", routine
maintenance may be conducted at any time."
8. In section 19.89.060 Development criteria, B.4. (Operation and maintenance, Noise
attenuation), the underlined verbiage has been added: "To achieve this objective, all
air conditioning units and any other equipment emitting noise that is audible from
beyond the property line on which a facility is located shall be enclosed or equipped
with noise attenuation devices that reduce the noise to the lowest feasible level." The
words, "property line" were omitted after the word facility.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the modifications to the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities ordinance
address the concerns and recommendations expressed by the Planning Commission. The proposed
ordinance will streamline current processing procedures of wireless telecommunications facilities
applications without compromising performance and design standards of such facilities. Therefore,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCA-02-05, recommending
that City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code by
adding Chapter 19.89, Wireless Communications Facilities.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution with Draft Ordinance Attached
2. August 14,2002 Planning Commission Minutes
i
RESOLUTION NO. PCA-02-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING CHAPTER 19.89 RELATING TO THE LOCATION, DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City wishes to regulate the location, design and construction of
wireless telecommunication facilities in Chula Vista in order to serve, protect and
promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to preserve and enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the City of Chula Vista, as set forth in the Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that wireless telecommunications networks should
be completed with the fewest possible facilities, in the least visible fashion, and with the
least disruptive impact on neighborhoods and communities within the City of Chula
Vista, while concurrently allowing for the orderly and efficient development of a wireless
telecommunication infrastructure in accordance with the federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing
on said ordinance, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was continued from July 10, 2002 to July 24, 2002, and
then to August 14, 2002 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 the ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the item was continued until December 11, 2002 so that staff could
further analyze the Planning Commission's concerns and recommendations for
incorporation into the new ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and has
determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the
State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is
necessary. Future wireless telecommunications facilities proposed under this ordinance
will require environmental review in accordance with CEQA; and,
5""
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, from the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby
determines that the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance (hereinafter
"Ordinance") is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and local, state, and
federal law, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
zoning practice support the requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance amending
the Chula Vista Municipal Code to regulate the location and design of wireless
telecommunications facilities in accordance with the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of December, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Russ Hall, Chair
Diana Vargas, Secretary
"
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 19.89
RELATING TO THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City wishes to regulate the location, design and construction of
wireless telecommunication facilities in Chula Vista in order to serve, protect and
promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to preserve and enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the City of Chula Vista, as set forth in the Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that wireless telecommunication networks should be
completed with the fewest possible facilities, in the least visible fashion, and with the
least disruptive impact on neighborhoods and communities within the City of Chula
Vista, while concurrently allowing for the orderly and efficient development of a wireless
telecommunication infrastructure in accordance with the federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996; and
WHEREAS, there is a general consensus between City staff, the Planning
Commission and wireless industry representatives that the City's existing wireless policy
should be streamlined to simplify and expedite processing applications for wireless
telecommunications facilities; and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process, this Ordinance sets forth specific design
and operation standards and allows certain visually unobtrusive wireless
telecommunication facilities to be processed administratively by the City's Zoning
Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the August 14, 2002 and December 11, 2002 public hearings
with respect to this Ordinance and voted to recommend its adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed this Ordinance
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) and has determined
that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
the activity is not subject to CEQA and no environmental review is necessary -
although, future wireless telecommunications facilities proposed under this ordinance
will require environmental review in accordance with CEQA; and
7
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 2 of 10
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
ordain:
SECTION I. That Chapter 19.89 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby added
to read as follows:
Chapter 19.89
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
19.89.010
19.89.020
19.89.030
19.89.040
19.89.050
19.89.060
19.89.070
19.89.010
Purpose
Scope
Definitions
Permit processing
Development criteria
Variance
Abandonment
Purpose.
The purpose of these regulations and guidelines is to assure that wireless
telecommunication networks are completed with the fewest possible facilities, in the
least visible fashion, and with the least disruptive impact on neighborhoods and
communities within the City of Chula Vista. The regulations set forth in this chapter are
adopted to serve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the City of Chula Vista, as set forth in
the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan, while concurrently allowing for
the orderly and efficient development of a wireless telecommunication infrastructure in
accordance with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
19.89.020
Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all wireless telecommunications facilities anywhere in
the City of Chula Vista.
19.89.030
Definitions.
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this chapter:
r
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 3 of 10
Antenna. A device or system of wires, poles, rods, dishes or other devices of
similar function, used for the transmission andlor reception of radio frequency signals
for wireless telecommunications, as described in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Antenna array. A set of one or more whips, panels, discs or other devices used for
the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals as part of a wireless
telecommunications system. It may include an omni-directional antenna ("ship"), a
directional antenna ("panel") and parabolic antenna ("disc"). It does not include the
support structure.
Cellular. An analog or digital wireless telecommunications technology that is
based on a system of interconnected neighboring transmission andlor reception sites.
Co-location. The use of a common wireless telecommunications facility or
common site by two or more service providers, or use by one provider of a single site
for two or more technologies. It is also called "site sharing."
Equipment facility. Also called "equipment", "equipment enclosure" or "cabinet".
Any structure or device used to contain ancillary equipment for a wireless
telecommunications facility, such as cabinets, shelters, additions to existing structures,
pedestals, and other devices serving similar purposes. Typically, it includes an air
conditioning unit, a heating unit, electrical supply, telephone hook-up and back-up
power supply.
Fac;:ade-mounted antenna. Also called "building-mounted" or "surface-mounted".
An antenna that is directly attached to a building, to the fac;:ade of a building, or to the
side of another structure such as a water tank, church steeple, freestanding sign,
streetlight, or similar structure. An antenna attached to the roof or top of a structure is
not a fac;:ade-mounted.
Ground-mounted. Mounted to a pole, monopole, tower, or other freestanding
structure specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna.
Lattice tower. A self-supporting structure which consists of cross-bracing of
structural steel to support antennas and related transmission equipment.
Monopole. A structure composed of a single spire, pole, or tower used to support
antennas or related wireless telecommunications equipment. Flagpoles of typical
height, diameter, and location are not considered monopoles.
Mounted. Attached to or supported by.
Personal Communications Service (PCS). Digital, low-power, high frequency
commercial wireless radio communication technology that has the capacity for multiple
communications services and the routing of calls to individuals, regardless of location.
cr
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 4 of 10
Roof-mounted. Mounted above the eave line of a building or structure.
Stealth Facility. Any wireless telecommunications facility that is designed to blend
into the surrounding environment. and is visually unobtrusive. Examples may include
architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas; fa"ade-mounted antennas painted and
treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing building, thereby concealing
the antenna; or artificial trees, such as monopalms and monopines; and flag poles of
typical height, diameter, and location.
TCA. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by the
user, of information of the user's choosing (including voice, data, image, graphics, and
video), without change in the form or content of the information.
Wireless telecommunications facility. Also called "wireless facility" or "facility". A
facility consisting of any commercial antenna, monopole, microwave dish, andlor other
related equipment (including software) necessary for the transmission andlor reception
of cellular, personal communication service, andlor data radio communications.
19.89.040
Applicability to city property and rights of way.
Notwithstanding CVMC 19.89.020, wireless telecommunication facilities located on
city property, rights of way, or other possessory and non-possessory interests in land
shall not be subject to this chapter. Regulation of such facilities shall be accomplished
through administrative rules, policies, programs, or agreements approved by the city
council and drafted consistent with the general policies established in CVMC 19.89.010.
19.89.050
Permit processing.
A conditional use permit (CUP) as provided for in this Title is required for all
wireless telecommunications facilities subject to this chapter. Before a permit will be
granted, the operator or proposed operator of a wireless telecommunications facility
must be specified and such operator must be legally approved by all applicable state
and federal authorities to provide wireless telecommunications in the city.
The following wireless telecommunications facilities applications may be processed
administratively by the city's zoning administrator: stealth facilities that do not exceed
the maximum building height allowed in a particular zone; facilities that are fa"ade-
mounted and do not exceed the height of the parapet wall or roof line of the building; or
a roof-mounted facility that is screened behind a solid material on all four sides and
does not exceed the maximum height of the zone. All other wireless
telecommunications facilities applications for conditional use permits, including any
(D
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 5 of 10
facility located on a residential lot in a single-family or two-family residential zone, shall
require public hearings with the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission.
A denial of any application for a wireless telecommunication facility shall be based
on the grounds of safeguarding the public's health, safety or welfare; be in writing; and
set forth findings specifying the evidence for such denial.
19.89.060 Development criteria.
The following is development criteria for all wireless telecommunications facilities
located within the city:
A. Design standards.
1. Height. Wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to the height
limitation stipulated in this Title and shall be as short as technologically
feasible. Notwithstanding the application of such height limitations, the
planning commission (but not the zoning administrator) may allow stealth
design facilities to exceed the zone district height limit upon a specific
finding that the proposed height is the only technologically feasible
option for providing service to an area.
2. Stealth technology and design. Wireless telecommunications facilities
shall utilize all practical means to conceal or minimize the visual impact
thereof, including:
a. Smallest technology. The facility shall use and maintain the
physically smallest practical devices to achieve the needs of the
wireless telecommunications network.
b. Most efficient technology. The facility shall use and maintain the
most efficient devices to achieve the needs of the wireless
telecommunications network. In this context, "most efficient"
means using the smallest number of facilities needed to achieve
the needs of the network.
c. Stealth design. The facility shall be designed to be visually
unobtrusive and blend into the surrounding area in a manner
compatible with the local community character. Sites shall be
maintained in good repair and appearance, and, to the extent
possible, shall be improved and upgraded on a regular basis. Any
proposed change that deviates from the original approval shall be
submitted to the city's zoning administrator for over-the-counter
review and approval.
((
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 6 of 10
3. Co-location. Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be co-located to
the extent practicable. They should also be constructed and sited to
accommodate the future co-location of other facilities. Conditional use
permit applications for wireless telecommunications facilities that are not
to be co-located shall contain a written statement that a good faith effort
was made to attempt co-location at another site. Such statement shall
also declare the justification for deciding not to co-locate.
Likewise, conditional use permit applications for wireless
telecommunication facilities that are not to be constructed and sited to
accommodate the future co-location of other facilities shall contain a
written statement declaring the justification for failing to do so.
Co-location is discouraged, but not prohibited, for sites located on a
residential lot in a single-family or two-family residential zone.
4. Parking displacement. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall not
reduce available parking space below that which is required by
applicable zoning laws.
5. Setbacks. All components of all wireless telecommunications facilities
shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is
proposed to be located.
6. Colors and materials. Colors and materials shall be chosen to minimize
visibility. All externally visible elements of a facility, including the
antenna and supporting equipment, shall be of a neutral color that is
identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting
structure andlor its surroundings, so as to make the antenna and related
equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. Proposed colors shall be
identified by manufaclurer and color name or number.
7. Visual integration of antennas. Facade-mounted antennas shall be
architecturally integrated into the style and character of the structure,
and painted and textured to match or complement the existing structure.
Roof-mounted antennas shall be constructed at the minimum height
possible to serve the provider's service area, shall be designed to
minimize visibility from the surrounding areas, and painted and textured
to match or complement the existing structure or building.
8. Freestanding facilities. Freestanding facilities, including ground-
mounted antennas and monopoles, are discouraged and may be used
only when no other alternative is feasible. When allowed, freestanding
facilities shall be designed to the minimum functional height and width.
Lattice towers are prohibited.
101-
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 7 of 10
9. Landscaping. When portions of the facility are exposed to public view,
they shall be landscaped with visual buffering, such as plant materials,
walls andlor mounds that screen the view of the facility from public rights
of way, public parklands and nearby residential properties. Existing
mature growth trees and natural landforms on the site shall be preserved
to the maximum extent feasible. Native plantings are to be used to the
maximum extent possible.
10. Equipment enclosures. All equipment shall be placed completely
underground when feasible or located inside an existing building. If such
placement is not feasible, the equipment shall be completely enclosed
within a solid-walled enclosure or building. Enclosures may not exceed
10 feet in height measured from the base of the foundation unless a
greater height is necessary to maximize architectural integration and
shall be screened by landscaping. Any visible cabinets, cables, air
conditioning units, fencing, etc., shall be painted and textured to match
the surrounding area so as to minimize visibility.
11. Preventive design. All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and
minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism,
graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions or
visual blight.
12. Access to facilities. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be
accessed from non-residential streets or right of ways to the maximum
extent practical. Any constructed access shall be sited to avoid
residential areas, streets or right of ways to the maximum extent
practical.
13. Construction methods. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be
built in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards and, to the
extent feasible, be protected against damage by fire, flooding, and
earthquake. Reasonable measures shall be taken to keep wireless
facilities in operation in the event of a natural disaster.
14. Signs. Other than required safety warning signs, no signs shall be
placed on facilities or equipment.
15. Modifying or upgrading facilities. When modifying or upgrading wireless
facilities, existing antennas and equipment shall, to the extent feasible,
be replaced with antennas and equipment of equal or greater technical
capacity and reduced size so as to reduce visual and noise impacts.
13
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 8 of 10
B. Operation and maintenance.
1. Security lighting. Security lighting shall be kept to a minimum. Any
security lighting that may spill into residential zoning districts IS
discouraged and shall only be activated by a motion detector.
2. Grounds maintenance. All facilities and related equipment shall be
maintained in good working order and free from trash, debris, graffiti and
any form of vandalism. Any damaged equipment shall be repaired or
replaced within thirty (30) calendar days of sustaining such damage.
Graffiti shall be removed within forty-eight (48) hours of being notified by
the city or others of its existence. Facilities containing landscaping
elements shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Damaged,
dead or decaying plant materials shall be removed and replaced within
thirty (30) calendar days of sustaining such damage.
3. Facility maintenance. Routine maintenance of equipment located in
residential zones or within one hundred (100) feet of a residential district,
not requiring the facility to be taken "off line", shall be conducted only
during the weekday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., holidays excepted.
In other areas, and when a facility must be taken "off line", routine
maintenance may be conducted at any time. Emergency repairs and
maintenance shall be conducted only in the cases of power outages and
equipment failure or malfunction.
4. Noise attenuation. Each wireless telecommunications facility shall be
operated in a manner that will minimize noise impacts to surrounding
residents and persons using nearby parks, trails, and similar recreation
areas. To achieve this objective, all air conditioning units and any other
equipment emitting noise that is audible from beyond the property line on
which a facility's is located shall be enclosed or equipped with noise
attenuation devices that reduce the noise to the lowest feasible level.
Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages or for testing.
19.89.070 Variance.
Any person may apply for a variance subject to the requirements and conditions of
this Title.
19.89.080 Abandonment.
A. Prompt removal. Notwithstanding provisions to the contrary found elsewhere
in this Title, a wireless telecommunications facility is considered abandoned
Ie(
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 9 of 10
and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide
wireless telecommunication services for 180 or more days. Such removal
shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all
ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City.
B. Notice, appeal and hearing. A written notice of the determination of
abandonment, as noted in subsection (A) of this section, shall be sent by
certified first class mail, return receipt requested, or personally delivered to
the operator of the wireless telecommunications facility at said operator's
business address on file with the city or the operator's agent for service of
process on file with the California Secretary of State. Service shall be
effective on the date the notice was signed for or received. If the mailed
notice is returned unsigned, service shall be deemed effective three business
days after the mailing of a duplicate notice by regular first-class mail. The
notice shall explain the consequences of failing to remove the facility and
identify all hearinglappeal rights.
The operator may appeal the determination of abandonment within ten (10)
business days of being served with the notice. After receiving the appeal, city
staff shall schedule a hearing on the matter to be conducted before the
planning commission at which time the operator may present any relevant
evidence on the issue of abandonment. The planning commission may
affirm, reverse, or modify with or without conditions the determination of
abandonment and shall make written findings in support of its decision. The
decision of the planning commission shall be final.
C. Nuisance. Any wireless telecommunications facility determined to be
abandoned and not removed within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
notice, or where an appeal has been timely filed, within such time as
prescribed by the planning commission following its final determination of
abandonment, shall be in violation of this chapter, and the operator of such
facility shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in this Title and Title 1 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Facilities determined to be abandoned and
not removed within the time limits prescribed herein, are deemed to be a
nuisance, and notwithstanding the procedure described in subsection (B) of
this section, may be abated as a nuisance in any manner provided by law.
19.89.080 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this chapter is for
any reason determined to be unconstitutional, invalid, void or unenforceable by a court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Chapter.
!!J
Proposed Wireless Ordinance
Page 10 of 10
The city council hereby declares that it would have passed each section,
subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word thereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, phrases or words be declared unconstitutional, invalid, void or
unenforceable.
SECTION II. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day
from and after its adoption.
Submitted by:
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
((p
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Madrid,
McCann, Hom
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Michael Walker, Associate Planner
Dave Hanson, Deputy City Attorney I
Staff Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (O'NeiIl/Castaneda) (4-0-3-0) to approve Minutes of June 12, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried
with Commissioners McCann, Madrid and Hom abstaining.
MSC (O'Neill/Castaneda) (4-0-3-0) to approve Minutes of July 10,2002 as submitted. Motion carried
with Commissioners Hall, Madrid and Hom abstaiing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCA 02-05; Consideration of adoption of an ordinance amending the
Chula Vista Municipal Code by adding Chapter19.B9 relating to the
location, design and construction of wireless communication
facilities.
Background: Kim VanderBie, Associate Planner reported that staff researched wireless
ordinances in other municipalities and conducted two workshops, which included
representatives from the wireless communication industry. The workshops provided a forum to
discuss issues such as needs, limitations and progress in the industry and to seek input for
potential guidelines and requirements in a future ordinance.
As a result of the workshops, there appeared to be a general consensus that the existing policy
/7
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
August 14, 2002
should be streamlined to simplify and expedite processing applications and that it was very
important the performance and design standards not be compromised in the process.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with several aspects of the existing wireless policy, which
includes:
. A Conditional Use Permit is required for all wireless facilities
. Wireless communication facilities are allowed in any zone, but the location of a facility may
be denied if it would be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare.
. All proposed wireless communications facilities are noticed
. Stealth facilities may be processed by the City's Zoning Administrator
The proposed ordinance streamlines the existing wireless policy by also allowing the following to
be processed administratively by the City's Zoning Administrator:
. Stealth facilities (*) that do not exceed the maximum building height allowed in a particular
zone, and a roof-mounted facility that is screened behind a solid material on all four sides
and does not exceed the maximum height of the zone.
(*) Stealth facility - defined in the proposed ordinance as any wireless telecommunications
facilities that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment and is visually
unobtrusive i.e. architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, far;:ade-mounted
antennas painted and treated as architectural elements to blend with the existing
building thereby concealing the antenna or artificial trees such as monopalms and
monopmes
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA 02-05
recommending that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amending the Chula Vista
Municipal Code by adding Chapter 19.89, Wireless Communications Facilities.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Castaneda stated that since federal law precludes local jurisdictions from
regulating health matters related to wireless facilities, he asked for further clarification as to what
other health conditions would apply under the language which states "Wireless facilities are
allowed in any zone, but the location of a facility may be denied if it would be detrimental to the
pubJic's health, safety or welfare."
Ms. Vander Bie responded that issues relating to traffic, noise or those that are visually obtrusive
could fall under that category and would be consistent with the General Plan, which requires that
issues such as safety, health and welfare be taken into consideration.
Cmr. Castaneda asked, if the CUP were to be approved administratively, would there still be
some kind of notice sent to the area residents and what would be the determinant factor that
would compel staff to forward it to the Planning Commission.
/5
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
August 14, 2002
Ms. Vander Bie clarified that all wireless facilities are noticed to the surrounding residents,
however, if there is any kind of opposition (big or small) expressed by the residents, then the item
would automatically come before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Hall stated that in the past when the Commission considered facilities that were
located on City property, specifically park facilities, their recommendation has been to designate
the revenues generated from the leasing of City property to go to the facility that is hosting it,
therefore, he asked if this ordinance would be the appropriate venue to include such language or
provision.
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director responded that the ordinance does not address the
Commission's recommendation, however, a process relating to usage of City-owned property will
be developed in conjunction with the Special Operations Manager in the City Manager's office
which, would be a more appropriate venue to address this issue.
Furthermore, before Planning staff begins review of any project that is proposed to be located on
City property, prior review and sign-off has to first be given from the Parks Department andlor
from the Special Operations Manager who deals with financial negotiations and leasing of City-
owned property.
Commissioner Cortes stated that since it appears there will be a substantial amount of facilities
that will be approved administratively, he would like to requestthat staff provide the Commission
with a periodic update report as to the location, description and number of facilities that have
been approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Madrid stated she didn't read any language regarding the term of the CUP or
language which would allow the City leverage in requiring the carriers to upgrade the facility
should there be substantial technological changes.
Ms. Vander Bie responded that there is a standard Condition of Approval which says that the
CUP is good for five years provided they are in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and
at the end of the term, they are eligible for a renewal. There is also a standard condition which
addresses enhancements to the facilities should there be technological changes.
John Schmitz, Principal Planner, added that at such time when a CUP expires and the applicant
desires to renew the permit, an evaluation of the facility would be conducted utilizing existing
standards.
Commissioner O'Neill stated he has a different philosophical approach and questioned why City
property should be treated differently, in that wireless facilities being proposed on public
property can be processed administratively, whereas, only stealth ones on private property are
eligible for an administrative approval. In his opinion, the present public hearing process through
the Planning Commission is a more accessible venue to the citizens if they have a concern with a
faci I ity goi ng into a park.
Cmr. O'Neill further stated that he believes that all facilities proposed in the R-l zone (stealth or
otherwise) should come before the Planning Commission.
/'1
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
August 14, 2002
Commissioner Castaneda stated that he agrees with the following recommendations offered by
Chair O'Neill and Commissioner Cortes:
. To provide residents a more accessible venue in which to voice their concerns by having the
Commission continue to review the more sensitive sites, i.e. those in the R-l zone and park
facil ities.
. that staff provide the Commission with a yearly report apprizing them on the number of
facilities that were processed.
. That the report identify the aging of the CUP's, including how many sites are out of service,
and what measures the City is using to ensure that they are dismantled; and
. That a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council expressing the Commission's desire
that any revenues generated by the leasing of parks or recreational facilities be redirected
back into the hosting facility or to the Parks & Recreation Department budget.
Commissioner McCann stated that he is supportive of staff's recommendations and sees the need
to grant staff more discretionary approval in order to streamline the process, however, he is also
supportive of the concerns and recommendations made by other commissioners and was
wondering if it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to allow staff time to
incorporate the Commission's recommendations and further fine-tune the ordinance proposal.
Commissioner O'Neill summarized his recommendations as follows:
. That any proposal in the R-l zone come before the Planning Commission;
. Depending on the impact of a fa<;ade-mounted facility on an existing building that
underwent Design Review approval, such facility shall also be subject to Design Review
approval.
. That there be homogeneous language between what happens on public property and any
other site. There ought not to be any need to treat what happens on pub I ic property any
differently in terms of the ordinance and then the process.
MSC (Castaneda/McCann) (7-0) that this item be continued in order to allow staff time to
incorporate the Commission's concerns and recommendations, which are:
. That any proposal located in the R-1 zone and public facilities be subject to review by
the Planning Commission;
. That depending on the impact of a fa<;ade-mounted facility on a building that
underwent DRC approval, the proposal shall also be subject to Design Review.
. That a recommendation be forwarded to City Council recommending that revenues
generated from leasing of public parks or recreation facilities be channeled back into
the hosting facility or the Parks and Recreation budget; and
. That staff's report incorporate language reflecting the Commission's desire to have an
annual report provided to them.
Motion carried.
;;20
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .3
Meeting Date: 12-11-02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration ofa Conditional Use Permit, PCC-03-05, for
Cingular Wireless to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility
at 2800 Olympic Parkway.
Cingular Wireless is requesting permission to construct and operate an uumanned cellular
communications facility at 2800 Olympic Parkway, at the ARCO Olympic Training Center. The
project will consist of a one 35-foot monopalm and a 481 square foot equipment shelter. The project
will integrate into existing and future facilities at the site.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Enviroumental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending
that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed cellular communications facility.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The project site is located at the ARCO Olympic Training Facility at 2800 Olympic Parkway.
The 149-acre parcel is zone as Planned Community-Quasi-Public. The Olympic Training
Facility is bordered by Olympic Parkway to the north and Wueste Road to the east. Additional
telecommunications carriers have facilities existing or proposed at this site. These include
antennas located on a light standard, the visitor center rooftop, a monopole and a monopa]m.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The project is located in the Planned Community/Quasi-Public zone, and has a General Plan Land
Use Designation of Quasi-Public. The following table specifies the types ofJand uses surrounding
the project site:
General Plan
Zoning
Current Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
Quasi-Public
Quasi-Public
Quasi-Public
PCIPQ
PCIPQ
PCIPQ
Olympic Training Facility
Open Space
Proposed University Site
{
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 12-11-02
East:
West:
Visitor-Commercial
Quasi-Public
CV
os
Proposed Tourist Commercial
Salt Creek Preserve
The purpose ofthe Quasi-Pub1ic Zone is to provide a zone with uses in appropriate locations which
are maintained by pub1ic or quasi-pubJic agencies.
3. Proposal
Cingular Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the ARCO
Olympic Training Facility located at 2800 Olympic Parkway. This project is designed to be
integrated into a previously approved cellular facility, yet to be constructed. In May of2002, Nextel
Communications was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of one 35-foot
monopalm and 4 live Canary Island Palms in a configuration that duplicates the five Olympic rings.
The proposal under consideration would replace one of the live Canary Is]and Palms with a second
monopalm.
The proposed 35-foot monopalm would support twelve antennas. The antenna height would be
approximately 30 feet, measured from ground level to the center of the antennas. An equipment
shelter is also proposed.
The proposed equipment shelter will have a 481 square foot footprint and will be an addition to an
existing 822 square foot equipment shelter used by Sprint and the Olympic Training Center. The
overall building will reflect the architectural features (including color and design) and landscaping of
the existing Visitor Center.
ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Section 19.48 (Unclassified Uses) and Section 19.47.040 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Conditional Use Permits are required for uses listed in this section of the Zoning
Code, and shall be considered by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission.
The proposed site is zoned Quasi-Public and is not immediately surrounded by residences. There are
very few, if any other, large non-residential parcels that will satisfy the coverage objective for this
speci fic area.
The city encourages applicants of wireless communications facilities to co-locate with other
companies whenever possible in order to keep the number of new poles and structures to a
minimum. While none of the existing facilities at this site provide opportunity to add antennas for
the applicant or future carriers, the design of this proposal reduces the impact that a new site may
potentially have by integrating into a node of palm trees and expanding an existing building to
house equipment.
co2
Page 3. Item:
Meeting Date: 12-11-02
The proposed monopalm is consistent with all conditions of approval for PCC-02-39. The proposed
monopalm location is to replace the location of a Jive palm, maintaining the five Olympic Rings
configuration and the antenna height (approximately 30 ft at center) on the palm varies slightly from
the antenna height on the previously approved monopalm (approximately 29 ft at center),
contributing to a more "naturalistic setting" for the tree node.
The antenna location will provide a necessary and desirable service by improving wireless cell phone
service to the developing areas of Eastern Chula Vista, including, residents, businesses and visitors
to the Olympic Training Center. Additionally, in the event ofa natural disaster or other emergency
situation whereby traditional phone service may be interrupted, the proposed facility would allow
cellular phones to continue operating.
The proposed antenna use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare to the
surrounding residents or general public. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the
radio frequency emissions of the antennas and the facility will comply with those standards.
The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city. According to the Eastern Territories
Area Plan Section of the General Plan, most urban development will take place in the Eastern portion
of the City. It is Goal #2 of said Area Plan to accommodate and regulate such development. The
proposed cellular facility will help accommodate the communication needs of such high urban
development throughout the Southbay, as well as the Eastern portion of the City. It is a passive use
and therefore will not adversely affect the policy and goals of the General Plan.
Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit will be in compliance with all municipal codes, if compliance
with the attached conditions of approval occurs.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Project Application and Plans
3. Planning Commission Resolution
4. Draft City Council Resolution
J:\Planning\l)A WN\CascFilcs\pc reports&resos\PCC-03-05 Stair Report.doc
3
t-. "',~..-.
~
EASTLAKE
VISTAS
:e
c:
"'
!!I
"'
OJAY
RANCH
PANHANDLE
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CINGULAR WIRELESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROJECT
ADDRESS: 2800 Olympic Parkway Request: Proposal for a wireless communications
SCAlE: ALE NUMBER: facility consisting of a 35-foot high monopalm with
'f 12 panel antennas and a 200sq.ft. equipment shelter.
