HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/01/09
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALUMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 5,2001
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: SUPS 01-05; Special Use Permit to construct a 1,240 sf car
wash, 840 sf 2-bay lube area, and a 435 sf customer
service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking
and driveway circulation,
Project Planner: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan,
Project Manager: Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Mgr.
b. PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations,
Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan,
Affordable Housing Program and other regulatory
documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386
acres in Village Six of Otay Ranch located generally in the
north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of
Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road, north of Birch
Road and west of future SR-125.
Project Manager: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
Planning Commission
.2.
January 9, 2002
ADJOURNMENT:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) 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, December 52001
Conference Rooms 2&3
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, (hula Vista
ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair O'Neill, Commissioners Hall, Cortes, Thomas,
McCann, Willett
Commissioner Castaneda
Absent:
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Ann Moore, Deputy City Attorney II
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Read into the record by Chair O'Neill
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 01-88; Conditional Use Permit to establish a child
development center/preschool in an existing church building
and surrounding grounds. Applicant: Episcopal Community
Services
Commissioner Cortes stepped down from the dais.
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that the project consists of
establishing a child development center/preschool in the existing church building at
1320 Fourth Avenue, accommodating a maximum of 100 students (ages 3-5) with an
opening day enrollment of 68 students. The hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday with staff only being present on Friday.
A 5,000 sf play area is proposed in the vacant recreation area behind the missionary
dormitory and would be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines. At capacity, there
will not be more than 25 children on the playground at a time, as outdoor play will be
staggered in four 45-minute intervals.
City staff conducted an Initial Study (IS 01-059) of possible environmental impacts
associated with the project and the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
December 5, 2001
there would be no significant