NORTH No Scale PCC-03-05 --
j :\home\planning\cherrylcllocatorslpcc0305.cdr 08.02.02 fI '4ch f()en!- /
~
~,
~{lt-
r-. -=
~~~
CI1Y Of
GlUlA VISrA (619)691-5101
TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED
0( Conditional Use Permit
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Development Processing
Application Form- Type A
Page One'
(.
-
Check One
(~aff I """ ~Iv) 0,: ~ No.:. r:c 0 6
FDIng Date:;'T /12 J()J.:.c. By: Be
AssIgnedP)ar:100.::oVQ,1J",,;:-:. A,'t '
R~N6.:;< OJ.',-CXl(;/2Cf:;2.
Prc~Ct'@.:"..w fon .
DeJ:>ositACct:' ^' fA' , ,
< ReIat Cases: N / A
o PubBc Hear1ng
o Vartance
o oes19n Review
o Special Land Use Permit (Redevelopment Ataas Only)
o MISCellaneous:
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Appl rrt Name
q~~15-8"7()$;';';f~i
2an~\.'.~r;&~t~&l&H~Jft~'fr~
It appllc;:p. . . . _r19tOWllet '~s .author1zaf1on ~;: .
Is requlieid toprOceis r&!i:iiSt>see ~ '..;.;".'. '
o Option to purchase on Page Tw6~ ',,,,;';"c;:J.'.,'.',,,,"'"
Phone No. ; ..'
-1/15--81b3
'dD CJ1--;0&Q
-~:.:~j:i
'rd
LOIt1D {X~
Applicanfs Interest in Property
o 0Nn 9t Lease 0 In Escrow
Architec 'A nt
- ~~,., 0-
::;r:.;.:,;:::~
r\... "
C1ilrn"l ~ra-k1-EAiJlprmt.
~lli ~iph6rV.
Has a representative attended a Pre-Application Conference to discuss this project?
If so. what was the date? Pre-App No.: .
on
Vi 0
.~;~.
(If appUcobIe) .
'.." -
';,),','~-~;f~'J'q~~'V~:J3{~.':/;~~)
cA. ()+e
~ '.
, .. ~-< . . ."
-.,<
. ~"11n1"'1
~{f?
~~"'~
------~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
Development Processing
Application Form
Page Two
(staff use onlv]
Case No.:
mY OF
CHUlA VISTA
PROPOSED PROJECT (all types)
Type of Use Proposed.
o Residential 0 Comm. 0 Ind. OOlher
Landscape Coverage (% of lot)
Building Coverage (% of lot)
I RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Type of Dwelling Unit(s) Number of Lots
I
No. of Dwelling Units
Proposed
Existing
lBR
2BR
3+BR
Total
Parkina Sooces
Total
Off-street Type of Parking (size: whether ccvered)
Required by Code: .
Provided:
Open Spoce Description (Acres each of private. common and landscaping)
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
l)J\
An\J
Parking s1\j/ep;eqUired
o u n siren (ff applicable)
Spaces Provided
Print ant or Agent Name
~n\ 8cl-es 0\
Print Owner Name
Ap i ant or Agent Sign
~ ~ lffi-
Owner Signature.
(Required If Applicant Is not Owner]
fo
rrJ {p ICfr
Date
Date
FOB.", A:.PAGf,Z_QF ~
fJJ;2
11122. ,
. Letter of CNVner consent may be used In lieu of signature.
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division - Development Processing
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
mY Of
QlUlA VISfA
Application Appendix "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECTNAMIe ~)~\iH)] h(\~~\(>,
APPLICANT NAME: D.cglLb-- 'tI \ ye .
.:
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be accomplished
as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself, the' property, the
neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain
the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background
information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the
application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as listed in
listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
Description & Justification.
~\mY ':\e\eJ\_D\YIm~()\QQ-nD() tOl~.H\~(\&\.d
ye\~ ect\J\~ V~~+ Q~<9- 0-. Q
38\ h\~ Mt1\D1=B1(Y) U-J\~ \2 ?3ffi\ a flnrffi.
lYe ~ecJ- W\ \ \ ~<t -f6L)y ~C[)LJ)'PrYB1t
CbO:~ wMt\ <3 \ D\ - 4 \ \ 0Xl-U . V\eliEe &:.e
~ ~~ d~xlp\i()Y\.
7
II--d
:::.~.\\
^ cingulaF~}
WIRH us
c.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSAL TO ESTABUSH AND OPERATE A
NEW DIGITAL PCS~
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
SD-812-01
Arco Olympic Training Center
2800 Olympic Parkway
Chula Vista, CA 91915
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Department of Planning
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared by:
PlanCom, Inc.
Contractor Representatives for
Pacific Bell Wireless d.b.a. Cingular Wireless
302 State Place
Escondido, CA 92029
(760) 715-8703
Contact: Krystal Patterson, Planning Consultant
July 11, 2002
Project Description (SD-812-01)
7/11/2002
1?
Page 1
A.l
,
(:~:':
^ cingular~
WIUU$$
/:-.
,.
"
- .
INTRODUCTION
Cingular Wireless (CW), a.k.a. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, was established in 1994 as
the wireless subsidiary of Pacific Bell. CW is a registered public utility and is developing
an all-digital wireless network throughout California and Nevada. In March of 1995, CW
was issued a license by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the
provision of Personal Communications Services (PCS). In November of 1996, CW
formally unveiled its San Diego PCS Market to officially launch the first PCS service to
the residents of the State of California.
Since the initial market launch of CW's "Pure Digital PCS" network, design engineers at
CW have had the opportunity to assess network performance and quality vis-a-vis real
market data and conditions. At present, CW is experiencing both capacity and coverage
deficiencies in the vicinity of the subject site, In an effort to respond to these network
needs and to ensure customer satisfaction, CW is seeking approval from the City of
Chula Vista for a new site at the Arco Olympic Training Center in the Eastlake
community.
BACKGROUND
PCS is a rapidly evolving digital technology that is changing the future of
telecommunications through easy-to-use, lightweight, and highly mobile
communications devices including: portable phones, pagers, computers, and personal
digital assistants, PCS provides voice and data capabilities for customer's
communications needs virtually anywhere and at any time.
The PCS network being developed by CW differs from typical cellular networks in that it
uses state of the art digital technology versus traditional analog cellular systems, which
have been in use since the early 1980's. The benefits include an eight-fold increase in
channel capacity, call privacy and security, improved voice call quality and an expanded
menu of affordably priced products and services for personal and professional
communications needs.
The PCS network is designed for much broader consumer application. In addition to
providing users with the convenience and benefit of "virtual office" capabilities, PCS will
serve to enhance personal safety and security. With the PCS network in place,
individuals will have the ability to communicate during emergency situations and/or
when circumstances preclude them from utilizing a conventional landline telephone.
The wireless industry has undergone tremendous growth worldwide. Studies indicate
that by the end of 1999 there will be over 122 million wireless subscribers in over 125
Project Description (SD-812-01)
7/11/2002
q
Page 2
11-.2
(':':',
~;: c i n 9 u I a 't~~~'
WiRELESS
c....
.....
'."..'
countries throughout the world, and that by 2003 nearly one out of every two
individuals in the United States will be utilizing some form of wireless device.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed property is located at 2800 Olympic Parkway, just west of Wueste Road.
Currently the sites use is the Training Center. The proposed facility will be located on
the northwest portion of the property. The area surrounding the proposed project
consists of:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant Land
Training Center
Vacant Land
Vacant Land
Findings
L The proposed project is necessary to provide service to Cingular Wireless
customers on Olympic Parkway and surrounding roads.
2. Cingular Wireless will obtain all necessary permits from the City to show
compliance with the City. By the nature of the use the site will provide wireless
service to the citizens of Chula Vista in this general area,
3. Yes, the site will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this
code for such use. Cingular Wireless will obtain all necessary permits from the
City to install, operate, and maintain the facility.
4. The granting of this conditional use for Cingular Wireless's proposed project will
not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any
governmental agency.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Cingular Wireless is proposing the installation of twelve panel antennas located on a 35'
high Monopalm. The antennas will be painted to match the palm fronds and the sites
design is intended to work with Nextel's future site and Verizons existing. Please see
the site plan for a more detailed representation of the antenna location.
The supporting equipment will consist of the following: (4) BTS cabinets, one (1)
electric meter panel, and one (1) telephone interface. The equipment will be on grade
within a 10'-4" wall enclosure and designed and painted to match Verizons existing
enclosure. The specific location and design of the proposed facility is illustrated in
further detail on the site plan and elevation drawings.
Project Description (5D-812-01)
7/11/2002
/0
Page 3
It. 2-
^ cingulaip}
WIRELE$S
(c.:..
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW
The FCC has allocated a portion of the radio spectrum to CW for the provision of PCS.
The proposed communications facility will transmit at a frequency range of between
1850 MHz and 2100 MHz. The power required to operate the facility typically does not
exceed 200 watts per channel, and thus, the CW facility is by design a low-power
system. Depending upon characteristics of the site, the actual power requirements may
be reduced. When operational, the transmitted signals from the site will consist of non-
ionizing waves generated at less than one (1) microwatt per square centimeter, which is
significantly lower than the FCC standard for continuous public exposure of 900
microwatts per square centimeter.
Once constructed and operational, the communications facility will provide 24-hour
service to its users seven (7) days a week. Apart from initial construction activity, the
facility will be serviced by a CW technician on an as-needed basis. Generally, this is
likely to occur once per month during normal working hours, though much of the
operational adjustments may be handled remotely by computer. Beyond this
intermittent service, CW typically requires 24-hour access to the facility to ensure that
technical support is immediately available if and when warranted.
SITE SELECTION
CW engineering, planning, and leasing staff have been working to improve, enhance,
and expand the Pure Digital PCS network throughout the County of San Diego as well
as to other underserved regions of southern California. Like existing cellular systems,
PCS will employ a network of transmit/receive stations ("cell-sites") that carry and
"hand-off" signals as the user moves from one area to another. As the user moves
from one cell area (the area where a base station and antenna are located to receive
and transmit calls) to the next, signals to and from the first cell site fade while those to
and from the next cell site strengthen. Sophisticated computer systems sense these
signal variations and automatically hand the signal off to an available channel as the
user moves between cell areas.
The network of PCS cell sites throughout the region is "Iocational dependent", meaning
that there is a necessary and logical interrelationship between each cell site.
Eliminating or relocating a single cell site can lead to gaps in the system or areas where
a continuous signal cannot be maintained, and may necessitate significant design
changes or modifications to the PCS network.
Project Description (SD-812-01)
7/11/2002
/1
Page 4
Il2
/.~
^ cingulaF~
WIRE~US
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
As noted, Cingular Wireless is a public utility, licensed and regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and informally by the State's Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), and authorized to develop and operate a new wireless, digital PCS
network throughout California and parts of Nevada. ON engineers responsible for the
overall design and operation of this new PCS network want to ensure that network
coverage is available throughout the County of San Diego. The proposed site location
is essential to meeting the network's current capacity and coverage needs in this area.
At present, there is very little or no PCS network coverage to the roadways and homes
located in this portion of the County of San Diego. The proposed facility is intended to
address this need, and by design will interface with neighboring sites to provide high
quality, consistent network operations to CW customers,
PLANNING/ZONING CONSISTENCY
The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
communications facility will not create unusual noise, traffic, or other conditions or
situations that may be objectionable, detrimental, or incompatible with other permitted
uses in the vicinity. The following supports this determination:
1. The equipment associated with the communication structure operates quietly
or virtually noise free.
2. The equipment does not emit fumes, smoke, dust, or odors that could be
considered objectionable.
3, The communications facility is unmanned and only requires periodic
maintenance, which equates to approximately one vehicle trip per month.
Further, the proposed communications facility will not result in conditions or
circumstances contrary to the public health, safety and welfare, in that:
1. The proposed PCS communications facility will operate in full compliance with
the U.s. standards for radio frequency emissions as adopted by the FCC.
2. The radio frequency emissions emitted by the proposed PCS facility will fall
within the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which transmits non-
ionizing radio waves. Non-ionizing electromagnetic emissions, at the low
levels associated with this type of wireless technology, are not harmful to
Project Description (50-812-01)
7/11/2002
I::J...
Page 5
;(.2
r:C:':\
7: cingularJ
WIUU$$
r::.~".
'.,.;,..
'"
living cells. Among the items that result in non-ionizing electromagnetic
emissions are police/fire/EMS radios, television broadcasts, CB radios,
microwave ovens, and a variety of common household electronics including
garage door openers and baby monitors. Conversely, items that transmit
ionizing electromagnetic emissions include ultra-violet light, medical x-rays,
and gamma rays.
3. Data currently available on the effects of electromagnetic transmissions on
public health indicate that there is not the likelihood of negative impacts to
public health and safety.
Project Description (50-812-01)
7/11/2002
(3
Page 6
12
., L
""--,1H co
C .':11 ~ :J
1,., OJ
~ . . ,i; I ~
~UUI'i. "-
I!! '-
'II ()
'i ~
E
L...~
CO~
w
c::
:JS
0)
c:
--
u
?:
~ .,. I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ ~ ~ !;;! ~
. , I >-LU() N ~6
C E i ...J <,J
~ ~ I i00z i;;;;~~
GI 0 z " _ 0 <5
t& g ~ f 8~ f/J ~i
()~~ g5~ (((2 "'u
~~~ ~~~i <(I-
<DUJUJ ~ 2 8 ~ 0
oc
W
IF
ifi~1t)
O~m
~~.....
~OCm
-~~'\F'
~a.09
~ .('\1
OCO~'\F'
lFQ.roC?
O~-ib))
-)0>00
Q.d~
~i~
QNO
o
OC
~
,
~
I "
I ~~
~ ~
i g
, ~
I ;; Ih
'~iliuli
~ :. ~ :;; ;j' ';
J .1:.1:.1:.\:.1:.1: ...
.~. I I
~~ Ii
I~ I ~ 0 f
~ ih i ! i r
~ ~IH I h I
~ li~ ~ I I 0 II
I ~In~, n p
!!i ! Ii I d I
J~ I
in ij ~ i
.~ ' . ~ ".
~ ~o i .I: ! , ~ ~
; i ill I
~;ipin
illB!!
\--- ~
.~ 'Q ; I
i-- Y ~ w ~ 11_ !/I,!
i ff ~ i7i1~ ~ !I.II!'!'I
- 1-81'11111.
~ h'. .
!i ~ \ Ii I i
~ - IS
a i"" ~ 1"Plalh
~ ;:!i! i!!!i;;!ai:i~ i~h;i;I;~;:~iiiii!
is ~!'i~ ;~;rlhfi!d~, !~i~l.: i~g~i~iii~i
~ -.hl t~ ':5f!a~~ !!!P~~!~.h~.I~~
~ :I=h A!,! i&I!~~iil!..~i~ell~1~~~!iliil
~ i<~IIIiXl ~!w~in ~~;a!!~ ~i!;;.~g5i.
ii(i;li~i!il:li;~!i;~i5iii;llai5i;I~~;~
HI BI ffioi
81 p ( ( ~ I~; ~ plI~
~~ ~ ~ ; i H if ii i ~ Iii:;
i If B ~ B ! i ~ ~~;I !al!ll:e
nd d p - ~ni i i'~
Hu : I d : II ~B fin
...----........
('I
T"""
I
f-
" .
.J~f
fi~~
i i;i!
;~H!
~i~l!
~ v
~ l!i~ iI
i I' Viiii
! Iii
II~ IM~
m q~
.-
'.
c 7.
i ;~
Ii
I
"I
III,
i:! .1.
z i,1
i I."
t> i;1
~ fa!
xb
.-
t9. ~-fks
, ~ '" j ~
~-!M l- I" I" I" I" I" uw
CIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -t- P
o...z ! .,....
C .';I~ a"S l::Ow a ~ ~ T"""
i . 1n! I .~ I ~u N ~ ~ I
z , i oc) 9 ~ I i i I cd::
UUIUI ~ ~ 0:<:: ~ 0
U UZ (f)
~ . ",-
~ ' " <(~ 00
c I ~ ~ ~ t- 00
"
~
I
i ~
I
I I
~. .. t
!~ t
S
l~
~
~
w
!:::
(f)
~
z
<I:
.....I
a..
W
I-
(f)
.....I
<I:
I-
a::
<I:
a..
D
w
(9
a::
<I:
.....I
Z
W
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
'-
~
I
a
..
b
~ I,i
~i ?~
I~ ~/'
I " i
I 4<7-
~.IT \
,
\
~~
L
.
l~
-~
,~,.
'....."'\...
" --:::>1'
....,\
~t,.".
.",~
"~
,
,
,
, .~
I fI.....~
J ~./
_A,d--~~'
.~,-;:o1
~
"
"j
.~ ,
,
~
~
~i: .--<---
I:' ,~" -.,
.---J'..-" aJl';
.c , - _~~
-- ~;jf
~
~
_.....n~"" -
-~~
~
1-:5
.-::::
~
.
~
S
z
<(
.....I
a..
w
I-
(f)
.....I
.....I
~
W
>
o
,;1 PMS
W
I-
en
~
z
5 ::5
-------Ji ~
I-
en
...J
<I:
I-
IX
<I:
D..
o
W
C9
IX
<I:
...J
Z
W
L. , '-II
~ II {/) ~
"~I C\J ~ u
~~1~::! -II:: GI
C "i"11 ~ ::J, B 2 .
a!;j",~ C> E 'i
I U'uilli 1'5 ~.i I
t~~~ ~;~
~ I" ?<: (DII}(J)
I~ I~ I~ I~ I~
0:
u~ >-_",
o.z ! ~..
,~w 9~:
i ~u N"'u
...J ..... u .
Ii. 0'-" i'?!"
~ o~ 0 5~
CJ~ (Ij 8~
~i'2 "0
f-
z
.0
~ ~
1II"'''':t
1=0"''''1=
!~~~
I!i~
<;>38
~~,!,
,NN
('!;J,J.,
. <
~ ~ ~
g ~ ~
~ ~ :i :5
.., ~ 8 ~ ~
. N
.
..
, '.
.',
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
./
,/
o
./
!
I
I
I
f---~~
!
I
.
a
,/
(
I
I
.
i
.
.1 II
II I
D
o
~ I 0
!!
II
~ ---
I
\11
I
II I
.~
I
i I
I.
I
.;
~..
II
If='
I
I
~
~ ~
i ~
!
II
I
...
.
...
I
<(
t
~. .p ,
hY S
ir
~
in
~
.
~
S
I
::--
I ~
l-
I ~
z
I ~
w
o l-
I ~
<I:
o ~
<I:
D..
o
W
C9
IX
~ ~
~
. . Z
~~
!~
-:J tks
, a:
L. ,]
C'O ". 1_1_ I_ I_ I_ uw
....-1 ~ ~ .! .! .! a:: I- >-- ~
c. ", ~ ::J pZP' , ~
~. <
I I >-w I$: ! 2 !:: ~ N
I .~ ...JO NO.
UUi iO~ i;;;~ r ~ ! ~ I
. ~ ~ ~
~ 0 O~ 0 ~ <(
"
() . UZ C/)!
" , .
~ 0 & ~ ~~ ' ,00
. ~ ~,.!. .!,
C ~ . ~ ' " "
0 I- , ' ,
. .
~j!: ""
!~
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
--..
...
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
!
I
~
I
.
",'IJ .....
'':'>
..."
p
II~
-
-
i
i
3
I
,
~
.......
Z
<!:
r ([
~ rr
o
o
-.J
LL
flU
lail
it
I I
ji I ~
Ii
h
J
----------------------------------------------------------
-,
I 17
-~ P~IJS
, L ' . 0:
'2I!~1~i ' N I" I" I" I" I" oW
C\J o - ~
c :! ~ ~ ! ~ -t-
C .. H ~:; , I ~ffi 10 ~
! , I ('f)
.. L: I.~ , :JO N ~ ~
,
UUiU , I 1M i~ ! i I
E O~ 0 i <(
0
U u OZ <J)
0 , 0:-
, ~ , ~ . <(~ ' ,
.
..:, ~ ~ t- ' ,
. "
I~ I
1m . ..... ;1
.... i. II
'ili m I
i il I~ z
I !. h 0 z
II I-
-- I <( 0
II > II I-
LlJ <(
....J >
LlJ LlJ
II I II ....J
I- LlJ
D:: II l-
II 0 (/)
Z <(
II LlJ
I'll ..D
"J.tIIQ"",,- . il'l
..D I II~t
i"
.
I
~ ". Q - ,',
II __y J "
~~'1"r'
L/ 'J
(g' I
,). P/'/IS
~-",.- '.-_.- -. -,- ---.._._._,.__._-----~ ----~.
....
I
I
I
I
~
,
t
~
~
.
t
~
L 511 0::
1-1-1-1-1- oUJ ;
....-li ro ~~~~~ ->-
c...z ! .- ~
16011 ~"S I;>UJ 0 ~ ~ .
I i ~~ i ~ (V)
I .~ ~ L" i i I
o~ 0 <(
() . OZ (/)
~~ ,00
! ~ 0 " i ~ ~
. ~
~ ~ >-
I
I <
I
L______
~-
ill'
· r-
II !I
~ I( ~
, .
~ ~
~ Ui ~
;Id
III
I ~.
,
~ I-
, , I' II
, : Ii z
z
, 0 0
f-
, ~ -<
I- > I >
I UJ il UJ
II ...J ...J
UJ I. UJ
1 f-
I (/)
i 1 f- I UJ
:J I ~
I 0
(/)
I
l, ~
'Ian
. h. q
1&I~r'l. II
II ii' ~ I'
l',
11m
ITi
;H r~ ~..
, i~ II~ ~..
Ii ~~. 'lti
-:J. pkIJS
, L ' . <<
I ctI ~ ." 1-1-1-1-1- uw
"'-1 , ~
, ~~~~~ c:f-
C. "j ! ~ :J . pzr ~
I , I )oW 0 ~ B ..q-
1 I .~ , ..Jo N
,
UUi . IOC!) r;; I i ! I
j E i o~ 0 <(
.
! (.) u . UZ (f)
0 ~~
, ~ , 0 00
. ' ,
~ ~ ~ " ^
f- ' ,
~
t
~
i
.
J ~ I .
;hf g~ ~i. . III Ii
Jill ~qG, ~* JII
q~llll! ill ;~f II~
I d.h II ~It dJ i.l
~ ."'t -'
..-:-..-- I <
! i:; '\-: ::: --- ~
+~ b., ~i ~
Ii IIII! ~
Ii Ii d ~
<
IL
o
~
ii:
o
II:
Q.
i!
z
I
.;20
....---...."'1.--
s~ ~; ?I.f).f
~.
~,L Z6 VINO!jOjllV:) 'O~3Ia N'tS ~ ~ .. ~I
OQL)llnS
3N01S~JN!lO:) Ol\9 ~ H Ii; I
SS3l~Olfv\
JBln6up >.< 6I1~ (,)
.,...;:~~ . . .Ii Iii I
: i ;11 illl!.,: '111~rll!~"I'I~ ---@<I . I , I .
D",t.. I BOo! It fl. '!,.
:i!I~lli iiiil.!i! 1~~li~;ili!I~!!~1 11,1 ! i I I( !'I"i II;..
d'. II .1 ii' I I i il'll" I~i ~; h 4,1.J 0/1
:~!lii'iil!!i!~!'I;iirii!illl~:ili! I i 1'1 I 1'1 il ;llil!h, II:!
la' i I. 'J'I Ii" I '~'a' . .111 Ibl ! il Iii Ilflilli 11:11.
~:'!; il ~I;I:':,~ _!i~~;li'I,i :I~ III' I
lill!l;!lI~:.;!!i:III!III.i!.I;I:it! :0111 I hill Ii it il!i!ii!!lII!ili~ I
I
[~------ -
~
i'j
f
~ ! .
i !
I
I 'f. 'f.
0
'j ~ !
I
I U I. II ~
1 'I ~
I,
~ :L Iii
i
I
I ~ ,
I K .
I ! " I~
" . I ~ . !I
i
, 0
!
,
I
.
, 0
~
..
~
I
II
/1
" "
II! 1, II
.,Ii II .'
" II.
~/~/
~.~ ---
.>fP ~
/
//<;.
.,2 (
'It,1It.1 m
~~IIIII
IJ
~,.!!I
-.....
,;) P!<1fJS
RESOLUTION NO. PCC 03-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-
03-05, TO CINGULAR WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT AN
UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT
2800 OL YMPIC PARKWAY.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a conditional use permit was
filed with the City Of Chu]a Vista Planning Division on July 12, 2002 by Cingular
Wireless; and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct an
urunanned cellular communications facility consisting of a 35-foot-high monopalm
supporting twelve antennas, and a 200-square-foot equipment building at 2800 Olympic
Parkway; and
WHEREAS, cellular facilities are considered unclassified uses per Chula
Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48; and
WHEREAS, the proposed telecommunication facility will be collocated
with three other communication facilities at the ARCO Olympic Training Facility; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is compatible with the existing uses on the
site and will conform to the development standards of the Quasi-Public Zone; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will be desirable and necessary as a
public convenience by providing cellular communication accessibility in Chula Vista.
WHEREAS, the Envirorunental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
proposed project for compliance with the California Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA)
has determined that the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption
pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guide]ines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on
said conditional use permit 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 December 11,2002 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence,
and testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application.
.;L.:L
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use
Permit PCC-03-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions and
findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this II th day of December, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
02-.3
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-
03-05, FOR AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT THE ARCO OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER, 2800
OLYMPIC PARKWAY.
1. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as the ARCO Olympic Training
Center, which is the subject matter of this resolution, and is represented in Exhibit "A"
hereto and incorporated herein; and for the purpose of general description herein consists
of 149.56 acres with a Land Use Designation of Quasi-Public; and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2002, a duly verified application for a conditional use
permit (PCC-03-05) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department by
PlanCom, Inc. on behalf of the applicant Cingular Wireless.
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Enviroumental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
determined that the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption
pursuant to Section 1503 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
said project on December ] 1, 2002 and voted to recommend that the City
Council approve the conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the
conditions listed below in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCC-03-05;
and
E. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and
place as advertised on in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista; to receive the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing
was thereafter closed.
.lY-
Resolution No. PCC-03-0S
Page 2
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 on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on December I I, 2002 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator and the Planning Commission was reached in
accordance with requirements of the California Enviroumental Quality Act and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
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 herein
below set forth, and sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated
finding to be made.
]. That the proposed use at this 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 antenna location wi1l provide a necessary and desirable service by improving
wireless cell phone service to the developing areas of Eastern Chula Vista,
including, residents, businesses and visitors to the Olympic Training Center.
Additionally, in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation
whereby traditional phone service may be interrupted, the proposed facility would
allow cellular phones to continue operating.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity,
The proposed antenna use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare to the surrounding residents or general public. The design of this
proposal reduces the impact that a new site may potentially have by integrating
into a node of palm trees and expanding an existing building to house
equipment. The Federal Communications Commission regulates the radio
frequency emissions of the antennas and the facility will comply with those
.:2S
Resolution No. PCC-03-0S
Page 3
standards. The facility will operate quietly and normally does not emit fumes,
smoke, dust, or objectionable odors.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
The proposed use will comply with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, PCC-
03-05 as recommended by Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. All
necessary permits from the City to install, operate, and maintain the facility will be
obtained
4.) That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The proposed use is consistent with the general plan of the city. According to the Eastern
Territories Area Plan Section of the General Plan, most urban development will take
place in the Eastern portion of the City. It is Goal #2 of said Area Plan to accommodate
and regulate such development. The proposed cellular facility will help accommodate
the communication needs of such high urban development throughout the Southbay, as
well as the Eastern portion of the City. It is a passive use and therefore will not adversely
affect the policy and goals of the General Plan.
V. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The City Council hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-03-05, subject to the following
conditions.
Planning and Building Department:
1. Construct the Project as shown or described in the application, elevations, photo
simulations and other exhibits submitted for review at the City Council public hearing
dated September 17,2002.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 (Zoning)
of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
3. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area
television or radio broadcasts, including local frequencies used by the Chula Vista
Elementary or Sweetwater Union High School, and Sweetwater Authority or Otay Water
Districts. If on review the City, in its discretion, finds that the project interferes with
such reception, the City may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit.
4. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months of the
Building Division's final inspection, the applicant shall submit a report to the Director of
4
Resolution No. PCC-03-0S
Page 4
Planning and Building that provides cumulative field measurements of facility noises.
The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with current standards
specified in the Municipal Code for industrial uses. Said report shall be subject to review
and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with the project
proposal dated March 20, 2002 and Municipal Code noise standards. If on review the
City finds that the project does not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City
may revoke or modify the permit.
5. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineflective if not utilized or extended
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of
the Municipal Code.
6. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed
by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
7. This permit shall expire five (5) years after the date of its approval by the City Council.
If, prior to the expiration, a request to extend this conditional use permit is received, the
Zoning Administrator shall review this conditional use permit for compliance with the
conditions of approval, and shall determine, in consultation with the applicant, whether
the project shall be modified from its original approval. Extensions of time may be
granted in five (5) year increments.
8. Upon cessation of the business operations and use of the antennas by the applicant, the
applicant has 90 days to submit a substitute user to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building Department andlor remove the antennas and equipment from the
site. Any changes on the Conditional Use Permit shall require modification.
9. Cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in co-locating additional
antennas on subject property provided said co-locatees have received a conditional use
permit for such use at said site from the City. Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-
locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided
such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality-of-service
impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial
burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised good faith in
accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at the
expense of either or both the permittee and applicant.
10. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) month of the Building
Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a project
implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building, which provides
cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas
installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF emissions and compare the
results with currently accepted ANSI standards. Said report shall be subject to review
and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for consistency with the project
proposal report and the accepted ANSI standards. If on review the City in its discretion
finds that the Project does not meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this
conditional use permit.
:b
Resolution No. PCC-03-0S
Page 5
11. Obtain building permits from the Chula Vista Building Division. The project must
comply with alLapplicable building codes including the 2001 CBC and CPC.
12. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This
shall be noted on any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall
conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the C.V.M.C. regarding graffiti control.
13. If applicable, the power source for the proposed project shall be independent of existing
site facilities. Electrical service connections and the locations ofrelated components such
as meters and transformers shall be coordinated with SDG&E and City of Chula Vista
prior to issuance of building permit. The proposed facility may not use said power source
prior to final approval. Disruption of existing site improvements and facilities, including
site landscaping improvements, resulting from the installation of said electrical services
shall be replacedlrepaired in kind subject to the appropriate City approval(s).
14. The equipment shelter is to reflect the architectural features (including color and design)
of the Visitor Center.
15. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to
hea1th, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the
Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard
thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/conditon, 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.
16. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this 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, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
clectromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicantloperator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Conditional
Use Permit where indicated, above. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this Conditional Use Permit and this provision shall
be binding on any and all of applicant' slope rat or's successors and assigns.
~
Resolution No. PCC-03-05
Page 6
VI. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and
signing both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution
indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood and agreed to
the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the Count of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the property owner and!or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned
to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed true copy of
this document shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and
the corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in
abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
VII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
I f 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.
Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this
Resolution.
VIII. 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.
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, THIS
DAY OF 2002.
d..-Cf'
Resolution No. PCC-03-0S
Presented by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
Approved as to form by:
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
,/:IPLANNINGIDA WNICASEFILESlcc REPORTS & RESosIRESO pcc-03-05.ooc
30
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: "-f
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: GPA-03-01; Request to amend the City's
General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development (GDP) to eliminate
the floating elementary school site from the Otay Ranch Village One West
Planning Area and transfer Otay Ranch GDP dwelling units from Village
Five to Village One West. Applicant - Otay Project, L.P.
Public Hearing: PCM-03-01; Request to amend the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan modifying neighborhood
boundaries in Village One West and transferring Otay Ranch SPA One
dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West. Applicant - Otay
Proj ect, L.P.
Public Hearing: PCS-02-09; Request to approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06B) for Village One West of the
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B.
Applicant - Otay Project, L.P.
Otay Project, L.P. has applied to amend the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development
Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert a vacant 10-acre elementary school site into single-
family residential land uses and requests a Revised Tentative Map to adjust the boundary of
Neighborhood R-59 and create Neighborhood R-60 by transferring 65 unused dwelling units from
Village Five to Village One West.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was covered in
previously adopted FEIR 95-0land FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that only minor technical changes or additions to these documents are necessary and that
none ofthe conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling
for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-01and FEIR 97-03.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution No. GP A-03-0l recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the
City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan to eliminate the floating
elementary school site from the Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area and transfer
Otay Ranch GDP dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West;
/
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 12/1 1/02
. Resolution No PCM-03-0l recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan modifying neighborhood boundaries
in Village One West and transferring SPA One dwelling units fTom Village Five to Village
One West;
. Resolution No. PCS-02-09 recommending that the City Council approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map for Village One West of the Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
1. Site Characteristics
Village One West is the western-most development area in Otay Ranch SPA One, and is currently
being developed with single-family homes. This portion of Village One West is located west of
Heritage Road (formerly Paseo Ranchero), south of East Palomar Street, north of Olympic
Parkway and east of the existing Sunbow II Planned Community (See Attachment #1). The
balance of the Village One West project area is north of East Palomar Street. East Palomar Street
extends through Village One West, and connects Otay Ranch to the Sunbow Planned Community.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
In 1999, the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One Plan were amended to add
Village One West to the SPA One project area. This amendment also added an elementary school
site to the Village One West area on the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP. The addition of the
elementary school site was coordinated by the City, the Chula Vista Elementary School District
(CVESD) and Gtay Project, L.P. and was in response to the uncertainty ofthe district's ability to
utilize a school site in the nearby Sunbow Planned Community. The district believed that if they
were unable to secure a school site in Sunbow, they would be able to utilize a "secondary" site in
Village One West of Otay Ranch.
Although both of the elementary school sites on the City's General Plan were "floating", they
were generally one-quarter mile away from each other. Because of the locations of other
.;L
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 12/11/02
elementary schools that surround the Sunbow Planned Community (i.e. Greg Rogers Elementary,
Casillas Elementary and Heritage Elementary), the CVESD had always indicated that they would
only develop one school in either Sunbow or Village One West, not both. In the event that the
lO-acre school site in Village One West was not utilized, the underlying land use designation was
Low-Medium single-family residential, consistent with the rest of the Village One West.
ZoninR
Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities such
as Sunbow and Eastlake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community
District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan.
Current Land Use
The project site has been graded and is currently vacant. The northern portion of Village One
West is currently under development for single-family residences, totaling 400 homes at build-out.
The south portion (project area) is also currently under development and allows 445 homes at
build-out. The eastern portion of the Sunbow II development lies directly adjacent to Village One
West and is also under development. Village Two and Village Two West, located to the south,
are still used for agricultural purposes.
3. Proposed Plan
The proposed amendments to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
would eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One West. This
application is in response to the CVESD's decision to develop a 10-acre school site in the eastern
portion ofthe Sunbow Planned Community and not utilize the site designated in Village One West
(See Attachment #2). The district had always intended to use utilizing only one of the sites. The
school district determined it will serve the area with the elementary school site located adjacent to
the western boundary ofOtay Ranch within the Sunbow Planned Community (See Attachment #3).
Recently, the C.V.E.S.D. has finalized the purchase ofthe 10-acre elementary school on the eastern
edge of the Sunbow Planned Community on the south side of East Palomar Street. The school
district plans to begin construction of the school facility in the next several weeks and open the
school in the fall of2003.
With the knowledge that the district was finalizing the purchase of the Sunbow site, the applicant
(Otay Project, L.P.) submitted the proposal to eliminate the 1 O-acre elementary school site in Village
One West by amending the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan to convert the school site into single-family residential land uses (See
Attachment #4). The application proposes to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One plan by
increasing the single-family residential dwelling units in Village One West with a corresponding
3
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 12/11/02
decrease in multi-family units in Village Five. The proposal includes the reduction of allowable
Otay Ranch GDP multi-family dwelling units in Village Five fTom 1,615 to 1,550, and increasing the
GDP single-family unit count in Village One West from 845 to 910, thus, the 65-unit transfer from
Village Five to Village One West. The applicant proposes to transfer the dwelling units from
Village Five, Neighborhood R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to
the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots.
The applicant is authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP policies to utilize an underlying residential land
use if a public facility such as a school is relocated out of a village. The SPA One document also
authorizes the transfer of dwelling units between villages if they are within the same Sectional
Planning Area. Table #1 below details the changes in dwelling units between the villages in SPA
One. After the redistribution, there are a total of 56 unused dwelling units in SPA One authorized by
the Otay Ranch GDP.
Table #1
EXISTING DWELLING UNITS
GDP SPA
SF MF SF MF
Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521
Village Five 1,263 1,615 1,217 1,605
Village One West 845 0 845 0
Subtotal 3,652 3,137 3,606 3,126
Overall Total 6,789 6,732
PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS
GDP SPA
SF MF SF MF
Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521
Village Five 1,263 1,550 1,217 1540
Village One West 910 0 910 0
Subtotal 3,717 3,072 3,671 3,061
Overall Total 6,789 6,732
The Applicant also requests a Revised Tentative Map (See Attachment #5) to increase the boundary
of Neighborhood R-59 and create Neighborhood R-60 by accommodating the transferred dwelling
units. The new subdivision involves the 10 acres from the school site and a minor reconfiguration of
Neighborhood R-59 on approximately 15.3 acres of total land area.
As a result, the proposed Revised Tentative Map has modified the neighborhood boundaries south of
East Palomar Street as depicted on the proposed Village One West Land Use Plan (See Attachment
#2).
Lf
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date 12/1 1/02
The applicant proposes all of the residential lots in the project be located on private streets with
access from Santa Sierra Drive off of the south side of East Palomar Street. The reconfiguration of
Neighborhood R-59 is required in order to provide acceptable circulation of residential streets to
Neighborhood R-60 to the north. Tenaya Lake Road provides the vehicular access to both
neighborhoods from Santa Sierra Drive. One attended Entry Cottages (guard houses), of the same
design to those currently used in Village One, has been previously approved just south of East
Palomar Street. This entry will be designed as "Secondary Village Entry Streets" as described in the
SPA One Plan, utilizing wider 8-foot parkways for street trees and a 6-foot sidewalk on one side.
This design encourages pedestrian-friendly movement and an inviting streetscape.
The Revised Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies for
landform grading. The landform grading approved on the original Tentative Map has also been
included on the Revised Tentative Map. The slope edges have been pulled back from East Palomar
Street and Heritage Road to create undulation along the north and east slope of the project.
The Revised Tentative Map proposes modifying the configuration of Neighborhood R-59 and
creating Neighborhood R-60. The neighborhood in Village One West provide for varying densities
of single-family residential land use. Lot sizes on the Village One West Revised Tentative Map have
not changed from the previous approval from this project. Neighborhood R-59 will have 50-feet by
1 OO-feet lots that will average 5,000 square-foot and Neighborhood R-60 will contain 4,250 square-
foot (average) lot sizes that are an average of 50-feet wide by 85-feet long. The Tentative Map
conditions previously approved and applied to Village One West will also be applied to the Revised
Tentative Map for Neighborhoods R-59 and R-60.
Analysis:
The proposed amendments to the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan along with a Revised Tentative Map application for Village One West
remain consistent with prior approvals including the GDP amendment approved by City Council on
November lO, 1998. The school district's decision to eliminate the elementary school location in
Village One West provides the applicant the opportunity to utilize the underlying land use of single-
family residential as authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP.
The design of the new single-family neighborhood (R-60) is consistent with the landform grading
and circulation policies of the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. The new subdivision
design has improved the development edge of Village One Wes and complies with the General Plan
landform grading policies and is consistent with the SPA One Plan for Village One West. The
vehicular circulation provided for the subdivision allows for multiple-access to the subdivision for
emergency responses.
The Otay Ranch GDP and SPA Plan allows for the transfer of dwelling units fTom village to village
within a SPA area. The dwelling unit transfer from Village Five to Village One West, which are
5---
Page 6, Item_
Meeting Date 12/1 1/02
both located in SP A One, involves a decrease in the Village Five units and an increase in the Village
One West units. As illustrated in Table #1 on Page 4, the dwelling unit totals will not change with
the dwelling unit transfer. The GDP authorization remains 6,789 units, while the SPA Units
allocated remains 6,732 units.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the subject amendments and Revised Tentative Map application for Village One
West are consistent with the approved Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP policies
and recommends approval of the amendments and Revised Tentative Map subject to the Revised
Tentative Map (C.V.T. 98-06B) Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution, Exhibit 'B').
Attachments
I. Locator Map
2. Chula Vista Elementary School District Letter (08/28/02)
3. Proposed Village One West Land Use Plan and Village Five Land Use Plan
4. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 98-06B)
5. Planning Commission Resolution (GPA-03-01)
6. Draft City Council Resolution (GPA-03-01)
7. Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-03-0 I)
8. Draft City Council Resolution (PCM-03-01)
9. Planning Commission Resolution (PCS-02-09)
10. Draft City Council Resolution (PCS-02-09)
11. Disclosure Statement
J :J";mn!ng'i~ lC i 1\\-",();;1.\ !{;u;c!i'il.Nr \1/\ p'- \"1 \\'_5uU1h_nRji!_IU,O_ ;k\i\,~d'l!v1" 1'( '_. Stal{_Rpl.ddC
~
_ -~-..1
~ r<l\\\~llllL\ .~C;Z):\ 0\S~D S::j
/J~~itt\lj t\ Hj,\.(\\~%;~~\\\~~ .
'W:.L'lMiTU RANCHO ~;;>-\\\I1) leI, j ,~L\rL::./
\T 111 DEL"-\Y ~rv )//
'. REV ~/
) y~l~~i/ ~/
RANCHO
DEl REV
MIDDlE
SCHOOl
~/
--------
-----------
\
\
\
\
\
j
i
l~/
I
I
\
/
PROJECT
LOCATION
----~-
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION"
C) APPLICANT OTAY PROJECT, LP MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, WEST
ADDRESS R59/R60; South of East Palomar SI. PA & GDP Amendment: PROPOSE to convert the
West of Paseo Ranchero existing school site into single family neighborhood
SCALE FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCM.03.01 Related Case(s): ,"L::i.UL'U~
j:\horne\plalllllllg\cherrylc\locators\pcrn0301cdr 07 1002
7
A~4L
BOARD OF EOUCATION
CHERYL $. COX, EdD.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
PATRICKA.]UDD
BERTHA J. L6PEZ
PAMElA B. SMITH
SUPERINTENDENT
LIBIA S. GIl, Ph_D
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHlLD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREA T WORTH
August 28, 2002
Mr. Rich Whipple
Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Whipple:
Re: Construction of Elementary School in Sunbow vs. Otay Ranch
Village 1 West S-3 School Site
Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD), like other districts in the
State, is facing challenging school facility demands. Construction in
Southern California is 70 percent higher than projected state figures and few
resources are coming out of Sacramento to support growth needs. Hardship
and priority points for other districts have redirected approved funding from
CVESD. Other district applications are given 2765 priority points while
CVESD was only given 76; hence the district's projects (over $18 million)
remain on the unfunded approval list until such time monies become
available. Promise of a new State bond in November is encouraging.
The challenge is a statewide issue as much as it is a local Chula Vista issue.
Fortunately all major area developers have agreed to mitigate through
formation of CFDs. Smaller infill projects that pay basic fees cover less than
half the cost of student housing needs.
We are also trying to be creative where possible. By partnering with Ayres
Land Company we are able to apply for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, a
federal zero-interest loan program (using tax credits) to augment our capital
facility program. This will help finance construction of the Sunbow school
(school No. 40). The Division of the State Architect is reviewing plans for this
school, which will be located in the Sunbow development. This site will have
a master capacity of 900 students (750 with class size reduction), which will
accommodate the student population from both Sunbow and Otay Ranch
Village 1 West. Construction of School No. 40 is scheduled to begin
approximately March 2003 with plans of opening July 2004 on a year round
calendar.
~
j)..1I~,.:r( .p:- z-
8/28/02
Mr. Rich Whipple
Re: Construction of Sun bow School
Page 2 of 2
Relocation of the Sunbow site several years ago made the need for the
nearby Otay Ranch SPA One S-3 site unnecessary as both sites are within a
quarter of a mile of each other. Additionally other elementary schools are
slated for future Villages in the Otay Ranch area.
If additional information is needed, please give me a call.
S~p~
Uwell~illingS,~D.
Assistant Superintendent
for Business Services and Support
LB:dp
cc: Richard Rosaler
Martin Miller
Ranie Hunter
(
~
<II
E
E
;:,
en
CD
III
::I
'C
c:
<II
-'
_0
~ '" >0 '" '" co >0 ~ "" co ~ "' ~ co ~ ~ '.0
~.. '" '.0 co co co co "" "" '.0 "" "" "" co cO '" '"
'"::>
....0
0>
".. '" ~ "" '" '" ~ >0 '.0 '" ~ '" '" co '.0 '" co
.-- ~
="2 >0 " >0 '.0 " '" co co 00 ~ '" '.0 co '"
~::> ~ '"
0
..
0>
'" ~ '" '" '" '" >0 ~ ~ Co! ~ "' '" " '" co ~ '" '" co "'
.. '" ~ '.0 ~ ~ 0; '.0 " '.0 '" >0 ox; ...: ~ cO co ~ 00
t; ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co '.0 co co
<( " co
-
".. " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " '" ~
".. t
~::> '" '" OJ> '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" OJ> OJ> OJ> OJ>
~o OJ> 'iij
'iij '0
'0 ....
15 OJ
~ ..
" (/) ~ ;:
0 " ..
0 ~ u
.<= '" '" '" '" '" '" 2- .f! "
~'" '" '" co ~ ~ " " co '" '" '.0 ~ >0 '" co " 0
of 'f 'f '? '? '? '? '? '? '? '" '? '? '? '? '.0 .. ::;OJ> '" ..
~<( ~ '" " , ~ ~ 0>
0> '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .;;; 0.. ~ .~ ~
.. 18
'.. II: U :;;
z
N c: ! ~
~ <II
-'- c: N
~ J
:0 CD
:c III
x
l1J ::I
'C
c:
<II
-'
-
III
CD
~
CD
c:
0
CD
C>
..!!!
:>
-
III
CD
;:
CD
c:
o
CD
C>
<II
:>
'C
r:::
CD
0)
CD
..J
>-
2
"
eo:
'CO'
"",
'=E
,*5,
0::<
~
. c
r1!~
1ii(/}~
c.~ '"
g~8
-g*iJ
~ :i.2
8~ 5:
;~~oi
el- <:La>
~a1e!~
;:: g.~ij
~~s~
w:i-:::~~
...."'2<:1S..
~;':~~o
1!W
~\J7
r-- : !
~-~
~
~L
~-~
q
~bJt
<:u
~ '"
O~~
<:u~~
~-e
~ ~
s:
ii\
o
cr:
c
o
~
~ :
o
"
g-
'eo
w
Oi
I-
1_"
-"
" '"
N
,
(J)
o
"-'
~
O~
"-'<3
~
s:
;;;
E_
Ow
(ij~
Cl._
-'"
..
'"
w
~C'
~~
" .
c
'"
'1~
j. ]
lie
J~~
,! J'
!~ E..
. tq
relH
/0
A~,,^ENI ~ 3
_0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G~~~~M~ W~~~~~MMv~~
c:->-o.
I'll
~{~~~~~~~ffir~~~~~~~g~
::10.
en
GI ~
III '"
:J~
'tJ~
I:
I'll
....Ii!: LL LLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
~~~oooooowoooooowoooooooooooooooooo
>
ii:-g
GI 0
C)€ <<I
as .& e
-,,<(
::0)
>~
"'.... 0'" '" N N'" .. '"
ccir--: a:id ..; ro cOo) '" ro
'" N ~N N
0-< .... '" .... ~ N "'00 .... '" N N ....
"'.... "- co .. N "'''0 '" .... .... "'
N N ~ ~NN '" ....
N-
~ GlI: "" N
0
~ >1'11 '? 0
...!. u:a: - N
- N
:a GIGI "
:E .
0)11) .i!.
>< ~:J
UJ
=-0
>c
I'll
....I
vMmN~~vo~m~OOOOOMm~
~~a:i~cDcDddvci~o)o)ciM~~
~......C\J"" ........................... ............
..'" N "0"' a)'</"NQJ N '" '" '" .. ~ ~ t-: q q "1 "'":I~ ~ "'1",q"!"''1lql~1
va) ,..: oa:ic:::i oiC\ioo<d ,..: ro oJ oJ ro tl)......t().....................(,I) vVo)~~~?;:; ~
N .... 0
N '" - ..
IL .. ::> :!! " IL :s
'" '" '" ~ 11.
C 11. 0- - - ;;; ~
LLLL :s ILLLLL LLlLLLLL LL ~ ::> :s ~ ~~~~~~~S u..u..S8criCDCDO
U"f) 0 :;;:;;:;; ~~::E::2 :;; :> 0 '0 a. a... .r:. e! e- ~
E E E ';; Q.a.a...a...a...a...a..o UU.9bJoCi5U5.g >
~ E ii:
, , , II: , .g '"
'" '" '" '" '" ~
:s co
m~ "' ~ ~ f:? ~
C!)OMv '" .. .....C\I .....C\jo..... "f'l' :>
_N "'00 ci: ~(f)o5
"f"f ~C?C? C'J"'<I"'<I'" '<t .. <o<6l';-mo)............ LLLL
a: a: a: a: a: ci:d:d:d: ci: '" a..d.a...ci.ci..ci..ci. 11.0. mO_x
<> 00 ,sOl
NMVt()~g~a)"""~~MVt()(,I)~ro
NNNNNNNNMMMC'JMMC'JMC'J
d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:a:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:
Ui'
-<
ci:
OJ
~
>-
'"
"
c '"
>
'" 0
E '"
co C '"
.2' ::J
;;: '" '"
>- '5 '"
'" x
!!! ~ ~
~ "-
f- 0 a;
'" iii "2
'C !!! '" .e.~
:;; 0; E U
c: ~ co E
Q) '" 0
"- ;::. u
en ~ i
Q) ~
-J P.,
~
~"'
~~
e",
P.,v>
-_u
a.
<(
z
~E9
"
~
j
~~]
~L
~1
ii! .i.~
1~
.~ ,
b O.
'"
;::,
<I:
~
~
s:
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
K
'"
""
o
g.:!~
~\I)i
~~~
'-0
~j~
~~-
L$
;~~..;
. ~.
iiijeii
g a.E~
i!~<5~
iiis::::'c
..h"S
,!!...,!!c-a.
~t:~a:o
'11
!.I
!L
j,.
h
'! i
,. -
. kn
~UI
/1
A lTP><-\.\M~ :t:%- g.
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-03-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT (GDP) TO ELIMINATE THE
FLOATING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE FROM THE
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST PLANNING AREA
AND TRANSFER OTAY RANCH GDP DWELLING UNITS
FROM VILLAGE FIVE TO VILLAGE ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on Chula Vista Tract
98-06B, and is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan portion ofOtay Ranch Village One West (South) was filed with the City
of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 1, 2002 by Otay Project, L. P.,
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch
General Development (GDP) to eliminate the floating elementary school site from the Otay Ranch
Village One West Planning Area and transfer Otay Ranch GDP dwel1ing units from Village Five to
Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993
by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10,1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part
on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH
#9010154 ("Program FEIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("FEIR
95-01"), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was
covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are
,Q
p..~~~':)
necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-0land FEIR 97-03 in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted pursuant to Resolution
No. (GPA-03-0l); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said General
Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendment (GP A-03-0l) and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing
to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior
to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on
December 11,2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of an amendment to the
City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GP A-03-0l) is consistent with the
City ofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One
Plan, and an other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and
good planning practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment 0 the City's General Plan and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GPA-03-0l) in accordance with the findings contained in the
attached City Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
/3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11 th day of December, 2002 by the fol1owing vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
),]J]anning',Ri('II\V',{)lnYnR.:.mcl;"'v'illagi: \\.'esl\,-;i'A (Jill! V I \VSdl.l\iI R)iJ f{{)() Arncnd_(Jp'\ PC RC\(1.doc
/'/
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT (GDP) TO ELIMINATE THE
FLOATING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE FROM
THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE WEST
PLANNING AREA AND TRANSFER OT A Y RANCH
GDP DWELLING UNITS FROM VILLAGE FIVE TO
VILLAGE ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06B, and
is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the City's General Plan and
Otay Ranch General Development Plan portion ofOtay Ranch Village One West (South)
was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 1, 2002
by Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the City's General Plan and the
Otay Ranch General Development (GDP) to eliminate the floating elementary school site
from the Otay Ranch Village One West Planning Area and transfer Otay Ranch GDP
dwelling units from Village Five to Vil1age One West; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City
Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November
10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154
("Program FEIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4,1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999
by Resolution No. 19375, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of
said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("FEIR 95-01"), and the
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH
#97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
determined that the project was covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-
03. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that only minor technical
changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the
F) A~p.Ef0T1+LP
preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has prepared an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03 in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, attached hereto as Exhibit "B";
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendment (GPA-03-0l) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. on December II, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of
project; and,
the Planning Commission approved the
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
ofChula Vista on said General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP amendment (GPA-03-01); and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing held on December II, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council approves an amendment to the General Plan and Otay Ranch
GDP (GPA-03-01) eliminating the floating elementary school site from the Otay
Ranch Village One West Planning Area, attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
The City Council also hereby transfers 65 Otay Ranch GDP dwelling units from
Village Five to Village One West, as shown on attachments hereto as Exhibits
"D" and "E", finding such transfer is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and all other applicable
Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, and subsequent FEIR 97-03, would have no
Ih
new effects that were not examined in the preceding Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR
95-01, and subsequent FEIR 97-03 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and,
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR
EIR
The City Council hereby finds thaI: (1) there were no changes in the Project fTom
the Program FE1R 90-01, FEIR 95-01 and FEIR's 97-03 which would require
revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the previous
reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available since the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that,
therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be
required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition for Project
implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an activity
that is within the scope of the project covered by Program FEIR 90-01, FEIR 95-
01 and subsequent FEIR-97-03, and Addendum attached hereto [Guideline 15168
(c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to FEIR-95-01 and FEIR 97-
03, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council of the City ofChula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND
AL TERNA TIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program FEIR 90-01, Otay Ranch
SPA One FEIR 95-01, and subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this
Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay
Ranch GDP FEIR 90-01, SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01 and subsequent SPA One
Plan FE1R 97-03 adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes
ofCEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)].
17
VIII. OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
The proposed Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development
plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
PROVISION OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment
reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses,
and public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan. The elementary school
site in Village One West was added to the City's General Plan and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan in the event that the primary school site
identified in the nearby Sunbow Planned Community was unavailable.
The ChuJa Vista Elementary School District (C.V.E.S.D.) has purchased
the Sunbow site and determined that the Village One West site is no
longer needed.
B. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED
BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE.
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan was adopted
within two years of the establishment of the Planned Community Zone
District in Otay Ranch
C. IN THE CASE OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A
RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESlREABLILITY
AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR
PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA, AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR
PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND
PARKS, ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED
POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICIN THEREOF.
The planned single-family residential development for the project is
designed to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods in
Otay Ranch Village One West. The amendment contains provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH
USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN
AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER-ALL DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE
INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
I~
STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIREABILITY
AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The Project does not involve Industrial or Research land uses.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL AND OTHER
SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL
PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT
SURROUNDING AREAS PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE
EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The Project does not involve Institutional, Recreational or Nonresidential
uses.
F. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE
SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THAT ANTICIPATED
TRAFFIC THEREON.
The Proj ect' s street circulation provides for sufficient access for the
single-family residences in the development. A comprehensive street
network serves the project and provides for access to off-site adjacent
properties. The design of the subdivision development utilizes a loop-road
design within the development to provide multiple points of access to
Santa Sierra Drive.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED
AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF
THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S).
The Project does not involve Commercial development uses.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL
COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designated with an underlying land
use in place in the event of the relocation or deletion of public facilities
such as schools. The underlying land use in the project is single-family
residential and has been appropriately zoned and planned in coordination
with surrounding development consistent with the policies described in the
General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
Jq
Approved as to form by
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
RANCHO
DEL REV
/
PROJECT
LOCATION
~~
/'/' / ~
~:>/
~
/---------~
/~
~/~
\
/. /.
------. -----.
I .'
~..
\
\
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: OTAY PROJECT, L.p. MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, WEST
ADDRESS: R59/R60; South of East Palomar St 3PA & GDP Amendment: PROPOSE .' to convert the
West of Paseo Ranchero existing school site into single family neighborhood
SCALE. FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-01 Related Case(s); t-'<';::;-UL-U~
j:lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcm0301.cdr 07.10.02 c2 D
EXHIBIT "An
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch Village One West South, Future Elementary School
Site (S-3) conversion to Single-Family Residential; Revised
Tentative Tract No. 98-06B
PROJECT LOCATION: South side of East Palomar Street at Heritage Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: Otay Project LP
CASE NO:
IS-03-001
DATE:
December 5, 2002
1. BACKGROUND
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR
95-01) evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the development of Villages One
and Five. The SPA One plan was approved and the EIR was certified on June 4,1996. The Otay
Ranch SPA One plan was amended in 1998 to include an approximately 308-acre area known as
Vi1lage One West. A Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-97-03) for the Otay
Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments was certified at the same time.
The currently adopted Village One West tentative map delineates an elementary school on the
south side of East Palomar Street at Heritage Road. In response to the Chula Vista Elementary
School District's decision not to utilize this site within Vi1lage One West, the Otay Project
proposes to amend the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan in order to convert the current elementary school land use (S-3) in Village
One West to single-family residentia1. The applicant has also proposed a revised Tentative Map
to subdivide the 10-acre school site into 65 single-family lots.
II. PROPOSED SPA ONE AMENDMENT
Otay Project has applied to amend the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development
Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert a vacant lO-acre elementary school site into
single-family residential land uses and requests a Revised Tentative Map to transfer 65 dwelling
units from Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to
the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots. The proposed
discretionary actions associated with the project include the following:
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 9]-03
12/05/02
1
,;](
1) Chula Vista General Plan Amendment to eliminate the floating elementary school
site from Otay Ranch Village One.
2) Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment to eliminate the floating
elementary school site from Otay Ranch Village One.
3) Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment to modify the Otay Ranch
GDP dwelling unit allocations within Village Five and Village One West
4) SPA One Plan Amendments to Village One West Site Utilization Plan and Land
Use neighborhood R-60 (7.3 acres and 49 single-family units), modify R-59
neighborhood to include IS.5 acres and 106 single-family units, modify the
boundary between R-59 and R-60, modify SPA One Zoning Exhibit to reflect
new neighborhood boundaries.
5) SPA One Amendments to Village Five Land Use Summary Table to reallocate 65
units from neighborhood R-30b to neighborhoods R-59 and R-60.
6) Revised Tentative Map 96-06B for neighborhoods R-59 and R-60.
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (915162) establishes the conditions under
which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared.
A. When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shaH be prepared
for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence
in light of the whole record, one or more of the foHowing:
I. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR
was prepared.
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR
if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shaH determine whether to
prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further
documentation (Guidelines 915162).
12/04/02
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
2
~2-.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:
A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 ca1ling for preparation of a subsequent ErR have occurred.
B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR.
C. The decision-making body sha1l consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to
making a decision on the project.
D. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be
supported by substantial evidence.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. Converting the elementary school land use designation (S-3) in Village One
West to single-family residential does not constitute a substantial change to the previously
approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in circumstances under which the
project would be constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has been
presented. The modifications proposed for Vi1lage One West South would not result in any
environmental effects that were not considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03, nor would the
changes increase the severity of any of the impacts identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The
mitigation measures identified in these documents would be equally applicable to the revised
project.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has
prepared the fo1lowing addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR-97-03.
III. ANAL YSIS
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the modifications to the project
would change any of the analyses contained in EIR 95-01 and ErR 97-03. The conclusion is that
previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the changes,
nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached.
Land Use:
The Otay Project proposes to eliminate the lO-acre elementary school site in Village One West
by amending the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan to convert the school site into single-family residential land uses. The application
proposes to amend the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One plan by increasing the single-family
residential dwelling units in Village One West with a corresponding decrease in multi-family
units in Village Five. The proposal includes the reduction of a1lowable Otay Ranch GDP multi-
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
12/04/02
3
,23
family dwelling units in Village Five from 1,615 to 1,550, and increasing the GDP single-family
unit count in Village One West from 845 to 910. The applicant proposes to transfer 65 dwelling
units from Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to
the expanded R-59 neighborhood and creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots. Tables 1 and 2
below detail the changes in dwelling units between the villages in SPA One.
Table 1
SPA One Dwelling Unit Breakdowns
Existing Dwelling Units
GDP SPA
SF MF SF MF
Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521
Village Five 1,263 1.615 t,217 1,605
Village One West 845 0 845 0
Subtotal 3,652 3,137 3,606 3,126
TOTAL 6,789 6,732
Proposed Dwelling Units
GDP SPA
SF MF SF MF
Village One 1,544 1,522 1,544 1,521
Village Five 1,263 1,550 1,217 1540
Village One West 910 0 910 0
Subtotal 3,717 3,072 3,671 3,061
TOTAL 6,789 6,732
Table 2
Overall Comparison of Existing and Proposed Dwelling Units
GDP SPA
SF MF SF MF
Overall Existing Total 3,652 3,137 3,606 3,126
Overall Proposed Total 3,717 3,072 3.671 3,061
Difference +65 -65 +65 -65
The applicant is authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP policies to utilize an underlying residential
land use if a public facility such as a school is relocated out of a village. The SPA One
document also authorizes the transfer of dwelling units between villages if they are within the
same SPA. The proposed amendments would not conflict with surrounding land uses, since the
overall residential character of the proposed uses would be similar to existing surrounding uses.
No impacts to land use are anticipated.
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
12/04/02
4
,2<(
Transportation, Circulation and Access
As illustrated in Table 3, the proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily
traffic trips within the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95-
01 and EIR 97-03.
Table 3: Estimated Project Traffic Generation
Estimated
Daily Trip Ends Traffic
Land Use Existing Proposed Difference (ADT) \ Generation
Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 du 8 +520
Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 du 6.7 -435.5
School 10 ac 0 -lOac 145 -1,450
Difference -1,365 ADT
H ,
AD I generatIon rates based on EIR )7-03 fraffie Impact Ana1ys!s Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment, 1998
The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the surrounding roadway
circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95-
OJ and ErR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation are anticipated.
Water Quality and Drainage
A revised hydrology study, dated May 31, 2002, was prepared by Hunsaker and Associates to
evaluate the change in drainage patterns and runoff rates for the proposed project. The
hydrology study indicates that the proposed residential uses will result in a 24 percent decrease
in peak runoffrates than those generated from the planned school site. On-site drainage facilities
for the project would be constructed as part of the site development. Modifications to the SPA
Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West South would not result in any previously
unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
would be equally applicable to the revised configuration ofland uses.
Public Services and Facilities
Water and Sewer: Tables 4 and 5 depict the estimated sewage generation and water demand for
the proposed project. As illustrated below, the overall estimated sewer generation and water
demand for the proposed project would be less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 and EIR
97-03.
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
---
5 ..)"-)
1 2/04/02
Table 4: Estimated Sewage Generation
Estimated
Average Unit Sewage
Land Use Existing Proposed Difference Flow Generation
Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 280 gpd/unit +18,200
Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 210 gpd/unit -13,650
School 10 ac 0 -lOac 9000 gpd/acre -9000
Difference -4,450 gpd
Table 5: Estimated Water Demand
Annnal
Unit Demand Demand
Land Use Existing Proposed Difference ac-ftIyr ac-ftIyr
Single-Family 3,606 3,671 +65 2.0 ac-ftlyr +130
Multi-Family 3,126 3,061 -65 2.5 ac-ftlyr -162.5
School 10 ac 0 -lOac 2.0 ac-ftlyr -20
Difference -52.5 ac-ftIyr
The regional sewer and water facilities planned and approved within Village One have been
sized to accommodate peak hour and maximum flow rates for the proposed amendments. The
proposed amendments would not affect the analysis previously provided in these documents. No
impacts to water and sewer are anticipated.
Parks: The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within
Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to the park
acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees
in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands are anticipated.
Schools:
The proposed project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan to eliminate the floating elementary school site fTom Otay Ranch Village One
West. This application is in response to the Chula Vista Elementary School District's (CVESD)
decision to develop a 10-acre school site in the eastern portion of the Sunbow Planned
Community and not utilize the "secondary" site once designated for Village One West.
Recently, the CVESD has finalized the purchase of the 10-acre elementary school on the eastern
edge of the Sunbow Planned Community on the south side of East Palomar Street. The school
district plans to begin construction of the school facility in the next several weeks and open the
school in the fall of 2003. CVESD has indicated that the proposed Sunbow site located adjacent
to the western boundary of Otay Ranch will adequately meet the local student generation
demands for the SPA One area. No impacts to school facilities are anticipated.
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 12/04/02
6y I;
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical
changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Reports adequate
under CEQA.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
References: General Plan, City ofChula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City ofChula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendments
12/04/02
Village One West South Addendum to EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03
7 .:27
Case No.IS-03-001
ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
Otay Project LP
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
350 W. Ash St. Ste 730
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-4088
(619) 234-4050 (fax)
4.
Name of Proposal:
Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment
and Village One West South Revised
Tentative Tract No. 98-06B
5. Date of Checklist: December 4, 2002
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
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 of 0 0 0 181
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Comments:
Development of Village One West and Village Five was evaluated in the OtllY Ranch
Sectional PlanninJ! Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 95-01) and the Final Second Tier EIR for the Olav Ranch SPA
One Plan (EIR 97-03) that was certified on June 4, 1996 and November 10, 1998,
respectively. Development of Village One West and Village Five was evaluated in the
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-0 I) and the Final Second Tier EIR for the Otay
Page 12
022
Ranch SPA One Plan (ErR 97-03) that was certified on June 4,1996 and November
10,1998, respectively. The Otay Project proposes to eliminate the 10-acre elementary
school site in Village One West by amending the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to convert the school site
into single-family residential land uses. The application proposes to amend the Otay
Ranch GDP and SPA One plan by increasing the single-family residential dwelling
units in Village One West with a corresponding decrease in multi-family units in
Village Five. The proposal includes the reduction of allowable Otay Ranch GDP
multi-family dwelling units in Village Five from 1,615 to 1,550, and increasing the
GDP sing1e-family unit count in Village One West from 845 to 910. The applicant
proposes to transfer 65 dwelling units from Village Five, R-30B, and utilize them in
Village One West by adding 16 of the 65 to the expanded R-59 neighborhood and
creating Neighborhood R-60 with 49 lots.
The applicant is authorized by the Otay Ranch GDP policies to utilize an underlying
residential land use if a public facility such as a school is relocated out of a village. The
SPA One document also authorizes the transfer of dwelling units between villages ifthey
are within the same SPA. The proposed amendments would not conflict with
surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses would
be similar to existing surrounding uses. The reconfiguration of land uses would not
change the overall mix of land uses evaluated in ElR 95-0 I and EIR 97-03, nor would it
result in any new or changed land use compatibility issues.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e. g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
o
o
181
o
The proposed amendments would not substantially change the overall level of
development proposed for Village One West South, from what was evaluated and
approved for the SPA One Plan. Additionally, the proposed amendments would not
induce growth into the area, cause population projections to be exceeded, or displace
housing. No impacts to population and housing are anticipated.
Comments:
Potentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Signincanl Less than
SignifICant Unless Significant No
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 181
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 181
overcovering of the soil?
Page 13
c~9
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ~
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ~
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 ~
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 ~
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 ~
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
ErR 95-01 and ElR 97-03 identified specific mitigation measures for ground shaking,
soils, and slope stability that would reduce potential geologic and seismic hazards to a
less than significant level. The mitigation measures required the submittal of site-
specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant.
Concurrent with the mass grading of the site, these mitigation measures have been
satisfied. As the area of potential effect for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment will
not change, and with compliance with the final EIR mitigation measures, the proposed
amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were previously analyzed in
final ErR 95-0 I.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstboo
Significant Uniess Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 ~
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 ~
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 ~
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 ~
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 ~
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 ~
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
Page 14 50
.u.... _.._.."_,_.___,.,,..___.".,.._____._....~._,...__'.. ~___...__._
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 ~
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 ~
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 ~
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 ~
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments:
A revised hydrology study, dated May 31, 2002, was prepared by Hunsaker and
Associates to evaluate the change in drainage patterns and runoff rates for the proposed
project. The hydrology study indicates that the proposed residential uses will result in a
24 percent decrease in peak runoff rates than those generated from the planned school
site. On-site drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site
development. Modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for Village One West
South would not result in any previously unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation
measures identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 would be equally applicable to the
revised configuration ofland uses.
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?
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:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
The analysis provided in EIR 95-0 I and ErR 97-03 stated that significant, unmitigated
air quality impacts would occur as a result of implementing the entire SPA One and
SPA One Amendments. Proposed modifications to the SPA Plan and Tentative Map for
Village One West South would not result in any substantial additional air quality
impacts. Short-term construction and long-term traffic impacts would not be exacerbated
by the proposed changes. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted at the
time both EIRs were certified. The proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts to air quality than were previously analyzed in ErR 95-01 and EIR 97-
03.
Potentially
V. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Potentially SignifIcant Less than
Significant U""" Signincant No
the proposal result in: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ~
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
Page 15 -51
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
1) 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.)
0 0 0 II
0 0 0 II
0 0 0 II
0 0 0 II
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
o
The proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily traffic trips within
the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95-01 and EIR
97-03. The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the
surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation
beyond that required in ErR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation
are anticipated.
Comments:
Potentially
VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 II
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 II
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 II
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 II
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 II
1) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 II
efforts?
Comments: The proposed revisions to the project are entirely within the footprint of the previously
analyzed and approved SPA One plan. The project area has been previously graded and
is devoid of any native plant or animal species or habitats. The proposed amendments
would not result in any additional impacts to biological resources than were previously
analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
Page 16
3..1
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
VII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation D D D 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and D D D 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource D D D 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: There were no impacts identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97 -03 associated with energy and
mineral resources. The proposed amendments would not change the conclusions of the
Final EIR 95-01.
Potentially
VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of D D D 181
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency D D D 181
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential D D D 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of D D D 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable D D D 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The analysis provided in EIR 95-0 I and ErR 97-03 did not identify any public safety
(hazards) impacts associated with the proposed development of the Village One West
South area. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional hazards
impacts than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
Potentially
IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentiany Significant Less than
Significant Un~ss Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that residential development within the SPA One area
would be exposed to significant impacts from roadway noise and requires mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed
reconfiguration of land uses within Village One West South would not substantially
change the relationship of sensitive noise receptors to noise sources. Therefore,
Page 17~3
application of the noise mitigation measures required in the EIR would be required for
the modified project, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Construction noise would have potentially significant impacts on surrounding residential
areas. Construction noise impacts for the modified plan for Village One West South
would be the same as those analyzed in the EIR 95-01 and 97-03.
X.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signincant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
0 0 0 tiJ
0 0 0 tiJ
0 0 0 tiJ
0 0 0 tiJ
0 0 0 tiJ
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
Comments:
The proposed reconfiguration of land uses and deletion of the planned elementary site
would not affect the provision of fire or police services, public facilities, or other
services. EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 identify the need for police and fire service in the
project area with future development of the SPA One Plan area. The project is within the
boundaries of the public facilities Development Impact Fee program, and therefore will
be subject to the payment of the police and fire/EMS fee rates in effect at the time
building permits are issued. Therefore, no new impacts to law enforcement, fire, or EMS
will occur with implementation of the proposed amendments.
The proposed project includes an amendment to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan to eliminate the floating elementary school site from Otay
Ranch Village One West. This application is in response to the Chula Vista Elementary
School District's (CVESD) decision to develop a 10-acre school site in the eastern
portion of the Sunbow Planned Community and not utilize the "secondary" site once
designated for Village One West. Recently, the CVESD has finalized the purchase of the
I O-acre elementary school on the eastern edge ofthe Sunbow Planned Community on the
south side of East Palomar Street. The school district plans to begin construction of the
school facility in the next severa1 weeks and open the school in the fall of2003. CVESD
has indicated that the proposed Sunbow site located adjacent to the western boundary of
Otay Ranch will adequately meet the local student generation demands for the SPA One
area. No impacts to school facilities are anticipated.
XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Signincant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 tiJ
Page 18
3'1
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of
the cases. The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met
because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and
EMS Master Plan.
The SPA One EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 state that potential impacts to fire protection
and emergency medical services would be mitigated by compliance with the Master Plan
and payment of fees. The proposed modifications to land use configurations and the
deletion of the planned school site would not result in substantial changes in the ability
to deliver adequate services to the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts to fire
protection and emergency medical services are anticipated with the proposed changes.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1
calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7
minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The SPA One EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 state that potential impacts to law enforcement
services would be mitigated by compliance with the Law Enforcement Services Master
Plan for Otay Ranch and payment of mitigation fees. The proposed modifications to
land use configurations and the deletion of the planned school site would not result in
substantial changes in the ability to deliver adequate services to the project area.
Therefore, no significant impacts to law enforcement services are anticipated with the
proposed changes.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Signincant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may
occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west
of I-80S are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach
LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
The proposed project would result in approximately 1,365 less daily traffic trips within
the project area as compared to the adopted land use plan evaluated in EIR 95-01 and EIR
Page 19
3')'
97-03. The proposed amendments would not cause any additional impacts to the
surrounding roadway circulation system, and would not require additional mitigation
beyond that required in EIR 95-01 and ErR 97-03. No impacts to traffic and circulation
are anticipated.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
SignifICant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 II!
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population.
The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within
Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to
the park acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and
development fees in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands
are anticipated.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Signincant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 II!
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
The proposed amendments would not impede the project applicant's ability to comply
with City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will result in a 24 percent
decrease in peak runoff rates than those generated from the planned school site. On-site
drainage facilities for the project would be constructed as part of the site development.
No new impacts to drainage facilities are anticipated.
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Signif'"acant No
Impact Mitigated- Impact Impact
t) Sewer 0 0 0 II!
Comments:
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The overall estimated sewer generation for the proposed project would be approximately
4,450 gallons per day (gpd) less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
The project site would be served by sewer infTastructure to be provided through the
development of Village One West South. No new impacts to sewer facilities are
anticipated.
Page 20
3&
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
1m""" Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water D D D II!I
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.
Comments: The overall estimated water demand for the proposed project would be approximately
52.5 acre-feet per year less than previously anticipated in EIR 95-01 andEIR 97-03. The
project site would be served by water infrastructure to be provided through the
development of Village One West South. No new impacts to water demand are
anticipated.
Potentially
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unl~ Signiftcant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? D D D II!I
b) Communications systems? D D D II!I
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D II!I
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D D II!I
e) Storm water drainage? D D D II!I
t) Solid waste disposal? D D D II!I
Comments: The proposed amendments would not require new systems or substantial alterations to
any of the planned service systems. The project site would be served by utility and
service system infrastructure to be provided through the development of Village One
West South. The proposed project would not result in any additional impacts to utilities
and service systems than were previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
Potentially
Potentially SignIrtcant Less than
Significant Unless SignifICant No
XIII, AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the D D D II!I
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 D D D II!I
scenic route?
Page 21 37
~ ^ --.~ "._~ '" ...---...-.--
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
o
o
o
11'1
d) Create added light or glare sources that 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?
o
o
o
11'1
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
11'1
Comments: The reconfiguration of uses would not substantially change the visual character of the
proposed development from that previously analyzed in for the proposed Otay Ranch
SPA One project. The location of the proposed single-family units and its orientation to
existing and planned residential land uses would not result in any land use compatibility
impacts. Lighting impacts would be reduced with the deletion of the proposed
elementary school. The proposed amendments would not result in any impacts not
previously considered and the mitigation measures would be equally applicable to the
new configuration of uses.
Potentially
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Potentially SignifICant Less than
Signiftcant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 11'1
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 11'1
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 11'1
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 11'1
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 11'1
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The proposed SPA One Plan amendments would not involve grading beyond the area
previously analyzed in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. Applicable mitigation measures have
been implemented during mass grading of the site and any potential impacts to cultural
resources have been mitigated. The proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in ErR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
Page 22 3l'
XV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
U.....
Mitigated
N.
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
~
o
The Village One West South site is underlain by alluvium (Qal), Otay Formation (00),
and San Diego Formation (Tsd). Both 00 and Tsd formations are likely to contain
fossil resources. Applicable mitigation measures have been implemented during mass
grading of the site and any potential impacts to paleontological resources have been
mitigated. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than
were previously analyzed in ErR 95-01 and ElR 97-03.
Potentially
XVI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Lessthao
Significant UnSess Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~
plans or programs?
Comments:
The proposed amendments would result in a minor increase in parkland demand within
Village One. The project applicant would be required to compensate for any changes to
the park acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and
development fees in effect prior the approval of final maps. No impacts to park lands
are anticipated.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Uol~
Mitigated
N.
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
~
o
The proposed amendments would not degrade the quality of the environment because
the changes are consistent with the existing land use types, quantities and intensities of
within SPA One. No impacts are anticipated.
Page 23 :5 Cj
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Uniess
Mitigated
Lesstban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals?
o
o
o
III
Comments:
The proposed amendments do not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Overall impacts to traffic, public
services and drainage will be reduced with the proposed project. No impacts area
anticipated.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Lesstban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
III
Comments:
Cumulative effects related to the development of Village One West South were
considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03. The proposed amendments would not result in
any cumulative effects that were not considered in these documents.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Signirlcant
Im.."
No
Impact
d) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
III
Comments:
The proposed amendments would not result in any adverse effects on human beings that
were not considered in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03.
Page 24 'If)
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
No additional mitigation measures beyond those previously identified in EIR 95-01 and EIR 97-03 are
required for the proposed amendments.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant( s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants'
and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
N/A
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
Page 25
VI
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,' as
indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
o Paleontological 0 MandatoI)' Findings of Significance
Resources
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed projl'ct COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed projecr could have a significant effect on the environment. 0
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 mar the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effecrCs) on we environment, but at 0
leasr one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlkr 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 "potenrially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects .
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR pursuant 10 applicab1e standards and (b)
havl' bel'n avoided or mitigared pursuant 10 that l'arJier EIR, incluwng rl'visions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared 10 provide a record of mis dl'tl'rmination.
?7ttJ~/i?~~l
Marilyn "R.F. PQnseggi
Envirorunental Rl'view Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
l1Cf(O~
rag< 26
V..l
Exhibit I-x
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Villages One, One West and Village Five
I-x
J,rw2:,20'::::
</3
Village One
Dwelling Vnits Acreage Approx,
Vse Open
SF MF Total Dens Res, Park-- CPF Sch. C'ml. Ind. So. Art, Total Pop.
LMV 1,544 1,544 4.0 386.0 9.7- 386.0 4,941
MV 10.0 13.4 1 1.4 34.8
MH 1,522 1,522 18.0 84.6 10.0 94.6 3,881
)OldLM M ))) i~i ~i 2!ta ~ p ) ~H.i! ,~,
N'ewLM 910 9HH )4.6 22M )))i ,227J5 2,92\
OTHER 264.8 46.5 3 1 1 .3
9I:>>rmiW ,~, ,'~, ,~ , S# ,.~. ,,~,., ..tM.' .~ <n.r ~~;j;1I '.'46.S'. JAin.9 LJt~~;j
N!twr6rMU 2454L l$~Z 3916 $:1 698.1 111.11 tM io.O i.hl 264';8 )46.S 1.054;2 lM4J
*Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage.
"""Part of park acreage requirement have been al10cated to commumty parks. Actual park size to be determined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA 1evel.
Exhibit 38 Village ODe Land Vse Table
<.Iy
Use
LMV 1263
MU
OI~Ma ~
N~wMa iLJ..2ili
OTHER
94Mpt;\~ ..~.
N~WtQ'I'A~i2~
Villa2e Five
Dwelling Units
SF MF Total Dens
Res. Park" CPF
1,263 4.5 280.6 6.6'
10.0 11.3
tM3U)$ ~. ..~ i>
1;3$0 i,$$!JUnni HIM.I<<<
);~~!1..~. <~ ~. ....411.0.. ...~.
Wi$j) :~,$1$U1Vt $6ji,'rAQ,Q? 11,3
"'Neighborhood park land included in residential acreage.
Acreage
Open
Sp.
Sch. C'ml. Ind.
WJI.
1(W
..t@..
2Q,1I
Art.
i~'~i"
...... <
70.4 15.4
...~...t!!iA
70A.i5AU
Total
280.6
27.3
99:7
960\
85.8
.49M.
48~,8
Approx.
Pop.
4,042
.4-;#&
U3;9$:?:
..,H"'''
":,::~
t994
"''''Part of park acreage requirement have been al10cated to community parks. Actual park size to be detennined by Parks Master Plan at the SPA level.
Exhibit 47 Village Seven Land Use Table
.Ai,lL
>6.()
'I')
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-03-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLAN MODIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES IN
VILLAGE ONE WEST AND TRANSFERRING SPA ONE
DWELLING UNITS FROM VILLAGE FIVE TO VILLAGE
ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on Chula Vista Tract
98-06B, and is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan portion ofOtay Ranch Village One West (South) was filed with the City ofChula
Vista Planning and Building Department on July 1,2002 by Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) One Plan portion ofOtay Ranch Village One West modifying neighborhood boundaries in
Village One West and transferring SPA One dwelling units from Vil1age Five to Vil1age One West;
and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993
by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part
on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH
#9010154 ("Program FEIR 90-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16,1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-0 I, SCH #94101046 ("FEIR
95-01 "), and the amended Otay Ranch SP A One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was
covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review
Coordinator has determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are
necessary and that none ofthe conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 ofthe State CEQA
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the
y~
A~~'7
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-01and FEIR 97-03 in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted pursuant to Resolution
No. (GPA-03-0l); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-03-01) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries ofthe Project
si te at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on
December 11,2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of an amendment to the
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM-03-0l) is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan,
and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM-03-01) in accordance with the findings contained in the
attached City Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
Y7
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this II th day of December, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
r. '. f'I<11111 ing\R Ie i I \\:'.Ol;1YJ~<1 tK h',y \ llagl:__ i _n \V est'..S P:\__()nc __VI \VSuuthn_ R)I)__1~60__Alllel]d__P('___ Resp.doc
Vi)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
MODIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES IN
VILLAGE ONE WEST AND TRANSFERING OTAY
RANCH SPA ONE DWELLING UNITS FROM
VILLAGE FIVE TO VILLAGE ONE WEST.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06B, and
is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan portion of Otay Ranch Village One West (South) was
filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on July 1, 2002 by
Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan portion of Otay Ranch Vil1age One West modifYing
neighborhood boundaries in Village One West and transferring Otay Ranch SPA One
dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City
Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November
10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154
("Program FEIR 90-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4,1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999
by Resolution No. 19375, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of
said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("FEIR 95-01"), and the
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH
#97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the Property is also the subject matter of an amendment to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) adopted by City Council by Resolution
No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
determined that the project was covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-
03. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that only minor technical
'19 ~~MG-NT' ~ g
changes or additions to this document are necessary and that none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03 in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted pursuant to
Resolution No. (GPA-03-0l); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-03-01) and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. on December II, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of
project; and,
the Planning Commission approved the
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment modifying the neighborhood
boundaries in Village One West, and transferring Otay Ranch SPA One dwelling units
from Village Five to Village One West; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing held on December 11, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
modifying neighborhood boundaries in Village One West and transferring 65
Otay Ranch SPA One dwelling units from Village Five to Village One West, as
set forth on Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C", attached hereto, finding it is consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, and all other applicable plans, and that the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and
implementation.
SD
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Otay Ranch Program FEIR 90-01, original Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 95-01 and
subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03, would have no new effects that
were not examined in the preceding Program FEIR 90-01, SPA One FEIR 95-01,
and subsequent SPA One FEIR 97-03 [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and,
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR
EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (I) there were no changes in the Project fTom
the Program FEIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said reports; (2)
no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Project is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new
information of substantial importance to the Project has become available since
the issuance and approval of the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects
could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those
already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore,
the City Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the
project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR, and an Addendum has been
adopted pursuant to Resolution No. (GPA-03-01) [Guideline 15168
(c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council found that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One
FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03, identified as Exhibit "B", attached to Resolution
No. (GPA-03-0l), and adopted thereto, reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council re-adopted and incorporated herein as conditions for this
approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the
findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program FEIR 90-01, Otay Ranch SPA
One FEIR 95-01, and subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council gave notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was
fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Otay Ranch GDP
FEIR-90-0l, the original SPA One Plan FEIR-95-0l, subsequent SPA One Plan
FEIR-97-03, and Addendum adopted thereto, adequately describes and analyzes
this project for the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)].
)(
VIII. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN FINDINGS
The proposed Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area
One Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF
THE P-C ZONE, ANY ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS, AND THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL
ELEMENTS.
The SPA One area of Otay Ranch Village One West that modifies
neighborhood boundaries in Village One West and transfers dwelling units
from Village Five to Village One West reflects the land uses, circulation
system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula
Vista General Plan. The elementary school site in Village One West was
added to the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development
Plan in the event that the primary school site identified in the nearby
Sunbow Planned Community was unavailable. The Chula Vista
Elementary School District (C.V.E.S.D.) has purchased the Sunbow site
and determined that the Village One West site is no longer needed.
B. THE PROPOSED SETIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD
PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT
OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Otay Ranch SPA One amendment contains provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
The underlying land use in Village One West is identified as single-family
residential as described in the Otay Ranch SPA One document.
C. THE PROPOSED SETIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an underlying land use
in place in the event of the relocation or deletion of public facilities such
as schools. The elementary school site in nearby Sunbow will serve the
project residents, as required by the General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project
and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan
closely follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and wil1
avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation
measures specified in the Otay Ranch Final Environmental Impact Reports
FEIR-95-0l and FEIR-97-03.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
s~
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
<;3
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
/'/
/
PROJECT
LOCATION
\
\
\
\
~_.
~
i
,------/
f
/
-
/
---
-------
_/
-------------------
---------
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT OTAY PROJECT, LP MISCELLANEOUS
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, WEST
ADDRESS, R59/R60; South of East Palomar S1. SPA & GDP Amendment: PROPOSE .' to convert the
West of Paseo Ranchero existing school site into single family neighborhood
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale PCM-03-01 Related Case(s), t-'C:;-UL-U~
j'lhomelplanninglcherrylcllocatorslpcm0301.cdr 07.10.02
5"Y
EXHIBIT '!A"
-""~-'-----"----"-'-----~-"~-
_u
~'" '" 00 '" 00 CO 00 "- CO ,.,., ~ '" "- ,.,., "- "- 'D N
2';1 .; '<i '" (\J e: :;;: 0
t!i5 '" 'D ,.,., ,.,., ,.,., ,.,., '" '" 'D '" '" '" ,.,., ~ .!!! 0
~ ~ ..!.
N
- C. .[
III ;Q II)
E 0> .<= UI
E .S,! '" "- '" '" '" "- 'D '" "- '" '" co 'D '" co X ::>
00 ~ W
::::I -" 00 '" 00 'D '" 'D ,.,., ,.,., 00 "- '" 'D ::; '" '"
~=> 'C
(/) c e:
II) III
UI ~ ..J
::> 0>
m ~ '" '" a-, 00 00 "- ~ "! ~ '" '" "! '" ,.,., "- ~o: ,.,., '" -
'C f '" ~ 'D ~ ~ 0; 'D '" 'D '" 00 oQ " ~ "',.,., ~ 00 UI
" ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO 'D ,.,., CO II)
e: '" '" ,.,., ==
III
..J II)
- - e:
UI 'C~ ~
GI "m ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ", t: 0
== ~=> '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~'"
0..0 '" 1ii II)
II) 1ii 0 CI
0 ....
e: - .!!!
0 15 '"
~ ~
GI 'to rn ~ ;I: :>
0 ~ ~
CI 0 :! u
'" '" '" '" '" '" I~ i! "
III -Em '" '" co ~ ~ N N ,.,., '" '" 'D "- 00 '" co C 0
O~ '" ,. "I "I "I "I '" '" '" '" "I "I "I "I 'D ~ ;:;VJ.s.t ..
:> .o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'to , ~ ~ 0>
.r::'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 'iij 0.. It .g ,g:
0> ~
';; :;:
z a: OU
'C
c:
Q)
C)
Q)
..J
~
::: ""
O~~
o:u~~
~g
:::::: ~
s:
>-
~
e
....
"01"
')0'
"E
~6>
[1'=
a.",
. g
f~~
;jCl)-g
on.
;;;a~
2",~
~g:'"
".~
8~ ~
:a ~~ .
el- "'-~
~~~~
;;~E$
Em;S"O
.c.o-~
~1ijiE!ii
~~~~~
'Effi [J:j
oj
z . ,
c: ~ ~.~
~QH
-g
o
a:
"
o
~
<.)
'"
g-
a,
"
0;
>-
~
E_
0"
"ijj~
0._
_UJ
00
"
W
p
.c-~Ji
! -J
!L
).-
..
'1 i
,. .
" j.. ~
~IU
!:,~
~~
;>. .
c
'"
1_--
--~
--
r.o
N
,
t/)
o
'"
:::
O~
~
s:
<~,'-
--' .)
: ~ ~ ~ ~ :3 ~ ::=I~ : ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~I ~I
g ...... ......C7.INN:! t;:
IL ::t ii t:t !
::E ::E i! a. Uo _ _'ii {!.
S:J 1.lJ ~~~~~~~sH:~s~~~~g
~ ~.::; 'j; o.Q.a.a..a.c....Q.oOOScXOCi5ii3.g ~
:I :I ~ .g.g en it
(/) U) iii (I) en &
~ ~ ~
.., ~ :;:
~
'"
i~~~~~~~~M~WroMC7.I~~O~
~::t~~~M~~W~~~~~~M~~~
~....C
ca
EES~~~wm"'C7.IM~"""~N~WNOM
E1~~ro~~NMW~roW~"'MM~W'"
:JC
en
GI _
II) ..
::I-
't:I~
C
ca
..J ~. ILu..LLU. U. U. U. ILl&. U. u.. U. u... ILU. IL U.
~j~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
u::'C
o
GI 0
a€mNM"'~$g~ro"""~~M~~W~ro
~E!~~~~NN~~~MM~~~~~~
-.c< a:a::a:a:r:i:.ci:. a:cc:a:ci:d: a: a: a: a: a: a:
=01
>;!
"'...
Wr-:
OO)OJNNM.."M
050";00<00)0)<6
MN ......C\lC\I.....
,.... g!;;:;o~~~8~
C\!. N C\I"""'-N C\I......
~ ~
~ rn
...
N
0...
"'...
.."MmC\lW"..,OIOC>>(X)CDOrDMcn,......CO N
"":'1ria:i aflWcD cid ...fo"-: o)o)a)M""':"": ~oi ,...::
...........C\I...... .......................... ......... C\I
N
..,.OIOOJvN\DC\I
gajg~~ccicci"":
'" '" '"
~ N N
"-"-
"Hf)
..
"'
]I lL U. u.. u.. ILU. LL IL
~ ~ ~::E::E::E::E:E:E
~
"'
"'..,
maocno('l')'Iit<D
C}J c? '? C'( "'f '1 '''''0;
a: a: a: a: a:: a: a: a:
_N
"T"T
a: a:
.....C\I .....C\lo.....
c.dccil";-a)ci......,
cLcLCLri..d.a..Q.
11",
8.::1
h:
0..'"
~EB
-.---
"-
<(
z
in
..,
~
~
,.,
'"
"
c ~
"
E "
c: '2 '"
.2> =>
<( '" "0
,., '6 "
" x
.21 6 ~
E! c.
f- 0 '"
"0 en ~
"C ~ <D
'u; E
c::: 2 c E
Q) e e 0
"- .... 0
C) ~
Q) ..
...J
'"
N
~ ~
~ ~
..;:; "
:-;:: 0;:-
::"h
"'.
.!;~
. ~
f~~
li0]1
~]I~
'-8
""h
~~-
!~~..
I!I-[...
"I'"
i! 21}
~ =-
~~~i
'-"'Ii
~dl~
'"
'"
00
~
K
'"
""
S"'(,
~ G)C ""8
~ >co "'0
...!. U::O: ..!,~
- ~
:is GIG) -
:2 "
0)(1) "-
X ..!!!=>
w
='0
>c
ca
..J
"TO\'
"-"-
"-"-
tH)
e e
C}I(I)(3u
enO_x
.Ew
J
8~
~:L
~~
,.-
~.9 ~
b
"Q,
.p
H
Ai,
h!
I! i
..
. td
~HI
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-02-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE ONE WEST OF THE
OT A Y RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-068.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No. and described on Chula Vista Tract
98-06B, and is commonly known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the subdivision ofthe Property in the form of a
tentative subdivision map known as "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60,
Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", ("Project"), was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on April 11, 2002 by Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately
15.26 acres located west of Heritage Road, north of Olympic Parkway, south of East Palomar Street,
and east of the Santa Sierra Drive in the area known as Otay Ranch Village One West (South) into
92 residential lots, 2 private street lots and 10 private open space lots for a total ofl04lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993
by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part
on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH
#9010154 ("Program FEIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("FEIR
95-01 "), and subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, (PCM-03-
01), and said amendment was adopted by the City Council on December 17, 2002 by Resolution No.
; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project was
covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review
<;7
A~~I\)'f*-q
Coordinator determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are
necessary and that none ofthe conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 ofthe State CEQA
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-0land FEIR 97-03 in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted pursuant to Resolution
No. (GPA-03-0l); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
'Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-
09) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on
December 11,2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of 'Tentative Map, Otay
Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) is consistent with
the City ofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good planning practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-
59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) in accordance with the findings contained in
the attached City Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
C;g
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11 th day of December, 2002 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
i.'f'lannini',.YiC'! I\V',{)wy___RJl1ch.Villagc W,,'Sl\SP/\ ()!1l.'- Vi WSuuth [{)9 f<()(1 Amci1d".! \1__PC'___[{e~1\.d(jc
)7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE ONE WEST OF THE
OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE
PLAN, CHULA VISTA TRACT 98-068.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 98-06B, and is commonly
known as Village One West (South), ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for the subdivision of the Property in the form of
a tentative subdivision map known as "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-
60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B" was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on April 11, 2002 by Otay Project, L. P., ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately
15.26 acres located west of Heritage Road, north of Olympic Parkway, south of East Palomar
Street, and east of the Santa Sierra Drive in the area known as Otay Ranch Village One West
(South) into 92 residential lots, 2 private street lots and lO private open space lots for a total of
104 lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October
28, 1993 by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No.
19253 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program FEIR 90-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4,
1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19375,
wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part
on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH
#94101046 ("FE1R 95-01 "), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH #97091079 ("FEIR 97-03"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan,
(PCM-03-0l), and said amendment was approved by the City Council on December 17,2002 by
Resolution No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the project
was covered in previously adopted FEIR 95-01 and FEIR 97-03. The Environmental Review
reD
ATTJ::IC.\.I.t--\t:fV'f i\; \0>
---.-,-----.---,--.-.-------------."---".--.,.,
Coordinator determined that only minor technical changes or additions to this document are
necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 and 15163 of the State
CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent document have occurred; therefore,
the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an addendum to FEIR 95-01and FEIR 97-
03 in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and adopted adopted pursuant to
Resolution No. (GPA-03-0l); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
"Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-
02-09) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
on December 11, 2002, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, by a vote of
the Planning Commission approved the project;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council ofthe City ofChula
Vista on proposed "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista
Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09); and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing held on December 11, 2002, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents,
along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire
record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts the "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59
& R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) identified as Exhibit "C", in this
resolution, finding it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and all other applicable
Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning and
zoning practice support their approval and implementation.
CD(
.m___.__.__.",^_.~
- .".---.--.---
,,_._____....__._,._.._.... _._.'._._m_______._..___..___.
-,"-',..,.-....--
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby found that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Otay
Ranch GDP Program FEIR-90-0l, original Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 95-01,
subsequent Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03, and Addendum thereto, would have no
new effects that were not examined in the preceding Otay Ranch GDP Program FEIR-90-
01, Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR-95-0l, and subsequent SPA One FEIR-97-03 [Guideline
15168 (c)(2)]; and,
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby found that: (1) there were no changes in the Project fTom the
GDP Program EIR-90-01, original SPA One Plan FEIR-95-0l and subsequent SPA One
Plan FEIR-97-03 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial
importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of the
prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation
measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and made a condition
for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an
activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and FEIR's,
and adopted Addendum thereto [Guideline 15168 (c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
V, INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council found that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR-95-
01 and FEIR-97-03, identified as Exhibit "B" attached to Resolution No. (GPA-
03-01) reflected the independent judgment of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council re-adopted and incorporated as conditions for this approval all
applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the
Otay Ranch GDP Program FEIR 90-01, Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 95-01, and amended
Otay Ranch SPA One FEIR 97-03.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project
was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the GDP FEIR (90-01), the
original SPA One Plan FEIR (95-01), and the subsequent SPA One Plan FEIR (97-03)
adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA [Guideline
15168 (e)].
(g,)
VIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Otay Ranch Village One West (South) "Tentative Map, Otay
Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) as
conditioned, attached as Exhibit "B", herein for Applicant, is in conformance with all the
various elements of the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and Sectional Planning Area One Plan as amended, based on the following:
I. Land Use
The Project is in a planned community that provides single-family
residential uses, parkland uses, school uses, and open space. The Project
is also consistent with General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan policies related to grading and landforms.
2. Circulation
AU of the on-site and off-site public and private improvements required to
serve the subdivision are part of the project description or are conditioned
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in
accordance with City and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan standards.
3. Housing
An affordable housing agreement between the City and The Otay Ranch
Company (Master Developer) has been executed and is applicable to
subject Project providing for low and moderate-income households.
4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Parks, recreation and open space obligations will be conditioned under
said Tentative Map conditions. Construction of Park and open space and
programmable recreation facilities are the responsibility of the Applicant.
5. Conservation
The Program EIR and FEIR's addressed the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this
site to be consistent with these goals and policies. The Otay Ranch Phase
Two Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.18 acres of
(d
land to the Otay Ranch Preserve for every one-acre of developed land
prior to approval of any Final Map.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults
have been identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay
Ranch SPA One Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report.
7. Public Safety
All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the
threshold response times for fire and police services.
8. Public Facilities
The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and
water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also
contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to
provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
9. Noise
The Project may include noise attenuation walls under review in an
acoustic study currently being prepared for the Project. In addition, all
units are required to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code
with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
10. Scenic Highway
The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic
Parkway (formerly Orange Avenue) the only General Plan, GDP/SRP
scenic highways adjacent to the Project.
II. Bicycle Routes
The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes on East
Palomar Street, Heritage Road, and Olympic Parkway as indicated in
the regional circulation system of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch
GDP.
0'('
12. Public Buildings
Public buildings are not proposed on the Project site as part of the
community purpose facility locations. The Project is subject to
appropriate residential fees prior to issuance of building permits.
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.
IX. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following
reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch SPA One portion of Otay Ranch Village One West
approving 'Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One West R-59 & R-60,
Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) reflects the land uses, circulation
system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses
consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan, Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan. The elementary school
site in Village One West was added to the City's General Plan and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan in the event that the primary school site
identified in the nearby Sunbow Planned Community was unavailable.
The Chula Vista Elementary School District (C.V.E.S.D.) has purchased
the Sunbow site and determined that the Village One West site is no
longer needed.
B. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The proposed Tentative Map, "Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village One
West R-59 & R-60, Chula Vista Tract 98-06B", (PCS-02-09) implements
the Otay Ranch SPA One requirements and maintains provisions and
requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
The underlying land use in Vil1age One West is identified as single-family
residential as described in the Otay Ranch SPA One document.
C. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an underlying land use
in place in the event of the relo~ation or deletion of public facilities such
(p)
as schools. The elementary school site in nearby Sunbow will serve the
project residents, as required by the General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project
and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan
closely follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will
avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation
measures specified in the Otay Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR-95-0l) and (FEIR-97-03).
X. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
XI. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set
forth in Section VI and Section X listed above and based upon the findings and
determinations on the record for this Project.
XII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further
condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
XIII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or
conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
0(b
RANCHO
DElREY
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
PROJECT
LOCATION
~----
~
-----
/r/~
~-------
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLlCANr: GTAY PROJECT, L.P TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, WEST
ADDRESS: R59/R60 Request: Proposal to revise tentative map and SPA
amendment to develop 92 single family residential
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: lots on 15. 43cres.
NORTH No Scale PCS-02-09 Related Case(s): IS-03-001, PCS-98-06A
j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\pcs0209.cdr 07.09.02 1.07
EXI-iIBIT "A"
~....,.._.._w.__..w._____,__,,_____.._._ ______._,__~_..
Exhibit "B"
Village One West (South) Revised Tentative Subdivision Map
(C.V.T. 98-06B)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth
below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of Planning
and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the
appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the applicant shall be
required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the
City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where
fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be fTee and clear of all encumbrances,
unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GENERAL/PRELIMINARY
I. Comply with all requirements and guidelines of the SP A One Parks, Recreation Open Space
and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA
One Affordable Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as
amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head,
with the approval ofthe City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications
by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any
material modifications shan be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. An of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit ofthe heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant".
3. Ifany of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. The applicant shan be notified 10 days in advance prior to
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising fTom challenges to the
1
(pg
Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any
or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA One conditions of approval, as may be
amended from time to time.
6. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent
with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on
July 16,1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22,1996.
8. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, as may be
amended from time to time, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on
October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
ENVIRONMENTAL
9. The applicant shall implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01,
subsequent EIR 97-03, the CEQA Findings ofF act for this Project (on file in the City Clerk's
Office) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's
Office).
10. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended fTom time to time by the City.
11. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with the Otay Ranch
Resource Preserve Conveyance Plan.
12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements ofthe California Department
ofFish and Game, the U.S. Department ofFish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
13. All on-site locations of vernal pools and Otay Tarplant shall be depicted on all grading plans
as sensitive areas, and if to be preserved, shall be preserved in perpetuity, and shall be
appropriately fenced and buffered. The location and preservation of these resources shall be
verified by a qualified biologist to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The applicant shall not "take" the Otay Tarplant or disturb the vernal pools until such time as
authorization for such action, ifnecessary, is obtained from the appropriate resource agency.
2
(09
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
14. The fo1lowing conditions of approval are based upon the project having multiple Final Maps
for the entire subdivision, which sha1l be referenced hereinafter as "Final 'B' Maps". Unless
otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully
completed to the City's reasonable satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final 'B' Map.
15. The subsequent development of a multi-family lot which does not require the filing of a "B"
map sha1l meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, a1l the applicable
conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple-family lots will not need to be
bonded for with the final "A" map, which created such lot. However, such improvements
will be required to be constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring
construction of street improvements under the design review and building issuance permit
processes.
16. In the event ofa filing ofa final 'B' map which requires oversizing of the improvements
necessary to serve other properties, said final map sha1l be required to install all necessary
improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing offacilities required to serve
such other properties (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances).
DESIGN
17. Any proposed monumentation/signage sha1l be consistent with the SPA One Village Design
Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to
approval of the appropriate final map.
18. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
privately maintained slopes in excess of25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to
soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one l-ga1lon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and
appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften
and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval ofthe appropriate
final map.
19. A comprehensive wall plan for the Project indicating color, materials, height and location
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of
the first final "B" Map for the Project. Materials and color used shall be compatible and all
wa1ls located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian
connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. A
revised acoustical analysis indicating ifview fencing, such as a combination of masonry and
wrought iron, is a1lowable at the ends of cul-de-sacs and other lots backing up to Telegraph
Canyon Road, East Palomar Street, Olympic Parkway, and Heritage Road (formerly Paseo
Ranchero), shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wa1l plan indicated above. If such
3
-)0
fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the ends of such
streets as determined by the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Building. View
fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not
required. Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed 8.5 feet in height.
The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions
for all "combination walls" which include retaining and tree standing walls. Said detail shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to the approval of
the first final "B" map. The maximum height of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height
when combined with freestanding walls, which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation
shall be provided between free standing and retaining walls where the combined height
would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet.
20. Prior to the approval of the final 'B' map for Neighborhood R-60, the applicant shall submit
and obtain approval of the site plan, and such approval shall be at the discretion of the
Zoning Administrator.
21. A minimum of thirty percent of all 60xl 10 feet lots in each final map shall be provided with
Hollywood driveways, and comply with the requirements of the Otay Ranch SPA One
Planned Community District Regulations as may be amended from time to time.
22. The developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Otay Ranch SPA One,
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) as may be amended trom time to time or as required
by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City ofChula Vista. The
City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
23. Developer shall dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map
within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the first "A" map, the applicant
shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure of all street improvements
as required by the PFFP, for each particular phase, as may be amended trom time to time.
The Developer shall construct the public improvements and provide security satisfactory to
the City Engineer and City Attorney, as set forth 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
FACILITY; AGREE TO CONSTRUCT
STREET NAME LIMITS AND GUARANTEE
CONSTRUCTION BY
Existing Improvements (in Sunbow) Per PFFP &
East Palomar St. to Heritage Road (fonnerly Paseo Olympic Parkway Agreement I
Ranchero)
4
7(
Open Space Landscape All Open Space Lots in
and Irrigation Improvements Village One West 2 Prior to the first Final "B" Map
] Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement approved by Conncil Resolution 19410.
For any open space lot within the project for which a rough grading pennit has been issued prior to the
approved Landscape and Irrigation plans for such lot, security shall be provided prior to the first Final "B"
Map, and to the satisfaction of the Director ofplanning and Building, City Engineer, and the City Attorney.
24. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the
construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as
identified in the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP, as may be amended trom time to time deemed
necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. 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,
landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants. Street light locations shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the tentative map, unless
otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the
current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein.
25. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the
installation of the related street improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring at East Palomar Street and Santa Sierra Drive. Developer shall also
install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street
improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined
by the City Engineer.
26. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or
higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans.
27. Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, upon the request of and 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 street
centerline intersection).
28. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near
horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to
comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City of Chula
Vista policies, where a conflict exists, the City ofChula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted
5
7,;z
SAG vertical curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at
intersections per AASHTO standards.
29. Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the approval of the first final map where the
developer agrees to the following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities within the tentative map boundary
when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said
stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the
Village Design Plans and approved by the Directors of Planning and Building and
Public Works.
b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance
the MTDB San Diego Trolley LRT System.
30. The applicant shall install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. All street trees shall be planted in parkways, or as otherwise
approved by the Director of Planning and Building. Street trees, which have been selected
from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the ViJlage Design Plan, shall be
approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. The
applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning
and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. A street tree
improvement plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building
and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement
plans within the subdivision. Approval ofthe street tree improvement plans shall constitute
final approval of the selection of street trees for the street parkways.
31. The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to
meet "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In
the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way, which are
in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting
with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required
by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal
regulations, only after construction has commenced.
32. Prior to the issuance of any rough grading permit for the Project, the applicant shall submit a
study showing that all curb returns for any intersections in excess of 4% located within the
permit boundaries comply with all "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards at the front
and back of sidewalks.
33. On streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or less in length, the applicant shall provide a
twenty-foot setback on driveways from property line to garage and sectional roll-up type
garage doors except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or
approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
6
73
34. Residential Street Condition 'A' as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the
preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. Except that Santa
Sierra Drive between East Palomar Street and Mount Whitney, and Santa Sierra Drive,
between East Palomar and Mount Whitney, shall be a Secondary Village Entry Street as
defined in the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan.
35. The developer shall not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities
crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for
future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this
requirement if the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to
the following:
(i) Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities
within the public right-of-way.
(ii) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert
Service.
(iii) Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area.
The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the
developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations
where private facilities traverse public streets.
36. Street names shall be as on the approved tentative map.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
37. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on
grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public
system or to the point at which storm water that is collected trom public street right-of-way,
public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that
point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed
and approved by the City for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or within
C.F.D. maintained Open Space lots.
38. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and
hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets.
7
70.(
Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
39. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit which impacts off-site property, the applicant
shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of permission to grade and drain for all off-site
grading.
40. Storm drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the
Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time.
41. Provide improved all-weather access with H-20 loading to all storm drain clean-outs or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
42. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, between the property lines of the
proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading
adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer will not
approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback.
43. All grading and pad elevations shall 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.
44. Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
45. Grant on the appropriate final "B" map a 15 feet minimum drainage and access easement for
storm drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City
Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
46. Provide runoff detention basins or other facilities approved by the City Engineer to reduce
the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less that the present
100-year frequency runoff.
47. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by
the United States Environmental 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 or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S.
General Penn it 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. The developer shall comply with all the
8
75
- <" -.---..-.- '.._-'~"--~-'--'-"._"~-""----
provisions ofthe N.P.D.E.S. and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases ofthe
development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction
of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. The applicant
shall design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City
Engineer. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a new Municipal
Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01). The permit includes regulations such as
implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS) and Numeric
Sizing Criteria for new residential development. The applicant shall comply with all relevant
City regulations, when they become effective, including but not limited to incorporation into
the design and implementation of the Project temporary and permanent structural Best
Management Practices and non-structural mitigation measures that would reduce pollution of
storm water runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
48. The Project, during construction and post construction, shall comply with non-structural
permanent BMP's, and provide for long-term maintenance of structural BMP's. Future
tenants or owners shall comply with the standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans
(SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria of the Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01.
49. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance
equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope
contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees trom perpendicular to the
contours.
50. Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than lO feet in height and steeper than 3: I
gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via
underground storm drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet connected to an
underground storm drain. The applicant shal1 ensure that brow channels and ditches
emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private
property. Brow ditches and channels trom private property shall not be routed through City
open space unless approved by the City Engineer.
51. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with
public facilities as private.
52. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) trom the Federal Emergency Management Agency
revising the current National Flood Insurance Program maps of the downstream end of Poggi
Canyon Channel east of Brandywine Avenue to reflect the effect of the proposed drainage
improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the
proposed detention facility.
53. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the approval of the Director of Public
Works of any amendment necessary to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the
approved Tentative Map. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for the Project, prepare
9
I&-
and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building of an erosion
and sedimentation control plan.
54. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by open space
district's shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
SEWER
55. All sewer access points (manholes) shall be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works.
56. Provide sewer access points at all changes of alignment of grade unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall
have a minimum grade of 1 %.
57. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a sewer access points placed in
the center of the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
58. Provide an access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer access points
using such construction material as approved by the Director of Public Works. The roadway
shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
Sewer lines shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but
in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours.
59. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for
sewer lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
60. No diversion from the natural boundaries of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin will be allowed
unless approved by the City Engineer. Only temporary diversion may be approved and only
in the event of lack of capacity for the Project in the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer or sewer
facilities farther downstream. Prior to the approval of any diversion by pumping to the
Telegraph Canyon Basin, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to finance
the costs associated with the installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and
eventual decommissioning and removal of any required pumping station and connection of
the Project to the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer (when capacity is available), in accordance with
City Council Policy 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). The applicant shall
pay the Telegraph Canyon Pumped Flow Sewer D IF prior to the issuance of building permits
for any dwelling units in the Project pumping to the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
PARKS/OPEN SP ACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION
61. The Village One West (C.V.T. 98-06B) Project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park
Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the
project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents.
10
77
Local parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. The Project's
requirement shall be satisfied in a future Community Park through the payment of fees,
dedication of land, or a combination thereof as determined in the sole discretion of the
Director of Building and Park Construction.
62. The applicant shall grant to the City, prior to the first Final "A" Map for the Project, an
irrevocable offer of dedication in a location which is acceptable to the Director of Building
and Park Construction.
63. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for the
neighborhood park, and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents
standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park
requirements in future SPA's located within the City's corporate boundaries.
64. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant shall pay PAD fees,-dedicate land,
or a combination thereof, and all Recreation Development Impact Fees for the Community
Park.
65. If the two trail connections located in open space lot #34 adjacent to Olympic Parkway, are
located behind attended entry cottages, adequate public signage and direction shall be
provided by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, to
encourage public access for pedestrians to enter through or adjacent to the attended entry
cottage to access the public trail connections.
66. Applicant shall provide public pedestrian, bicycle, cart ingress and egress easements upon
over and across Santa Sierra Drive, and Sparrow Lake Road and shall install appropriate
signage indicating location of trail connections, handicap access, and bikeway locations to
the Regional Trail, and, developer shall obtain approval by the Director of Building and Park
Construction prior to the approval of the first final "B" map for Vil1age One West (C.V.T.
98-06B). Signage shall be installed upon the request of the Director of Building and Park
Construction.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
67. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall:
a. Submit and obtain approval of a revised and updated Village One West (C.V.T. 98-
06B) Maintenance Responsibility Map fTom the Director of Planning and Building,
which shall include delineation of private and public streets.
b. Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building prior to approval of the first "B" Map of the formation of a Master
Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to
the City Manager. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those
landscaping improvements that are not to be included in the proposed Open Space
11
7&
District. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require
that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the Open Space District.
The final determination of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space
District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open
Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of
future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning
and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA
formation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney.
c. Submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building of a list of all Otay Ranch SPA One and MHOA facilities and other items to
be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be submitted for the
improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space District and those to
be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. Include a description, quantity
and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said improvements. These lists
shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and improvements:
(i) All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to:
walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads,
drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be
broken down by the number of acres of: 1) turf, 2) irrigated, and 3) non-
irrigated open space to aid in the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
(ii) Medians and parkways along Olympic Parkway, Heritage Road (formerly
Paseo Ranchero), East Palomar Street, (onsite and offsite) and all other street
parkways proposed for maintenance by the open space district or
Homeowners' Association.
(iii) The proportional share of the proposed detention basin and naturalized
channel in Poggi Canyon. This includes but is not limited to the cost of
maintenance and all cost to comply with the Department ofFish and Game
and the Corps of Engineers permit requirements.
(iv) The proportional share ofthe maintenance of the median and parkways along
that portion of Telegraph Canyon Road adjoining the development as
determined by the City Engineer.
68. Offer for dedication in fee interest to the City on the first map, an updated offer for
dedication of Open Space Lot "E" as identified on Final Map No. 14278. Execute and
record an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest for each of the lots to be maintained
by the City through the open space district.
69. Prior to the first Final "B" Map for the Project, the Applicant shall submit for review, and
obtain the approval of the City engineer and Director of Building and Park Construction, a
12
7'1
--"._--~~~---- ~'-'._-~'_,"'.,,-_. -."'---
construction change to the Landscape and Irrigation Improvement Plans for Open Space Lot
"E" as identified on Final Map No. 14278.
70. The applicant shall agree to create a Master Homeowner's Association ("MHOA") to own
and maintain in a professional manner open space areas, medians, and parkways not
maintained by the Community Facility District or the City (referred to collectively as "open
space areas"). Developer shall complete the formation of the MHOA prior the first final "B"
map. The MHO A shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the
event the City Engineer and Director of Planning require such annexation offuture tentative
map areas. On or before 60 days from the date of Council approval ofthis tentative map, the
developer shall submit for City's approval the CC&R's, grant of easements and maintenance
standards and responsibility of the MHOA's for the Open Space Areas within the Project
area. Developer shall acknowledges that the MHOA's maintenance of public open space,
trails, etc. may expose the City to liability. Developer agrees to establish a MHOA that will
hold the City harmless from any actions of the MHOA in the maintenance of such areas.
71. Prior to the approval of each Final "B" Map, Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The CC&R's
shall include the following obligations of the Master Homeowners Association:
a. A requirement that the MHOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability
insurance against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas:
I. All open space lots that shall remain private,
II. Other Master Association property.
b. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the
City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The MHOA
shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of
100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
c. The MHOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands,
causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities
of the MHOA.
d. The MHOA shall not seek to be released by the City fTom the maintenance
obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of
the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
e. The MHOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one
million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and
name the City as additionally insured.
13
~o
f. The CC&R's shan incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots
containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property
owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they
encroach on City property.
g. The CC&R's shan include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways,
drainage and sewage systems which are private.
h. The CC&R's shan include provisions assuring MHOA membership in an advance
notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity.
1. The CC&R's shan include provisions that provide the City has the right to enforce
the CC&R provisions same as any owner in the project.
J. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions
may not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City.
k. The MHOA shan not dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private
streets without approval of 100% of an the HOA members or holder of first
mortgages within the MHOA.
I. The CC&R's shall provide for the maintenance of private open space lots, slope
areas, landscape and irrigation and wans within each subdivision.
72. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the
owners, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost.
Developer shan submit the document and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building prior to distribution through escrow.
73. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the
length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wan to
beginning of slope. Said area shall be as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of
Planning and Building.
74. Ensure that all buyers oflots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the
open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are
aware that the walls are on City property and that they shall not modify or supplement the
wan or encroach onto City property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the
CC&R's for each lot.
75. The developer agrees to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone
for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within or
adjacent to the subject subdivision.
14
61
WATER
76. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the
assessmentslbonded indebtedness for al1 parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have
been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s).
77. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter fTom Otay Water District that
the subdivision wil1 be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities.
EASEMENTS
78. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street fTontage
of al1 open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Ensure that sufficient room is available for street tree planting when locating
utilities within this easement.
79. Indicate on all appropriate "B" Maps a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners
Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City
Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary
for the instal1ation ofthe required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer
shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers,
maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject
subdivision.
80. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on
any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as
directed by the City Engineer.
81. Grant to City on al1 appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and
side property line of lots adjoining wal1s to be maintained by the open space district. The
locations of these easements shal1 be as required by the Director of Planning and Building
and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls.
82. Storm drain easements shall be private unless the storm drain systems therein are public.
83. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements
shall be delineated separately on the final map and on the grading and improvement plans. If
any portion ofthe easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to
the common portion of the easements.
84. Prior to the approval of each final map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or
the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and
complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way.
15
~~
85. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by
City if any off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of
approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.)
After said notification, the developer shall:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way and/or easements required by the
Conditions of Approval of the tentative map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way and/or
easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals
complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as
determined by the City Attorney.
d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way,
easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final
map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said
acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval ofthe first
Final "B" Map.
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
86. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map,
where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of
the following occur:
(i). Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been
reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management
Program, as may be amended from time to time.
(ii). Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
(iii). The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing
16
~3
and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City's
Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director.
(iv.) The applicant does not comply with the terms ofthe Reserve Fund Program.
b. 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 or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 ofthe 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.
c. 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. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may
grant access to cable companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place
conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall
restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who
are, and remain in 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 ofChula Vista.
d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should
the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the
Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide
the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer reasonable
time to cure said breach
e. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
87. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval ofthe first final "B"
Map, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted
by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction ofregional facilities.
88. The applicant shall comply with all previous Agreements as they pertain to the tentative map.
17
~y
MISCELLANEOUS
89. Within thirty (30) days ofthe City Council approval ofthese map conditions, or prior to the
submittal of the first final map for the project, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall
submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved form. The drawing
projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The
digital file shan combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or
ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers:
a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (poly lines)
d. Easements (poly lines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
The digital drawing file shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal on 3 Yz" disks, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
90. Submit copies of all final maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital format. The
drawing projection shan be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6).
The digital file of the final maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing,
in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers:
a Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (poly lines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
The final map, grading plan and improvement plan digital files shall also conform to the City
ofChula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore. The digital drawing files shall be
submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 Yz" disks, as an
e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
91. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (1983).
92. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the
CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and as they may be amended
from time to time, the Applicant shall complete the following: (I) Fund the preparation ofan
annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual
monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services
governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shan commence following the first
fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second
quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted
18
gr;
on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2) Prepare a five year development phasing
forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPA's and
tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the
adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities.
93. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate
the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City ofChula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure
consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project
manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not
limited to land use planning and architecture.
94. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map
but prior to recordation of the applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the
required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the
City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do
not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement
plans) will be approved. AH work performed by the developer prior to approval of the
applicable "B" Map shall be at the developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the
developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and
improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under
such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other
security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the
rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not record.
PHASING
95. If the applicant modifies the SPA One approved phasing plan, the applicant shall submit to
the City a revised phasing plan for review and approval prior to approval ofthe first final "B"
Map. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan.
96. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the
developer shaH submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
development shaH be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and
Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or
dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may,
at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision. The developer agrees that the City Engineer may change
the timing of construction of the public facilities.
19
~<O
97. The Public Facility Finance Plan or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and
tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to
meet threshold standards adopted by the City ofChula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility
phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One,
actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the
PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as
assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those
identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City ofChula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements
and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility
improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which
improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and
Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The Otay
Ranch SPA One PFFP, at the Applicant's expense and subject to a Reimbursement
Agreement, shall be updated no later than six (6) months after the approval of a PFFP for the
EastLake III GDP Area, and the conclusions of such updatel including without limitation, the
nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One,
shall become a condition for aU subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and
final maps. Developer agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of construction
of the public facilities
CODE REQUIREMENTS
98. Comply with all applicable sections ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation ofthe
Final Map and aU plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
99. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
100. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to_sewer connection fees.
d. Interim SR-125 impact fee.
e. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin mF as may be adopted by the City in the future.
20
~7
_.____.__m_..._ _,_.. .___...._._.__.__"____..___
f. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
101. Comply with al1 relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water
Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation
to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
102. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments"
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments.
Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval.
103. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within
open spaces.
104. The applicant shal1 comply with al1 aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual.
105. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations.
106. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth
Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is
not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation
(19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.lO0).
The applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth
Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions
necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior
to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a
proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the
applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management
Ordinance.
107. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as
defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall
clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided within the
subdivision.
GUARDED AREAS
10S. The fol1owing location as proposed by the applicant is authorized for guarded entrances:
Santa Sierra Drive.
21
68
109. Guarded entrances shal1 not have physical barriers. Guarded entrances shall be staffed from
dusk until dawn, unless the MHOA or the applicant determines it is economical1y
impractical. Physical barriers shal1 be prohibited at the entrances to guarded areas unless
specifical1y approved by City Council.
110. Parks located within guarded areas shall not receive park credit.
111. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as private. Design of said streets shal1
meet the City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the tentative map.
112. AI1 private streets within Final "B" Maps shall be included in separate lots. The applicant
shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private
street lots on the appropriate Final "B" Map. All private streets shall be owned as an equal
and undivided interest by each subsequent property within the subdivision.
113. Guarded entrances shall:
a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without interrupting traffic
on public streets.
c. Provide a turn-around. The size and location of said turn-around shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and private streets through the use
of distinctive pavements.
e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant to be shown on appropriate
grading and/or improvement plans, which is to be retained as a parking space for so
long as the guarded entrance is retained.
f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and exiting vehicles.
114. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. The CC&R's shal1 also
include language which states that any proposal by the HOA to allow "speed bumps" in the
future shan require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners Association
members.
115. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all facilities within the
common areas and streets behind the guarded entrance. The facilities to be maintained
include, but are not limited to: pavements, sidewalks, street trees, street lights including
power supply, street sweeping, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common
22
~7
areas. The only facilities, which will be maintained by the City are mainline sewers and
public concrete drainage facilities (i.e., pipes, inlets, clean-outs and catch basins).
I. Pi,lnnil1g',RJCfI\\'\()my Ranch\TF\T \1/\P"',\'t\V South R51) R(Ji) Rc-vlsed 'nv! Cond,doc
! 1 11-;,021:2.1 1'\1
23
96
~l!l~!L~~L l~:Lb
oljb41~'::Il~
LUI"IU;::' 11-,'_11'"'1
r-.H'.....L '_'J
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHUtA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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 financial Interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Otay Project L.P.
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
James Baldwin
Alfred Baldwin
3. 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.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes 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.
James Baldwin Kent Aden, Rob Cameron
Al Baldwin
Kim Kilkenny
Ranie Hunter
Chuck Cater
6. Have you andlor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed ~ than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
(NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS N
Date:
6/21/02
Ranie Hunter
Print or type name of contractor/applicsnt
. Peryon is defined as: "A"y individual. firm, co-partnership. joint venture, assoclolfolt. sodal club, [realef'"ol organization, corporation,
~5tate, trust, recelvBr, .JYl'ldical~. this alld any other cOlJ.nry, city and country, city municipaliry, dislrict, or other poli'ical 3L1bdivisiorJ. or Qny
other group or combi"atlo" acting as a unit. .. q I A~t4 ~~ 1f ~
>',,~. ,.._--_._-,,------------------_._.~-,-_._-
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: S--
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-99-05 to create five lots for
purposes of developing five single-family homes in the R-I-5-P Zone, at 387
Date Street ~ Applicant: James Hurrell.
Developer requests approval for a five (5)-lot subdivision known as Park View Estates, at the
southerly end of Date Street. The project site is located in an existing single-family residential (R-l-
5-P) Zone, with a Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Low/Medium Density
Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre), and a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low
Medium Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource Conservation Commission
has determined that the Initial Study (IS-99-23) was adequate and recommended adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 4, 2002. The public comment period as noticed by the
Environmental Review Coordinator regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ended on
November 19, 2002. The final adoption of the MND is subject to review at the Planning Commission
public hearing, with final approval at the City Council public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCS-99-05
(attached) recommending City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval
ofthe Park View Estates Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the conditions of approval (including
the mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures).
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant first submitted this application for a tentative subdivision map in 1998; however, there
were a number of corrections to the original tentative subdivision map submittal that needed to be
made prior to continuing with public hearing review. In mid-1999, the applicant indicated that he
would have to put the project on hold until additional funding could be provided for the project. In
late 2001, the applicant revived the project and began an environmental review process that required a
biological survey of the area, being adjacent to the Otay River Valley Regional Park. The
environmental document including mitigation measures was completed in November 2002.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The site is a relatively flat one-acre parcel with an existing single-family home located in the northeast
corner of the property, which will be retained as part oflot five of the proposed 5-lot subdivision.
The site is immediately adjacent to the Otay River Valley Regional Park, and there are coastal
scrub/biological resources located immediately to the south of the property.
I
Page ~ Item:
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
The site is located within a small community of the Montgomery Specific Plan area known as
Broderick's Acres, an area of modest single-family dwellings that were originally subdivided as
approximately one-acre parcels under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego. The neighborhood
is defined by narrow rural standard streets predominately without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The
circulation system consists of Date Street and Palm Avenue, which are half a mile long and provide
the only access out of the subdivision to Main Street and Otay Valley Road. Valley Avenue is one-
quarter mile south of Main Street and provides the only east-west connection between Date Street
and Palm Avenue.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN
Low Medium Residential
Parks and Open Space
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
ZONING
R-I-5-P
A-70
R-1-5-P
R-1-5-P
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
Otay River Valley Regional Park
Duplex Two-Family Residential
Vacant Undeveloped Land
3. Proposal
The proposal is to subdivide a .99-acre lot into a five-lot subdivision in order to provide four new
single-family homes in addition to the existing single-family home on site. The gross lot sizes will
range from 5,27l-sq. ft. to l8,5l5-sq. ft. The net usable lot area excluding driveway and guest
parking easements range in size from 5,003-sq. ft. to l2,035-sq. ft. The applicableR-1-5-P standards
require a subdivision to provide a minimum of5,OOO-sq. ft. perlot. Two of the proposed homes will
face the southerly cul-de-sac end of Date Street, and the other three homes (one existing and two
proposed) will face a 20-ft. driveway easement that will provide access to Date Street.
Of note, the tentative map shows a fire department hammerhead turnaround in front oflot four. This
hammerhead driveway has now been eliminated from the requirements of the subdivision map, as the
fire department has indicated that the fire hydrant to be located at the easement driveway entrance
will be within an acceptable distance to provide adequate fire coverage to the three homes served by
the easement driveway. As such, the final map will be revised to show lot four with the same building
envelope mirrored or flipped-over as the one shown for lot three, with the location providing the
same large rear yard area as shown for lot three.
4. Analysis
The subdivision appears to be a good fit considering the site characteristics. The area has been
developed with similar types of subdivisions of the predominately one-acre parcels for a number of
years. Those that followed the City's zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements provide 20-ft.
wide recorded easements for access. Typical for this area there are up to three lots created that
cannot be located to face a street frontage along Date Street or Palm A venue.
Street improvements are provided on a piece-meal basis as developments occur within the
Broderick's Acres neighborhood. Concrete driveway easements, curbs, gutters, and sidewalk are
.;t
Page ~ Item:
Meeting Date: 12/11/02
always required and may be installed immediately or deferred. In this case, all required improvements
will be made at the time of home construction.
As the subdivision occurs at the end of the street, half street pavement and a cul-de-sac design will be
provided in fTont oflots one and two. In addition, easement and street drainage will be captured by a
bio-swale catch basin at the end of the cul-de-sac with an energy dissipater as required to filtrate
storm-water run-off and prevent adverse impacts upon the Otay River Valley Regional Park preserve.
As there are three lots served by the driveway easement, the Zoning Code requires five guest parking
spaces to be located adjacent to the driveway easement in lieu of on street parking available for the
lots facing a public right-of-way. As such, lots three, four and five are provided three guest parking
spaces located between lots three and four, and two more guest parking spaces at the end of the
driveway easement, next to a proposed two-car garage to be provided for the existing house. All new
homes will also have two-car garages built-in to the proposed homes as required by the Zoning Code
for all single and two-family zoned dwelling units.
The size and design of the lots and driveways will also conform to the Subdivision Manual. In
addition, the design and maintenance mechanism for the catch basin located at the end of the street
will be in conformance with standards approved by the City Engineer and subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
CONCLUSION:
The Park View Estates subdivision will be a vast improvement to a property that has been
underutilized and where illegal dumping has occurred for a number of years. The subdivision will
improve the overall character of the area and provide transition to a future staging area of the Otay
River Valley Regional Park. In addition, there are very few new tract home subdivisions located
within the Montgomery Specific Plan area of western Chula Vista, and the Park View Estates will
provide for new single-family home opportunities on lots of comparable size to what is predominately
available in eastern Chula Vista, at a much more affordable price for potential homeowners seeking to
live closer to established shopping areas and job centers.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Locator Maps (Subdivision/Initial Study)
2. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, PCS-99-05
3. Draft City Council Resolution (Subdivision Findings and Conditions of Approval)
4. Environmental Documents (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study)
5. Application Documents and Disclosure Statements
6. Tentative Subdivision Map (with un-revised lot four building envelope)
J:IPLANNINGIHAROLDIPCS-99-05PCREPORT.DOC
-3
L I I ~II . ffiffiEB ffi~'\~
r---r---
r----~
- 12~~1-=: jlBffiffi ~~
~
- - rL-- ~o ~ 8 RA~~
f
- - = RIOS :E
1-11 B.~'$
- I : iJ~
~ ~ r----- EB EE I
(I> EB .
SENTRY ffi tE ~ffi I
SELF-STORAGE EB rn ill ~ EE mEa.
HI - m~~~\I
EE~~
tEl EE
ALLEY A LJ EE EE EB EE EB
I
I I I !
I- ~
I In
W -
I ~ :!:
--'
c ~
-
.,~ I--
I
I
PROJE .~
~
LOCATION .
I
i VACANT
LOT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
1---- ~-
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: JAMES c. HURRELL INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT Request: Proposal for 5 single family lot subdivision
ADDRESS: 387 DATE STREET "Park View Estates. R1-5P (Single Family - 5000
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: y sq.ft. Min. Lot Precise Plan) zone.
NORTH No Scale 18-99-23 Related Case(s): PCS-99-05
j:\home\planning\cherrylc\locators\is9923.cdr 10.21.02
~
~' .
'. 'j
18
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT James Hurrell PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C!) APPUCANT: Park View Estates SUBDIVISION
PROJECT 387 Date Street Request: Proposal for 5 single family lot subdivision in
ADDRESS: the R1-5P (Single Fami/y- 5000 sq. ft. min. lot Precise
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: <) Plan) zone.
NORTH No Scale PCS-99-05
tii
LU
c::
I-
en
LU
~
o
LU
:::I
Z
LU
~
:;
....I
i1
~
'-PROJECT
lOCATION
--.--.-.-".--.-...
I
/~J~----i
h :\home\planning\carlos\locators\pcs9905.cdr 1/26/99
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-99-05
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE PARK VIEW ESTATES TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,
PCS-99-05, A O.99-ACRE FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE
F AMIL Y DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT 387 DATE STREET,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on December 9,1998 by James C. Hurrell (developer); and
WHEREAS, said developer requests permission to subdivide a 0.99-acre parcel into five lots for
single-family dwelling units, located at the southerly terminus of Date Street, located within a single-
family residential (R-I-5-P) Zone, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area with a Land Use
Designation of Low/Medium Density Residential (6 - II dwelling units per acre), and within the General
Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (6 - II dwelling units per acre), consisting of
APN 631-012-08-00; and
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the initial study was
adequate and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of the proposal
on the environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative
subdivision map and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500-
ft. 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 December II, 2002
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 the subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the
Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-99-05 in accordance with the tentative subdivision map findings and
subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this II Ih day of December, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Russ Hall, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: \PLANNING\HARO LD\RESOI,UTlONS\PC-RESO-PCS-99-0S.DOC
~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION: OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING APPROVAL AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS FOR
THE PARK VIEW ESTATES TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, A
0.99-ACRE FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS UNITS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY
TERMINUS OF DATE STREET, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as "Park View Estates" Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-99-05), Chula Vista Tract No. _, which is the subject matter of
this resolution, and is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and for the purpose of general description herein
consists of 0.99 acres located at the southerly terminus of Date Street, located within a
single-family residential (R-1-5-P) Zone, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area with a
Land Use Designation of Low/Medium Density Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per
acre), and within the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (6
- 11 dwelling units per acre), consisting of APN 631-012-08-00 ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1998, James C. Hurrell ("Developer"); filed a
tentative subdivision map application with the Planning Department of the City of Chula
Vista and requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-99-05) known as
"Park View Estates," Chula Vista Tract No. _, in order to subdivide the project site
into five (5) single-family residential lots ("Project"); and
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission has determined that the
Initial Study prepared by the Environmental Review Coordinator was adequate and
recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 4, 2002, in
compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the same Mitigated Negative Declaration on December 11,
2002.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
said project on December 11, 2002 and voted X-X-X-X to recommend that the City
Council approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed
below in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-99-05; and
E. City Council Record on Application
7
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and
place as advertised on January 14, 2003 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; to receive the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, 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 on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on December 11, 2002 and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator, the Resource Conservation Commission, and the
Planning Commission was reached in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
IV. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all
applicable mitigation measures, as set forth in the Environmental Document IS-99-23.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that "Park View Estates" Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-99-05), Chula
Vista Tract No. _' as conditioned herein is in conformance with the various elements
of the City's General Plan based on the following:
1. Land Use
The General Plan Land Use Designation is Low Medium Residential (6 - 11 dwelling
units per acre). The Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation is Low/Medium
Density Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre). The proposed 5-lot subdivision is
within the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling units. Therefore, as
conditioned, the Project is in substantial compliance with the City's General Plan, and
the Montgomery Specific Plan.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be
constructed or paid for by the developer in accordance with the Conditions of Approval.
The public streets within the Project will be designed in accordance with the City design
y
Resolution No.
Page 3
standards and/or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections
with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
The housing provided within the Project will be market-rate housing. The Project will
provide additional single-family home ownership opportunities in an established western
Chula Vista neighborhood, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area.
4. Conservation
The Project site is known to have significant environmental impacts, which are
addressed by the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program
is incorporated into the conditions of approval.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The Project will be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to
approval of a final map. The individual lots possess large rear yard areas, in addition to
access to the adjacent Otay River Valley Regional Park.
6. Seismic Safety
The Project is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the
General Plan for this site. The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred
geologic fault.
7. Safety
The Project is within the General Plan standard for response time of both Police and Fire
services. The emergency services 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.
8. Noise
The Project will be required to meet the residential standards of the General Plan's
Noise Element and Municipal Code. The dwelling units will be required to meet the
Uniform Building Code standards with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
9. Scenic Highway
The Project does not abut a scenic route or gateway.
10. Bicycle Routes
The public street within and adjoining the Project does not included a designated bike
route, but there will be a trail for mountain bikes within the adjacent Otay River Valley
Regional Park.
c
!
_.."'__..._...___M_.___.m_."'_..___..............._..,_,
Resolution No.
Page 4
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are planned or proposed for the Project.
B. Pursuant to Govemment Code 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. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allows for the optimum siting of lots
for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities and that the development of
the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum
utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities.
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 specific conditions set forth below:
VI. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Project is hereby conditioned as follows:
Environmental:
1. Prior to the commencement of grading, temporary erosion control devices shall be
implemented. These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences,
dikes and shoring. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement
plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit the City
Engineer shall verify that the final grading and improvement plans comply with the
provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order
No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related water quality best management
practices.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the
Environmental Review Coordinator shall verify that the following condition is included as
a special note on the final grading and improvement plans. In order to avoid impacts to
raptor nests, tree removal shall either be avoided between February 1 and July 31 or, if
unavoidable, surveys of affected trees shall be performed for active raptor nests by a
qualified biologist to determine absence or presence. If raptor nests are absent in the
affected trees, construction may proceed; if present, removal of trees with an active
raptor nest shall be prohibited and the qualified biologist shall resurvey the trees prior to
tree removal. Prior to tree removal between February 1 and July 31, a survey letter
!o
Resolution No.
Page 5
report prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the
Environmental Review Coordinator shall verify that the following condition is included as
a special note on the final grading and improvement plans. In order to avoid impacts to
raptors from construction noise, avoidance of construction between February 1 and July
31 is recommended or, if unavoidable, a survey shall be conducted for active raptor
nests within the potentially affected area by a qualified biologist to determine absence or
presence. If raptors nests are absent in the affected trees, construction may proceed; if
present, the qualified biologist shall determine if construction may proceed and if so,
shall monitor any raptor nests at the beginning of construction activities and as deemed
necessary by the Environmental Review Coordinator throughout construction to ensure
that nesting birds are not disturbed. Prior to the commencement of construction
between February 1 and July 31, a survey letter report prepared by a qualified biologist
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the City
Engineer shall verify that the grading and improvement plans comply with the provisions
of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-
01 with respect to permanent, post-construction water quality best management
practices (BMPs). The permanent, post-construction BMPs shall consist of bioswales
immediately south of the future Date Street cul-de-sac with an energy dissipater, north of
MSCP Preserve Area, or other filtration system in this location acceptable to the City
Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Engineering:
6. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of grading plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the
grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
7. Grading design shall be in accordance with Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. All
grading shall be designed as to drain towards either the private access driveway or onto
Date Street. Only undisturbed areas of the property will be allowed to drain across the
property line to the south.
8. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erosion and sedimentation
control plan as part of grading plans.
9. Show the location of cutlfilllines based on existing topography on grading plans.
10. Show the location of flood lines within the property limits and within 50 feet of the project
boundaries.
11. Submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut,
or a transition between the two situations prior to approval of the final map.
I(
Resolution No.
Page 6
12. Submit a detailed geotechnical report prepared and signed and stamped by both a
registered civil engineer and certified engineering geologist prior to approval of grading
plans and issuance of a grading permit.
13. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private. Drainage at the south end of Date Street
onto the adjacent City property shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Submit a precise drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit or other development permit.
Design of the drainage facilities shall consider existing onsite and offsite drainage
patterns. The drainage study shall show how downstream properties and storm drain
facilities are impacted. The extent of the study shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
15. Development of Park View Estates shall comply with all regulations established by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff
and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista
pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements.
16. Paved access, fifteen feet wide minimum, is required to all existing sewer manholes
within the property capable of withstanding H-20 wheel loading with no obstructions or
parking within.
17. Any existing sewer manholes within the project shall be adjusted to final grade to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18. All sewer laterals shall be privately maintained from the house to the City maintained
public sewer main.
19. Half street improvements and transitions to existing pavement in Date Street shall be
required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include a half
cul-de-sac with 30 foot radius, monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk, transition to existing
pavement to provide adequate vehicle access and turnaround area, installation of one
150 watt street light and installation of one fire hydrant. Street improvements shall also
include an appropriate drainage structure to convey street runoff at the end of Date
Street to the existing natural drainage way to the south. Detailed horizontal and vertical
alignment of the centerline of Date Street shall be reflected on the improvement plans for
the development.
20. The private access driveway to lots 3 through 5 shall be constructed of Portland cement
concrete and maintain a minimum width of 20 feet with no parking allowed.
21. Grant on the final map any necessary sewer easements to the City for the existing 8-
inch public sewer main along the northerly property line to maintain a 15-foot wide
easement along the entire length of the sewer main.
22. Dedicate on the final map additional public street right-of-way on Date Street as needed
for the half cul-de-sac improvements.
I,)
_ _.,._ .._'__, _____ '_.__.."n_"._._.___._____..___._____.."'_.__._ 'm.._~. ....._
Resolution No.
Page 7
23. A reciprocal private access, parking sewer and general utility easement to subsequent
owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 pursuant to the requirements of Section 18.20.150 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code shall be labeled on the final map.
24. 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
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including
approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents,
officers, or employees wit 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.
25. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
26. 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.
27. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Cal American water company that
the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities.
28. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (NAD '83).
29. Submit copies of the final map and improvement plan in a digital format such as (DXF)
graphic file prior to approval of the Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD)
copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit
the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate
on 3 Y, HD floppy disk prior to the approval of the Final Map.
30. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall include
provisions assuring maintenance of the private driveway to Lots 3, 4 and 5. The City of
Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce
the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the
subdivision.
31. All utilities serving the property and existing utilities located within or adjacent to the
property shall be located underground in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal
Code. New utilities serving the property shall be located underground prior to issuance
of building permits.
32. 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.
13
Resolution No.
Page 8
Planning:
33. 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.
34. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and shall incorporate all the
conditions of approval and be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Building.
35. Prior to any use of the project site or issuance of any building permits, all conditions of
approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
36. A conceptual landscape plan for street tree and front yard planting shall be prepared by
a registered Landscape Architect per Landscape Manual and shall be submitted for
review with the grading plan submittal and approved by the Landscape Planner.
37. A fencing plan shall be provided showing 6-ft. screening solid wood fencing beyond the
front yard setbacks between lots along the side and rear yard property lines, to protect
the adjacent preserve area within the Otay River Valley Regional Park. The fencing plan
shall be reviewed with the grading plan submittal and approved by the Landscape
Planner.
38. A water management plan and irrigation plans for the front yard areas shall be submitted
along with the grading plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner.
39. The Fire Department has indicated that a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute
is required, and a permanent fire hydrant is required on the public street. The utility and
access easement shall be a minimum 20-ft. unobstructed width and marked as a
dedicated fire lane; however the turn-around or hammerhead shown on the tentative
map will not be required for this project, which would adversely affect the development of
lot four.
40. The developer must submit a letter from the Fire Department to the California-American
Water Company stating the fire flow requirements. A preliminary study of the project
shows that a main extension of approximately 350-ft. of 6-inch PVC pipe will be required
in order to supply the proposed 6-inch fire hydrant and provide new domestic water
service installations.
41. The Sweetwater Union High School District is requesting that the developer annex the
project into the Community Facility District No. 10 to mitigate project impacts to the
district. The developer will come to an agreement with the school district prior to the
issuance of building permits.
42. The Chula Vista Elementary School District is requesting that the developer annex the
project into their new generic Community Facility District No. 10 to mitigate project
impacts to the district. The developer will come to an agreement with the school district
prior to the issuance of building permits.
IV
n' .'_. _....__. __ __ _"_ ._.._..._._.______.___..____...__.................._.. ...___,.
Resolution No.
Page 9
43. Ensure with all utilities that the location of all existing utility facilities will be protected in
place prior to commencement of grading. All utilities shall be underground within the
subdivision.
44. All Park and Recreation pad fees shall be paid at the issuance of the final map pursuant
to Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
45. All building plans must comply with 2001 Energy requirements, 2001 Uniform Building
Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 2001 National Electrical
Code.
46. Approval of this tentative subdivision map shall not waive compliance with all sections of
Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
47. Comply with all other applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, including
the Subdivision section that requires that the final map shall be submitted within 36
months unless an application for an extension is made per Section 18.12.140.
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.
48. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this tentative
subdivision map, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this tentative subdivision map where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this tentative subdivision map
and this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors
and assigns.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of
this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No. _'
Signature of Property Owner
Date
If)
Resolution No.
Page 10
VIII. 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.
Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this
Resolution.
IX. 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:
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
J :IPLANNINGIHAROLDlRESOLUTIONSICC-RESO-PCS-99-05.DOC
/(.,
S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
(Jray Davis
Gov'ernnr
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
DATE:
November 15, 2002
TO:
Maria C. Muett
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE:
Park View Estates
SCH#: 2002101118
\~\.\)fPI.A.ti",1.+:
<J'~'"
.. .
~ * ~
~.'"~ .1
4).f-..... __#'"
l'tOFCAt1f\)
Tal Finne)'
Interim Director
'-
~
- .-"-'-' -'-'
This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has recei ved your environmental document
for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is:
Review Start Date:
Review End Date:
October 24, 2002
November 22, 2002
We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments:
Caltrans, District 11
Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Water Resources
Native American Heritage Commission
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9
Resources Agency
State Lands Commission
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights
I r~-:- ~ --. -- - ,-- ~- '-' r~\ !
! ~._~----~-~<
i ~~</j i!: i
i i '1'1 NOV 1 9 2002 Ii! 1/' i
I: i 'j! ! I
,U Lil__.,._____.._.___...__.._J t.J
l . ,. .,-. :<'r. I
I r\h!~>i:I~,1 ,
. ..., I
---~'~-,.,~----~-~'"._-_. . !
The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your
attention on the date following the close of the review period.
Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process.
/7
1400 TH\TH STREET P.D.110X _,044 SACR,\\lFNTO, C,\L!FOR\lI'\ 95R12-3044
(916)445-0613 FAX(lJl(ij32_,-301X \\\\w_oprc<!_g-m
'6
.- ..._..~ .,-"-_._---_._-_.._.~----...-..._""_.._-_.,.,_.~.
Notice of Completion
Maifto: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
Project Title: Park View Estates
Lead Agency City of Chula Vista
Scree! Address 276 Fourth Avenue
City: Chula Vista
Contact Person
Maria
Phone:
County:
Zip:
91910
------------------------------------
Project Location
County: San Diego
Cross Streets: Date Street
Assessor's Parcel No.: 631-012-008
State Hwy #: 75
CitylNearest Cormnunity: Chula Vista
Total Acres: O. 99 acre
Range: ~ Within 2 Mi1es:
Otay River Airports:
and Valley Avenue
Section:- Twp.:
Wateru'ays:
See NOTE below
SCH#
C. Muett
(619) 585-5747
San Diego
None
Railways:
None
------------------------------------
Document Type
CEQk 0 Nap
o Early Cons
C2J Neg Dee (Mitigated)
o 0.'[1 EIR
o NOE NEPA,
o NOC
o NOD
o Supplement/Subsequent EIR
(Prior SCH No. )
o NO!
o FONS!
o Deaf! E!S
o EA
Other:
o Joint Document
o Final Document
o Other
------------------------------------
local Action Type
o GeneraJ Plan Update
o General P1an Amendment
o General Plan Element
o Community Plan
o Other
o Specific Plan
o Master Plan
o Planned Unit Development
o Site Plan
o
o
o
l8J
Rezone
Prezone
Use Penni t
Land Division
o Annexation
o Redevelopment
o Coastal Permit
(Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
------------------------------------
Development Type
[8J Residential: Units 4
o Commercial: Sqfi
o Industrial: Sqfl.
o Educational
o Recreational
o Other:
Acres 0_99
Acres
Acres
o Water FaciJities:
o fvlining:
o Power"
Waste Treatment
Hazardous Waste:
Employees
Employees
o
o
T}pe
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
MGD
Watts
------------------------------------
Project Issues Discussed in Document
[8J AestheticNisual [ZJ Flood Plain/F1ooding
o Agricultural Land 0 Foresl Land/Fire Hazard
[8J Air Quality (8J Geologic/Seismic
[8] Archeologica\!Historical 0 Minerals
o Coastal [8] Noise
[8J Drainage/Absorption 0 Toxic/Hazardous
o Economic/Jobs [ZJ Public ServiceslFacilities
o Fisca1 0 Recreation/Parks
o Othe"
[81 Schoo1s1Universities
o Septic Systems
[8J Sewer Capacity
o Soi1 Erosion/Compaction/Grading
I2J Solid Waste
I8J Population/Housing Balance
[8J Traffic/Circulation
[8J Vegetation
[8J Water Quality
[8] Water Supply/Groundwater
[8J Wetland/Riparian
[8] Wildlife
o Growth Inducing
[8J Land Use
[8J Cumulative Effects
[8J Paleontology
--- - - -------- - - - - - - - --- -- -- ------ ----
Present land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Present land use is single-family residential. Zomng is
R-15P Zone (Single-Family Residential, minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet; Precise Plan) General
Plan desiqnation is low~medium residential.
------------------------------------
Project Description The proposed project consists of the subdivision of an approximate one-acre
parcel into 5 single-family residential lots; one single-family residence exists. The proposed lot
sizes average over 5,000 square feet and the proposed density of five dwelling units per gross acre
is consistent with the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property. The project
site is within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The proposal requires a Tentative
Subdivision Map to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.
-------------~----------------------
NOTE: Clearinghouse wilt assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g from a Notice of Preparation. or
previous draft document) please fill it in.
lis
...--".--.,.---.,-.-".
ReviewinQ AQencies Checklist
KEY
./ Resources Agency
Boating & Waterways
Coastal Commission
Conservancy
Coastal Colorado River Board
Environmental Affairs
Conservation
Air Resources Board
~ Fish & Game (with Biological Resource Study)
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks & Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation & Housing
Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans Distri<;t II
Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters)
Housing & Community Development
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare 5 = Document sent by lead agency
Health Services X = Document sent by SCH
APCD/AQMD ./ "" Suggested distribution
OLA (Schools)
State & Consumer Services
California Waste Management Board
SWRCB; Clean Water Grants
SWRCB; Delta Unit
SWRCB; Water Quality
SWRCB; Water Rights
" Regional WQCB #9 (San Diego)
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commissjon
Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Lands Commission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
General Services
Other
------------------------------------
Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date October 21 , 2002
Ending Date November 19,2001
Signature ~<< ~-:It-/
Date
~ dJ. ;;;....oO::l-
I
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date 10 SCH
Clearance Date
Notes
Catalog Number
Applicant
Consultant
Contact
Address
Phone
Applicant
James Hurrell
City/State/Zip Imperial
Address
Beach, CA 91932
123 Dahlia Avenue
Phone
(619)889-0580
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm
City/State/Zip
Address
Contact:
Phone
i?
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Park View Estates
PROJECT LOCATION:
387 Date Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
631-012-008
PROJECT APPLICANT:
James C. Hurrell
CASE NO.:
IS-99-23
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
October 18, 2002
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERV A nON COMMISSION MEETING:
November 4, 2002
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
November 25, 2002
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of an approximate one-acre parcel located in an urbanized area and
containing an existing single-family residence. The project is located at the end of Date Street,
adjacent to the Otay River Valley (see Exhibit A - Location Map). No animal or plant species listed
as rare, threatened or endangered by local, State or Federal regulatory agencies are known to be
present on this highly disturbed residential property. Immediately to the south lies habitat areas in the
Otay River floodplain that have been highly disturbed by illegal dumping of debris and trash.
Fencing separates the project site from adjacent properties to the south.
The project site is adjacent to undeveloped City-owned land within the Otay Valley Regional Park.
The adjacent properties to the south and southwest consist primarily of undisturbed native vegetation,
the majority of which is identified as part of the 100% Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve in the
Draji City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
Land uses surrounding the project site consist ofthe following:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family residences
Undeveloped City-owned land within Otay Valley Regional Park
Single-family residences
Eucalyptus trees and single-family residences
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of a five-lot subdivision to accommodate the construction of four
additional single-family residences on the project site (see Exhibit B - Site Plan). The proposed lot
sizes average over 5,000 sq. ft. each and the proposed density of five dwelling units per gross acre is
consistent with the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property. The project
improvements include installation of Date Street with half cul-de-sac immediately to the west of the
property. The estimated grading quantity includes only 50 cubic yards cut and 50 cubic yards fill for
the proposed filtration system; no further grading is proposed.
,;)(!
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The existing zoning on the project site is RI5P Zone (Single-Family Residential, minimum lot area of
5,000 square feet; Precise Plan) and the General Plan designation is low medium residential. The
project is within the City's Southwest Redevelopment Specific Plan. The proposed project is
consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan designation ofthe property.
D. Public Comments
On April 27, 1999, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the project site. The public comment period ended May 7, 1999. The concern expressed in
the one comment letter received dealt with traffic circulation and is addressed below in Section E.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist fOffi1) deteffi1ined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
Geophysical
The project site has been previously graded and is partially developed, containing one single-family
residence. Single-family residential development exists to the north, east and west of the project site.
According to the Engineering Division, further grading to accommodate the proposed development
would require a grading peffi1it.
The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a grading
peffi1it as a standard engineering requirement. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards
associated with the project site. The project site lies 1.2 miles to the west of the La Nacion Fault
Zone. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, project
compliance with applicable Unifoffi1 Building Code standards would adequately address any building
safety/seismic concerns.
The potential exists for significant project-related erosion or siltation impacts, which may affect the
Otay River, if not mitigated. Appropriate erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction
with the preparation of final grading plans and would be implemented during construction. The
implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs) during construction would be
required in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. All portions of the development area
disturbed during construction would either be developed or would be appropriately landscaped in
compliance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 19.36.090 and 19.36.110. Compliance with
BMPs and NPDES Order No. 2001-01 would be required and would be monitored by the Engineering
Division. Therefore, potentially significant crosion and siltation impacts would be reduced to a level
ofless than significance.
Water/Drainage
The project site was previously graded; drainage presently sheet flows directly to the south towards
the Otay River. The proposed' addition of four new structures on the site would not significantly affect
drainage flow. According to the Engineering Division, the preparation and submittal of a drainage
2 ~(
_ '..___.._._._.._._.._._.._._....___.__________..,.......__m_..,,__."_"
study will be required in conjunction with final grading and improvement plans; properly designed
drainage facilities would be required to be installed at the time of site development. Due to the size
of the project site, the preparation and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) would not be required. However, compliance with provisions of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-
related water quality BMPs would be required. Based upon project design, conditions of the tentative
map and mitigation measures any potential adverse impacts would be lowered to a level of less than
significance.
The project has been designed so that runoff would not drain directly into the Preserve area to the
south. The incorporation of post-construction BMPs would be required to minimize impacts from
urban runoff into the Preserve area. The preliminary grading plan indicates that the proposed project
would include bioswales or other filtration system acceptable to the City Engineer off-site to the west"
south of the future cul-de-sac. The filtration system would filter runoff prior to it passing through an
energy dissipater and entering the Preserve area. The bioswale, or other filtration system, is proposed
in an area that currently supports eucalyptus trees, which is not a sensitive habitat. The resulting
filtered runoff would not have a significant negative effect on wildlife or habitat in the Preserve area.
Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F, under "Biological Resources",
would reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance.
Biological Resources
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive, long-term habitat
conservation plan that addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural
vegetation communities in San Diego County. The MSCP is a subregional plan under the California
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991. An MSCP Subregional Plan was prepared
for the subregion, an area encompassing 12 jurisdictions and 582,243 acres. The MSCP Subregional
Plan is implemented through local Subarea Plans. The Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
(October 2000) docs not identify the project site within the City's proposed MSCP Preserve Area. No
sensitive species were found on site and no sensitive species are expected to occur on site. However,
the project site is adjacent to properties to the south and southwest that are within the proposed 100%
Conservation Area - Habitat Preserve identified in the draft Subarea Plan.
The site has been previously graded and contains one single-family residence. Non-native plants and
trees are located throughout the project site. According to the biological resources study prepared by
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated October 14, 2002, no endangered, sensitive species,
species of concern or species that are candidates for listing were observed on the site or are expected
to occur on site.
Although the previously graded project site contains no sensitive biological resources, Helix
identified native habitat, Dicgan coastal sage scrub, immediately south and southwest of the site.
Property to the west supports eucalyptus tress and residences beyond. Coastal sage scrub habitat in
the project vicinity is small in area and of poor quality and unlikely to support the threatened Coastal
California gnatcatcher; therefore, no impacts to this species are expected to occur.
Disturbed habitat on site consists primarily of areas heavily disturbed by grading and past
construction/yard waste disposal. Piles of imported dirt have been placed over much of the area.
Analysis of aerial imagery by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., trom January 1999 and January
2001 shows three mature sumac. Apart from the sumacs, little evidence of any native habit was
present in 2002 or in these aerial photos that would indicate the presence of functioning habitat prior
to the deposition of the dirt.
3
~.:t
Direct Impacts
Pursuant to the draft MSCP Subarea Plan, impacts to sensitive habitats require mitigation. The
project site is located within the Tier IV (non-sensitive) area of the MSCP Subarea Plan and,
therefore, does not require any habitat mitigation.
Required street fTontage improvements immediately west of the site would directly impact at least
two eucalyptus trees. This impact could be significant if raptors were displaced fTom nests and failed
to breed. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this
potentialJy significant impact to below a level of significance.
Indirect Impacts
The City's draft MSCP Subarea Plan addresses indirect impacts to designated Preserve Areas.
Potential indirect impacts from the proposed project addressed in the biological resources study
include drainage, lighting, noise and invasive species. Based upon the analysis contained in the
study, it was detennined that indirect noise and drainage impacts would be potentialJy significant,
unless mitigated, and that other indirect impacts would be less than significant.
Noise
No on-site construction noise impacts would occur due to the lack of habitat and sensitive species on
site. If raptors are nesting in the nearby off-site eucalyptus trees to the west and south during
construction, construction noise could potentialJy adversely affect breeding success. To avoid any
potential significant impacts from construction noise, avoidance of construction between February I
and July 31 is recommended or, if unavoidable, surveys in the vicinity by a qualified biologist shalJ
be perfonned to detennine absence or presence of raptor nests. If raptor nests are absent in the
potentially affected area, construction may proceed; if present, the qualified biologist shalJ both
detennine if construction may proceed and monitor any raptor nests at the beginning of construction
to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined
below in Section F would reduce this potentialJy significant impact to below a level of significance.
Drainage
The project has been designed so that runoff would not drain directly into the Preserve area to the
south. The incorporation of post-construction BMPs would be required to minimize impacts fTom
urban runoff into the Preserve area. The preliminary grading plan indicates that the proposed project
would include bioswales or other filtration system acceptable to the City Engineer off-site to the west,
south of the future cul-de-sac. The filtration system would filter runoff prior to it passing through an
energy dissipater and entering the Preserve area. The bioswale, or other filtration system, is proposed
in an area that currently supports eucalyptus trees, which is not a sensitive habitat. The resulting
filtered runoff would not have a significant negative effect on wildlife or habitat in the Preserve area.
Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined below in Section F would reduce this potentially
significant impact to below a level of significance.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Geophysical
1. Prior to the commencement of grading, temporary erosion control measures shalJ be
implemented. These measures may include desilting basins, benns, hay bales, silt fences, dikes
4
~3'
and shoring. These measures shall be reflected on the grading and improvement plans to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
WaterlDrainage
2. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the City Engineer
shall verify that the final grading and improvement plans comply with the provisions of
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with
respect to construction-related water quality best management practices.
Biological Resources
Direct Impacts
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction permit, the Environmental
Review Coordinator shall verify that the following condition is included as a special note on the
final grading and improvement plans:
To avoid impacts to raptor nests, tree removal shall either be avoided between February I and
July 31 or, if unavoidable, surveys of affected trees shall be perfonned for active raptor nests by a
qualified biologist to determine absence or presence. If raptor nests are absent in the affected
trees, construction may proceed; if present, removal of trees with an active raptor nest shall be
prohibited and the qualified biologist shall resurvey the trees prior to tree remova1. Prior to tree
removal between February 1 and July 31, a survey letter report prepared by a qualified biologist
shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Indirect Impacts
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction penn it, the Environmental
Review Coordinator shall verify that the following condition is included as a special note on the
final grading and improvement plans:
To avoid impacts to raptors from construction noise, avoidance of construction between February
I and July 31 is recommended or, if unavoidable, a survey shall be conducted for active raptor
nests within the potentially affected area by a qualified biologist to detennine absence or
presence. If raptors nests are absent in the affected trees, construction may proceed; if present,
the qualified biologist shall detennine if construction may proceed and if so, shall monitor any
raptor nests at the beginning of construction activities and as deemed necessary by the
Environmental Review Coordinator throughout construction to ensure that nesting birds are not
disturbed. Prior to the commencement of construction between February I and July 31, a survey
letter report prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
5. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and/or public construction pennit, the City Engineer
shall verify that the grading and improvement plans comply with the provisions of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-01 with respect to
pennanent, post-construction water quality best management practices (BMPs). The pennanent,
post-construction BMPs shall consist of bioswales immediately south of the future Date Street
cul-de-sac with an energy dissipater, north of the MSCP Preserve Area, or other filtration system
in this location acceptable to the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
5
~'I
G. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning and Building
Paul Hel1man, Planning and Building
Mary Ladiana, Planning and Building
Maria C. Muett, Planning and Building
Brad Remp, Planning and Building
Duane Bazzel, Planning and Building
Frank Herrera-A, Planning and Building
Garry Wil1iams, Plannning and Building
Chfford L. Swanson, Engineering
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Ralph Leyva, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Majed AI-Ghafi-y, Engineering
Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Ed Thomas, FiTe Marshal
Rod Hastie, Fire Department
Richard Preuss, Pohce Department - Crime Prevention
Applicant:
James Hurrel1
Others:
Otay Water District
Chula Vista Elementary School District
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, 1989
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General J.'lan Update, ErR No. 88-2,
P&D Technologies, Inc., May 1989
Draft City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, October 2000
Biological Resource Analysis for Park View Estates, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.,
October 14,2002
Geotechnical Study/Limited Soils Investigation, East County Testing and Lab, October 17, 1998
6
.,,2:)
3. Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of ChuJa Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
JJ; ~~1f.~I(~ /9 /JiW
Marilyn R. . Ponseggi ,
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date:
/pj;&!o t?--
I I
J:\Planning\MARlA\Initial Study\IS-99-23Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration_doc
cJ.0
7
PROJECT
lOCATION
81tt8 i
iTmTf
--.--
,'~llj II
I I ! ~
f~ . . . I
II ~. _
MAIN ST
EB f:E ill EB EfjEEJ
I I r;:::. rnrn;---= fEEB ~ ~~~
i:::l.- .! IEB EB EB \113'9: '(;Y
~~~ ;~tB~ lB_
. . t CJTAY_--W E8 P-~
. ; I aIL~~ EB ~'=II 'i
I. '. 'Irrfl\ IEBi[~~/4
j . m.lT 'EBI~ i I
--- I tt1ID "e='J__(. '
-..' --- 11'" EEi
I ' 1 ______ EfjEEEB. _ /
---j~----jw'rn EB 0::\ --- I . _ -_.__'
.'---<.;~.r..'-'-.'~I~ m~l .EB. ~. .CB Ill. :
1~1------JQo:J D:lU-~ EEI~~
.L..J.I......~.i.; '-r.,iIEBL~U:~.: ~t~~-
._'~--J.
.._-..(~ . -.- -
---, ,-j
-''''---1
I
r-i
_TH
i
1
1--1
i I
-y
[
,
,
,
i
[
,
LL_~
/"./ ,
_/ [
f\TV71nr
_. ..-'"-....--
------.-'-....
--,
v----
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Park View Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION,
C) APPUCANT: INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 387 Date Street Request: Proposal for a lenlalive subdivision map 5 single
ADDRESS:
family dwellings in Ihe R1-5P (Single Family Zone-5DDD
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: sq. ft. min. lols size Precise Plan).
NORTH No Scale IS-99-23 Related Case: PCS-99-D5
h: Ihome Iplanninglcarlos \locators li5992 3. cdr 4/20/99 ~.
7
EXHIBIT A
- ~ -- -- - --- - - -<-
III U"} '<t
- "" Q)
co 8 0 b ~
co N ...: ::;)
'" -.; I'll OJ
N ;:: b
C 8 ~ C. u::
c '" U"} aJ
00 >iI
." ." ~ 0 E
Q) Q) ~ c- ~
.D
5 .c - -
:; N E3
V; ." ~ - f:::
V; Q) 0 ;;-
'6 '6 8 .c
00 5 c; Q) ~
.D ~ ~ V; .~ .s
2 ~ '6 8 ~ 0
u ~ 00 '" ~ ""
'" co <'? Z.~ Q !
Q) 0. ." ." ~ 0 a..
co co co "
0> .c co co - 8 E 0
co <.> '6 '6
'" ~ 00 o.
." 0 8 00 .~ j') 'i'
2 " 0 :0 N ." ~
x " " ~ e:5 u "
'" 'E ro co
co '" '" .c ." ~s 0.
0 C ::> ::> ." Q) . 0 E
u a. a. Q) a. om <:;
to ~ 0
CO >- >- .D 0 E> 13 Z
ro .c "iij "iij ~ Q; 0"
0> :; ::> :uS " .D
Q) u u V; > ~~ "e 0
; is 0 ::> ::> is Q) ~
C CI) W W 0 J;:; 0 "-
0 . u 0
"~ c-
"" o c
'" ~.
--I = ;:: , g~o
Q)- ~I .....
OJ~ ~ ~
~~ (]) (]) ~ ....
F F z .
"\''';',~~/ '''>,.:!
'~~4'!~~';.?~t~~ -.c.
-;I~ . !~iit4f: ! ',' . "lO"'i"' ',i?l5
'/'" ,~i -,- .dB -k',
./,,',.' I'J {" . .Pt;." .~. . '''i1,',: ",
,/ '::_'\;:/~':E_: l-1\f. 'I";f'. '. . . :\~- "-:'~-<!J:~~~;!< ~ f f
If ,~ .; ~ .1' .1f .1 ~"i '~i}: .~j
.__-l_"'''.,i . L_t~. .-:-"1- ::-.]" ',h
,\ - 1;'1 1- ",-,. ',. -"', :-:",. ", -',-.'" j
i' .~:. !i.... ,I"G" ...... .I,,'-J .... ", :.,'
, ~! -.," \1:J\;$_" C,' ,'-' ,'::;-j
- t I~.. -7.. " ":~1,'-1'J'.~,~," .-
. -. '-':/'->JJ~?
.i
-f
~
o
~
.M
"I
Jj';".i!
".
~1.E.;
~~~i
":::t.."
,,-co ($;-'
~ ~~ ~
~ -~ ,I ~
~] ~ ~
~i!~
'"1:''''-
,g ti~
~g~i
'i....
~..._:B
;;.5-ij_~
~~ ~ 8:
.i;ii
'~l!5 ~
~ ~-~
...-
i~I~l
-,~; ~
z
'w'
.~~ -=-~. .~ .
.0. .
o
- .".
'0'
.----;-_.--:-:::;.
.<;~6~,g
=i
g
~
>..
~
~
~
C)
,
,
s
~
cO:
"'-w
xI
::;;1-
if'0
0:",
0"
f3~
~~
">-
"'z
Qw
'""
!i18
:go:
t[>-
OW
0:0:
Q.Q.
0:
o
>-0
o<w
!'o:
~5
-0
Ow
~~
00<
><
m'_---.,_
'",
-,"',
..... '. .. . ~--
. i,,-..~~i0~lZ!i~~,;
/x_~ . . . . . .~3;G.7:;p-DCS. . .
0:-;'.' .
'1'"
'f
NOI~~~;i~t~>h..' .tI,'!
"-.
""",."-,",-~,,
i:::i::L:..L:::"
--',-'.-
::..L.\',--,
-
_.~-----
--'
......
==
02.?
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGA nON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Park View Estates ~ 18-99-23
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Park View Estates five-lot single-family residential
subdivision. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-99-23) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that
adequate mitigation measures are implemcnted and monitored for Mitigated Negative
Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts:
1. Geophysical
2. Water/Drainage
3. Biological Resources
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures
specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-23 shall be provided by the applicant to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-99-23, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J :\Planning\MA RIA \Initial Study\IS-99-23MM RPtext.doc
'~'1
~
1:
~
E
E
0
<J
t::
2
'c
0
:2:
t::
.2
ro
.,
~
l-
t/)
::::i
~
u
W
:J:
U
:i:
~
C)
0
0::
D-
C)
Z
~
..- 0::
0
(II D-
:c W
'" 0::
l- e
z
c:(
C)
z
it:
0
!::
z
0
:i:
Z
0
~
c:(
C)
E
:i:
~
~
~
~
..
~
:;
c
.2
...
'"
.,
,.
'"
N
a\
m
<h
'"
Q)
ro
'" c ci
ill
;: oZ
Q) '';:; dI
.. ~
:> "'~
-" ;f::Q
'" :;~
Q. :;
E
'"
x
x
c
o "'0 C
:g C Q)
~ '" E
c. 0> ~
E .S ~ rn
.8 ~ D..@
us c'3 E 0::
Q):=: Q) Q)
ID~.Df:
~~ ~ ro .9
r:! ro.J::(I)
o;:;).Q U) C
a.<1>>-(I).!!2
E.....roIDQ.
.8 ffi..c:Jc
oiEvi~Q)
C Q) E Q) E
'Oc..QjEw
[!! E.o Q) 1:;
0)';;'; vi ~ is.. <ri
o::.~ ~.~ g?
ern ro "0--
Q)..c..c OJ c g>
E ~ ~.~ ~UJ
~Q):'::;occ
~'~~~:gu
EW~"O"""Q)
E::: Q) @~-s
Sg-gU):50
Q)cu~cc
= 8 .S '6 ~ 2
c (I) . Q) U
oQ)(I)......rn
'in.S? ~ ~'t)
o>c.;:::;::;
...... Q) (l) Q) ro
Q)"O_......U)
0>
C
E
'S
<IJ
~"O
~@~
cO> E
~.'= t
._ c ('II
1iCa.
c...ES! Q)
<<"-0
x
x
c
o
t5 -g ffi.
'" '" E
c. 0> ~
~ .S 6 (I)
.$ ~ a.~
U5 (5~a::
~
0>
..
C
'n;
is
~
"'
s
.~ ~ ~
:0 = e g.c
6.~~c ~ ~
............. O..c Q)
Q~:50,,= 0)
"'O'C'~ Z. == !"II
C Q) :::...... C
.~.:: -a: ~ 9 E
EjgEOoVj
~~82~.8
.~~ ~~~g
"0 'iSJCi-ro .... ~
~ccc~O"
cnW Q) ,Q .... ....
>..z, E 0>0.$
C._ Q) Q) C ro
ro<J>a:::o~
'0 Q) e .~'rn"'O
~:5 Q.E&.8
;<;::Eo ro
~~:;~&~
~8.@u.~c
'~cOJoog
~g.s (/) ffi g
.....u~6U).b~
~.s a:~'E-~,g
oU)->roou
';::6~eou~
a.. u <0:= Q.aJ.9 a.
N
0>
C
B
'S
<IJ
~"O
~@
cO>
~'=
._ c.....;
i5..Ca.
a.~ Q)
<<"-0
u;..;
08
ll.'U
01:..;
CIf!
.~s X
cO
..
~:g X
n. 0
o
"
"
~
co
'"
"-
>. Q) 19 '-
~:5 ~ i.
::IcE ro~
U)......c~c.g
Qj5J~~"E~
:::: a. > > 0 a.
.3&tD~8 g-
"01:
c '"
'" E
0>'"
C >
.- 0 (/)
"0 ~ C
'" C. '"
c'3Ea::
~
i3
~
o
~
~
'"
~
'0,
o
"5
iD
g CD ~.~ ~Ec
:D oS EEaJ (pQ,)-oo
~ ~ Oil) oCi3:5..; -5~~t5
a. c-a ro_~Q)'~a5Q)~~~~
o oc ~'~a-aoE~~~~e~
:O:;;::'ero _Q) Q,)'" ::I>a.~
cID~rn mO~=~~~~OtQ)
~'>8:B ij~rn.~.g~_~~~~:5
'~~a~ ~~iQ~-amm~eg~
~ ern ~::I oroQ)c~~~ ro
&!-im Q)~~:D ~~~~Q)-ac
co C !D"'O !R.......$ o2"t;::......:::::J1!;;:;;
~Q)=I;::: _c......""cn....._v'OIJ)_.....
..... 0 ...... ro.b.~ Q) a. 0..'" .(5)...... - '-E 6
uE-w ~~"'O~c~.....oo~~o
~g~:5 ~ Q)ro.....roQ)~._~::IU
OJ.::...... c Q) ~t5 5-.9 E >:00:::1 (J);:
~>......o cro~ ~c~u (f.IQ)Q)
~~!s .....2roro.....oro(l)~roD-
_0):'0 %.g-E~:gc~~ -~~
o~~.c ro~o .::IroroO~~~
~.....- ..... (f.I~(I)""'~::IEM(f.I_
Q) -w~..oc>.(/)ot5......O-Q)>- ~
g~~u~......Q)Q)Q)cc.iQ).....3~c
_ro.....ro~~$I~~~8(f.1:5Q)~.~Q)
~~&~(J)a.gQ)~gew~-a~~~~
ro._C.....roEa.D~a.a.Q).....Coro:DO
a.Q)oo(J)Q)E-a-~.....Q)=ro-~ .=
E:5~~roE-Q)iQ)O.bo-ao ~~
U c"'O Q):Q:E-a > <1>-o-2'c ~<o=w
~92uQ)>oO.6~gQ)~:Da.ro=
Q)ot5o~e~~>gQ)uoE~ID~~~
~.cc8o~~oQ)~o~&Q)eQ)Q)cr=
_~ U._._~D::I_roro.....a..b~roo
'"
5'0
E
~
c:
E
.C'
o
::;;
c:
o
~
~
'"
c:
:g
5
rn
~"O
~~~
c: 0> E
~,~ ~
,_ c ro
a.ca.
a.~ Q)
<1:0..0
0>
c: c:
:g -~
'S '5
CO (5
g-g:;::. 0)
Orncr:::
~ OJ E';::
~.5 -e :E
._ c: ro c
8:~ g-"g>
<(Il..OW
x X
....
Q) X X N
:is v
OS on
I- '"
"-
>'QJ$ - c:
C 0 C
w ~ c: :5. "0 t5 "0
~ - W c: w c: w
~B~ _w '" E w '" E
"'- 0.
c:.D o>W o>W
Q5 ~.g~"E ~ c: > ~ c: >
.- 0 II) E .- 0 (f)
"O~c: "O~c:
:::0.>>00.. '" 0.", 2 ~ ~~
Q) Q) c: Q) 0 0. <DEe:
--.Jo:::wo::o '" us '-"_0..
'"
N
cb
0>
ch
"'
OJ
rn
1;;
w
;:
OJ
;;
""
:u
0..
.~ ai-3'~~~~J1 ~1?ij1 0 ~o ij)~ ~
~ ~~=~~--E-E~rn ~-s:
~.~ c~!~~E~c~:E~~~~~Q)
a. C(f)---Q)o~~~~Q) La:::
o 5~ 5rn>-~~~~~V) 8~Ero(f)ro
- rn ~~Q) (f)~gQ)(f)OO)~~~c
u~~ U~~Q)o~a.~cro .~CM~Q)
@Q)cg 5rn~~- ~(f)o~ ~~Q)>-gE
.......58'6 (/)2V) ......~._c......uQ)Q)E_oc
-E.o>~ c rn.5V)rou8a.~5cE~Bo
....... - 0.0 .c"o, CD ~ QJ.....8'.:
ID_cO"J UQ)w~o2~_ ~ro uu>
a.S'j~ ~~~~(f)o->-~.c ewc
COe Eern ._Q)~Q)c__- ro~W
~wE~~ e:E~I.a~a.~~~5!~~~~
~ -Q) -~oQ)u~~Eo~c~""" ~-
~~5~~ ~~~c~BEQ)~ro~~ ~~o
~~~=~ B.a~o~ic~occQ)B2roc
ZccroQ) a.c_-~~ouEoeB .o>..Q
~row5_ ~o-~u~~_=~'S: ~Q).a~
So.o~~._g t5~~ .g~rogcg.g~ ~
.8::1 0 Q)!XI a:d:.f,;-t5.bW:o;0... cij1 {/)
rnQ)~Q5~.. .bu> U(f)- II) U Q)~~
o:::g~~o~~~~~~~a~oa~E ~~m
Iro~~~ro~8croDWU'~WU-w ~~~
~~~.cwc.a. ~""ro~vi~~ ~C8-o~5...c
~~c~rnE~~Es~a.~~~~D ~ct~
a~ooWw rno~DC -....00-0
E.c~-rnE~~o~ z rn~~~3~a.~ro
-~g~iw~cg~~~~~~.~m~.~g~2c
o-b~~>>rn""~2c2~~cw~~z ~~
w....w....~ern~w~uwu=~~~~ w....E....
~.gagTIaog;c~2&~e~geBa!~g
8~uO.~.~~roM8rororocraDc5cu~wU
"
"
'"
ro
c:
.~
o
~ u ~__
.~5 ~ w6)
::0_ e 5} t>12 CD ~
5.05 g~_8.i~....u
oc u:5w .Ec~ ...:
--.- Q) .~~c E rn.c~.9
-gw€B..- ~'-:5B~rg
rn >.croo.~rn !G':;: .....9.-
-=.~~ '-E->o "E
'E~~O..-~....rnuro~o
(i)w.?-....gCT~~~~iij8
aID a.2N ID ~.Q dJ<(o.
o>W E8~ Oro.cD"'I:j' Q) ~ ~
.~.~ >Z~~~"S~o'>
-g~(fJroQ;C:"":'1i)u~roQ)
5W ~ a"E g (fJ .ti) Q) ~ a ~
>.~o.'i3JO g~ c ~a...:O::;.8
CU-~c.bCD8U5a...~c
rn ccr:ow__ (JaW
-Q)~ro'-cU)(ijQ) -E
0:5 E.c ~8 w.croU).!:!? c
~~~ oCt:: 1.2 wo:?:.s 2
ffi 'E e :s 0 "'@ ~ ~ ~ '0 .S .~
~CDo.rn~a.6..23.cEw
~ a.S~i5~_m2'E2"O
'v a-g 0 c a5 ~ a Q) C:~~
,f;:grn~~~E~.sCD(fJ....
0='0>.2 . E ~ =' '0 Cti a :E
:::t;.5.~"E CD ro~.c 0.:0::; c
.g a~ e:g a~ a~:~~'g>
0... u O>Q.m.9 E u w"O\;:::W
u
o
~
;<;
g;
;;:
~
N
0.
~
~
~
~
o
en
~
.5
;;:
2
."
;;;
M
o
E
o
o
~
~
13
'"
0.
E
13
~
'6
c
'=-
"'
51
Case No.IS-99-23
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: James C. Hurrell
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 125 Dahlia Avenue
Imperial Beach, CA 91932
(619) 423-5386
4. Name ofProposaI: Park View Estates
5. Date of Checklist: October 18, 2002
Potentially
Significant
Impad
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
"
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
o
o
o
"
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
o
o
o
"
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
o
o
o
"
Comments: The proposed five-lot single-family residential subdivision is consistent with the existing
R- I -5P zoning designation and the low-medium residential General Plan designation of the property.
No agricultural resources are present on-site or in the immediate vicinity.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
~~
_n~ _".._"_".__._.__.__.________._.____-...~_._.__._.,__,____
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, espccial1y affordable
housing?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
II
o
o
II
o
o
o
o
o
"
Comments: The proposed project would induce minimal population growth and would not displace
housing. The project would retain an existing residence and provide four additional single-family
residences. The project would not require the extension of major infrastructure since there are
adequate water and sewer lines and access to the project site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impa<:1
o
o
o
"
o
o
"
o
o
o
o
II
o
o
II
o
o
"
o
o
2 '35
-^, -~,..._~^~-- -~'-""-"-----'---"'.'--"-'~'-'^----'- -..------..- -.--
1) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 " 0
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion, which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 "
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentiany
Significant Lesstban
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 " 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 "
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 " 0 0
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 " 0
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 "
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 0
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 "
0 0 0 "
3 '3y
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water D D D "
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Jmpact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or conn-ibute to D D "
D
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D
"
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, D D D
"
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? D D D
"
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or D D "
D
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
a) Grading and construction of the proposed four single-family residences would temporarily
create dust and emissions associated with activity !Tom consn-uction equipment and vehicles.
These short-tenn emissions are not considered significant impacts. Standard dust conn-ol
measures would be implemented, including watering exposed soils and sn-eet sweeping. The
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) projected to be generated by the proposed project is 40 trips.
These few n-ips would not contribute significantly to the degradation of local air quality.
b) See V.a. above.
c) The proposed development of four single-family residences on the project site would not alter
air movement, moisture, or tempe.rature, or cause any change in climate.
d) Neither development nor operation of the proposed four single-family residences is anticipated
to create any objectionable odors.
e) See V.a. above.
4
3'C
" _.,-.--_.__...._..._'_._'_._--_._-----~----_.,--,_.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Imps!;:! Impact
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTA TION/CIRCULA TION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 " 0
b) Hazards to safety /Tom design features (e.g., 0 0 0 "
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 "
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 "
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 "
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 "
a1ternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 "
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 "
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average dai1y vehic1e trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehic1e trips.)
Comments: The City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards require that all street segments operate at
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. The Engineering Division estimates that the project wou1d
generate 40 average daily trips. This is considered to be an insignificant number of vehic1e trips
relative to the capacity of both Date Street and Main Street, both of which would remain at an
acceptable LOS C or better with the addition of project traffic. Date Street project site rrontage
improvements, consisting of the construction of a half cul-de-sac with a radius of 30 feet, would be
required as a condition of the tentative map.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
5
3&
---~ ~,.,..,~----'" -._----_._----,_.__.._~_.__..,.,-
Potentially
Significant I,essthan
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 " 0 0
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 " 0
0 0 0 "
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 "
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 " 0
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 " 0 0
efforts?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 18]
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 18]
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 18]
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
6 3)
Comments:
a) The proposed project does not conflict with the recently adopted CO, Reduction Plan.
b) The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and, therefore, should not resuH in the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner.
c) The project is not located within an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined
in the City's General Plan. No significant energy and mineral resource impacts would resuH
from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. 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)?
D
D
D
o
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan'!
D
D
D
o
c) The creation of any heaHh hazard or potential
heaHh hazard?
D
D
D
o
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential heaHh hazards?
D
D
D
o
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
D
D
D
o
Comments: Project implementations would not pose a health hazard to humans. The project site is
slated for residential development according to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The project
involves the division ofland and eventual construction of four single-family residences. No significant
hazards to human heaHh safety would be created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
7 -3%
,.~~,_....__..__..,---,"_.~._"-....~~._""."._,-,._.._..
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
SignifICant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 t<I 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise leve1s? 0 0 0 t<I
Comments:
a) The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (19.68.030) establishes residential land use noise
standards at or beyond the property line during specified hours. Temporary construction
would occur at the site; however, the short-term nature of the noise, and the fact that the
proposed use will remain residential, render the potential noise factor to less than significant.
Construction noise would be limited to daytime hours. The project will be required to
comply with the City's adopted performance noise standards. No significant adverse noise
impacts to residential uses are noted with standard construction practices.
The project site is in close proximity to the Otay Valley Regional Park and Preserve area of
the City's Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Potential noise
impacts to sensitive species off-site are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Section E, under Biological Resources - Indirect Impacts.
b) See X.a. above.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentiall,.
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 t<I
c) Schools? 0 0 0 t<I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 t<I
roads?
8
9;
e) Other governmentaJ services?
o
o
o
~
Comments: Both the Police and Fire Departments indicate that current levels of service wouJd not be
impacted by the proposed project. The applicant will need to obtain a letter of clearance from each of
the affected school dis1ricts, and payment of developer fees will be required which will be made a
condition of approval of the tentative map. The project would no have an adverse effect upon or resu1t
in a need for new or altered governmental services.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentiallr
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Less than
Unless Significant N.
Mitigated Impact ImJNIt1
0 0 ~
XlI.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
o
As described below, the proposed project does not result in significant impacts to any of the
Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
ca]]s within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of
the cases. The City of ChuJa Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met.
The proposed project wouldcomply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Fire Department indicates that the distance to the nearest fire station is 3 miles. The
Fire Department has made a number of recommendations that wi]] become apart of the conditions of
approval of the tentative map including the requirement for a fire hydrant, a fire lane along the north
side of the property and a cul-de-sac. According to the Fire Department, the current levels of service
can sti]] be provided to the project site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Police
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority J ca]]s
within 7 minutes or Jess and maintain an average responsc time to a]] Priority J calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.100/0 of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes
or less and maintain an average response time to a]] Priority 2 ca]]s of 7 minutes or less.
The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Police Department indicates that current levels of service would not be impacted by
the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
9 Vt.<
c) Traffic
o
o
o
ri!
I. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed
on all arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no
more than any two hours of the day.
2. West ofI-80S: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above
may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: The proposed project would generate a total of 40 vehicle trips daily. This is considered
to be an insignificant number of vehicle trips. No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation would result
from the project. The traffic engineering section indicates that the LOS "C" threshold would be
maintained on affected arterial segments with the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Signmcant Les.o;than
Potentially UnJess Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 ri!
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres of neighborhood and
community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805.
Comments: No park pad obligation will be required as the project site is located west of 1-805. No
adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities would result. The parks and recreation threshold
standard does not apply.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
ri!
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The
]Jroposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures arc required.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
ri!
10 VI
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects wil1 provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed
project would_comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Engineering Department calculates that the project would generate approximately
1,060 gal10ns of effluent per day. An S-inch sewer line is located in a utility easement flowing
westerly along the northern property line. The sewer main connects to another 8-inch main flowing
northerly along Date Street. No significant sewer impacts would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Water
o
o
o
181
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities be constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project would
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: No significant impacts to water storage, treatment and transmission facilities would result
from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentiall~' Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
11 <fJ....
Comments: The proposed project consists of four single-family residences and would not result in the
need for new systems or substantial alterations to any of the aforementioned utilities.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 0
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 0
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstTable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 0
d) Create added light or glaTe sources that could 0 0 0 0
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 0
Comments: No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site. According
to the City's General Plan, Date Street is not designated as a scenic roadway. The proposed
improvements such as continuation of Date Street and installation of a half cul-de-sac along with
landscaped improvements will only enhance the area. The small residential project will not create a
significant amount of spill light nor negative aesthetic effect onto the adjacent properties or roadways.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
o
o
o
o
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
o
o
o
o
12 1"3
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
o
o
o
~
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
o
o
o
~
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
o
o
o
~
Comments:
a) No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known or expected to be present within the
impact area of the proposal. The project site has been fully graded. See XV.e. below.
b) No buildings or structures are present within the impact area of the proposal and no prehistoric
or historic objects are known or expected to be present within the impact area. See XV.e.
below.
c) The proposed physical changes would not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
d) No religious or sacred uses exist within the impact area of the proposal.
e) The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for archaeological resources in
the City's General Plan EIR. The project site was previously graded to create the existing
level pad area for the existing single-family residence. Based on the level of previous
disturbance to the site and the relatively minor amount of additional grading that will be
necessary to accommodate the proposed single family residences, the potential for impacts to
archaeological resources is considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
o
o
o
~
Comments: The project site is identified as an area of moderate potential for paleontological resources
in the City's General Plan ElR. However, based upon the limited amount of additional excavation that
will be necessary to accommodate the proposed single-family residences, the potential for impacts to
paleontological resources is considered (0 be less than significant.
13 '-I If
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
D
D
D
Less than
Signifkant
Impact
D
D
D
No
Impact
r;;]
r;;]
r;;]
Comments: The applicant would not be required to pay park fees as the project site is located west of
1-805. No significant impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures arc required.
XVllI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings afsignificance. If an EJR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Docs 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 Jevels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Comments:
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
PoteDtially
Significant
Impact
D
14 '10
Potentially
Significant
Unless
I\Htigated
D
Less than
Signifi<:ant
Impact
r;;]
No
Impact
D
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-tenn,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
[;if
Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short-tenn environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-tenn goals. The project is consistent with both the Zoning Ordinance, General
Plan designation of the property, and the Southwest Redevelopment Specific Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
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
[;if
Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. No significant cumulative impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
[;if
Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project would
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGA nON MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, and Table I,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-23.
15 '1(:,;
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Property Owner and Operator stipulate that they have each read, understood
and have their respective company's authority to agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and will implement
same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. Failure to sign the hne(s) provided
below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Property Owner's
and Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Property Owner and Operator
shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
~ It""'~:;, r/u ('f'- r (
Printed Name and Title of Property Owner
[or a orized epresentative]
10-/;( - 0 L.
Date
Printed Name and Title of Operator
[if different from Property Owner]
Signatnre of Operator
[if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENT AL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Population and Housing . Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
. Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
. Water D Hazards D Cultura1 Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Paleontology D Mandatory Findings of Significance
16 '17
XII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARA nON will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there wil1 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 wil1 be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
at least one effect: I) has been adequate1y 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 "potential1y significant
impacts" or "potential1y significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must ana1yze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because al1 potential1y
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
Jw ~1' ~
/ ~/ /~r;/. / ~~ .
Marilyn .F. Ponseggi ~
Environmenta1 Review Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
lol/ff/,J.;z
Date I
J :\Planning\MARIA \Initia1 Study\IS-99-23chklst.doc
17 Vi"
o
.
o
o
o
-", ~ \,
;.~1: -.....,
, /"',;-
TENTAT" E SUBDIVISION MAP APPX, >~ATION
.'
city of Chula vista
Planning Depa~wment
Filed:-..M-C vq /1-H
Receipt: 11?.3 70"7
Case No: .Pc-S-<;9-L?.5"'
"
,\; :'~tH",.;,t,~-,-~::,,:~~j~,:, " ~',;'-;'}'\St;;....~ ,., ':~'1" ,:':
"'..ANY /PROPOSED . CONTACT V: WITH PLANNING COMHISSIO!F"MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF. THE .'
SCHEDULED PUBLIC :;HEARINGS MUST" BE DIRECTED THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
. SECRETARY AT 691-5101.
;,","'.
,""
"::<;,
. ;;,
,--:v
Subdivision Name: Park View Estates
CV Tract No. ff-Os'
,'j.'.-,
;Project Location:
387 Date St., Chula 'Vista
Assessor's Nwnber(s): 631-012-08
Proposed Use: Single Family Residential
Zoning Rl-5P
Project Area: 46 , 000 S.F. No. of Lots: 5 No. of Units
~
MinimUIIl Lot Size: 5623 . Sq. Ft. Average Lot Size: 7680
General Plan Designation: RLM
Owner/Developer:. James C. Hurrell
Address: 6009 Winchester St., San Diego CA 92139
885-0280
P'.. 479-0528
.uone .
Contact Person:
James Hurrell
tHS:S-OL80
P:hone 479-0528
Engineering Fi=.:..Algert Engineering, Inc.
. Address :" 4 2 8 Broadway, Chula vi s ta CA 91910
P:hone 420.,.7090
.'{
. ,.,."'....p..o n'e 420'-709'0,
. :. ..,..,. .-.' J.J. .".-,~ .-'t. ". '." '--';~. ;':. .' "
;~~;,:;,--:.-,<
..Coritact:~person:; . James. H.Algert ..' .
"" >,--;~:~-~:::~:.-~:~, \:,',,:,.-~ <',,:
. .::: :-<;;,,' ,-' ,,',
.
,-....-,"";.,- ," -:
,- ":;i;;' }~:.
'.""- ",',,- -"'..".-"
"<if;-~:~;(< /7;~,;"
,,,,
other:
Phone
Address:
phone
'-,L{\:'-~'+<'-': -'
Contact Person:
Phone
..
James Hurrell
~
Slgnature Df Appllcant/Agent
11/04/98
L(9 Date
(.
TI-lE CIT'rOF CHUlA VISTA DISCLOSURE STA',.:.;;-iENT
You are required to file a Slatement of Disclosure of certain owner>hip or financial interests, payments, or campaign
contributions, on all malters 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.
James C. Hurrell
Yvonne D. Hurrell
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner>hip interest in the partnership.
3. If any per>on' 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.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelvc months? Yes_ No_ If yes, please indicate person(s);
5. Please identify each and every per>on, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
James H. Algert, Algert Engineering, Inc.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Couneilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
, ,
Date:
11/04/98
Signature of contractor/applicant
James C. Hurrell
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
6-6
. Pc:rSOfl i.:,. defitled as: "Any itlljj~,jtW.al, [inn. co-partnership, joim w:ntu.rc, QJ.Socimiofl., social club, jratmwl orgalliWEiOff, corporation, ~tatc, aust., reccivu, ~care,
this and any other county, cic)' and coumry, city muniCipality, cb.rm:cl, or Ollla political subdi~'ision, or all)' other group or comhiltatiorl actillg.as a WUL. ..
..---..-.----- - --..---..---.-----.--......--.....--
Permit Applfcant:
Applicant" Address:
Type of p.rmit:
Alilr~ement Date:
Deposit Amol.l'1t:
Development Penmit Proce,sinlil Alilreement
James C. Hurrell
~j~~~~wi~nes~er
;::'"C. ,
San Diego CA 92139
Thll Agreement ("Agr.ement") bet..en the City of Chul. Yilt.. . ch.rtered ounlclpol corpor.tlon ("City") .nd the
forenamed .ppllc.nt for. dev.lopment permit ("Appllc.nth), .ff.ctlv. .1 of the Agr....nt Dlt. I.t forth .bove, II made .Ith
reference to the followfng facts:
Whereas, Applicant has applied to the Cfty for a penmit of the type aforereferenced (NPenmltM) which the City has
required to be obt.ined.l. condition to permitting Applic.nt to.dev.lop. porc.l of property; and.
Wh.r.... the City will Incur ..pens.. in order to proc,," ..id permit through the v.rlous deportment I .nd before the
various boards Ind commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); Ind,
Uhereas, the purpose of thil alilreement fa to reimbur,e the City for III expenses It will Incur in connection with
providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby IliIree, In exchange for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows:
1. Applicant" Duty to Pay.
Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses Incurred In providing Processing Services related to Applicant" Penmit,
includinlil all of City" direct Ind overhead cost. related thereto. Thi. duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein I'
"Applicant's Duty to Pay."
1.1. Applicant" Deposit Duty
As partial performance of Applicant" Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amo\l'lt aforereferenced (IIDeposit").
1.1.1. City shall charge Its lawful expenses Incurred In providing Processing Services Igainst Applicant'.
Deposit. Jf, after the conclusion of processfne Applicant's Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return
said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Pe~it, the amount of the
Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the City, upon notice of same by
City, Applicant ,hell forthwith provide such Idditional deposit IS City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue
to provide Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement .ald deposit IS h,rein reqUired
shall be known IS "Aipplicant" Deposit Duty". .
2. City'a Duty.
City ahall, upon the condition that Applicant is not In breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit
Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's Penmit application.
2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant" Penmft application,
or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City.
2.2. By ..ecution of this .gr.ement, Appllc.nt Ih.ll h.ve no right to the Permit for which Appllc.nt h.s .pplled.
City Ihal~ use its discretion in evaluating Applicant'. Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for
the Processing Services, or the execution of the Agreement.
3. Remedies.
3.1. Suspension of Processing.
In Idditlon to III other rlghtl Ind remedies which the City shill otherwls. have It law or equity. the City his the
right to sus~nd and/or withhold the processing of the Penm't which II the subject ..tter of thil Agreement, I. well as the
P.rmit which nay be the .ubj.ct natter of .ny oth.r P.rmlt which Appllc.nt h.1 before the City.
3.2. Civil Coll.ctlon.
In Idditlon to .ll oth.r rlghtl .nd remedl.s which the City .hlll oth.r.ll. h.v. .t I.. or equity, the City h.. the
right to coll.ct .11 lums which .re or nay become due hereunder by civil .ctlon. and upon instituting litlgltlon to coll.ct
same, the prevailing ~rty shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fee. and costl.
1
51
(.
JIIiscelllneous.
~., ~otlc...
All notlc.., demand. or requests provided for or permitted to be glv.n pursuant to this Agr.ement must be in
,rltlng. All notic.., demand. and reque.ts to be ..nt to .ny party shall be deomed to hav. be.n properly glv.n or s.rved if
~r'onally lerved or deposited in the United Stites matl. Iddressed to .uch perty. postage prepaid, registered or certified,
,;th r.turn rocelpt requ..ted, .t the .ddr....1 Id.ntlfled .dj.c.nt to tha .ignatur.s of the partl.s repr.s.nted.
4.2 Governing llw/Venue.
Thl. Agreemont Ihall be gov.rned by and construed In .ccordanco with tho lows of tho Stoto of California. Any
,ctlon ari.lng und.r or r.latlng to thll Agroement shall be brought only In tho federal or atoto courts located In SIn DI.go
.ounty, St.te of CIliforn{a, and If applicable, the City of Chull Vi It., or as clole thereto I' possible. Venue for this
~retment, Ind performance hereunder, Ihall be the City of Chuta VI.tl.
~.3 Multipl. Slgnatorl.l.
If there are multiple signatorle. to this agreement on beh.lf of Applicant, .ach of auch .I~torfes .hell be
olntly ond sev.rally llobl. for tho performanco of Applicont'l dutio. horain sot forth.
~.~ .Ignatory Authority.
The signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that h. f. the duly designated agent for the
ppllcsnt and hI' beon duly authorized by the Appllcsnt to oxecute this Agroement on behalf of tho Applicant. Signatory
hall be personally liable for Applicant'. Duty to PlY and Applicant's Duty to Deposit In the .vent h. has not been
~thorized to execute this Agre~nt by Appliclnt.
4.5 Hold Hanmless.
Appticant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, Its .lected and appointed officers and employees, from
~ against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writl, orderl, Injunction or other
~tiet, damages, liability, cost and expense (including wfthout limitation attorneys I fees) .rising out of City's actions In
~ocessing or Issuing Applicant's Permit, or in .xerciling any discretion related thereto Including but not limited to the
iving of proper environmental review, the holding of public he.rings, the exten.ion of due proces. right., except only for
'lose claims, suits, actions or proceedings aristng frail the lole negttgenc. or .ole wiLlful conduct of the Chy, ft.
fticers, or ~loyels Mnown to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's Indemnification shall Include any and
II costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability Incurred by the City, It officers agentl, or employ.es in defending
;8inst such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. further, Applicant, It It I own expense, shall, upon
-itten request by the City, defend any such suit or .ction brought against the City, Its officer., agent., or employees.
~plicant's Ind~ification of City shall not be limited by any prior or aubsequent declaration by the Applicant. At its
~le discretion, the City may participate at Its own expense In the defense of any luch Ictlon, but luch participation shall
~t relie~e the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition.
4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
~o suit or arbitration shall be brought .rfllng out of thf, agreement, against the City unlell I claim has first
'en presented In writing ond filed with tho City of Chula Vllts and acted upon by tho City of Chulo VI It. In occordaneo with
'e procedure. .et forth in Chapt.r 1.3~ of tho Chulo Vllto Municipal Codo, 01 some baY from tIme to time be emended, the
~ovisions of which are Incorporated by this refer.nce II If fully let forth herein. and such policies Ind procedures used by
1e City In the Implementotlon of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall ..ot end confor In good faith with City for
'e purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of thil Agreement.
Now therefore, the partie. hereto, having road end understood the t.nos and conditions of this ogreement, do hereby
~press their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date let forth adjacent thereto.
Hed:
City of Chull Vllto
276 Fourth Av.nue
Chule VI Ita, CA
Hed: 12/09/98
by:
Ja es C. Hurrell
a
by:
2
5",t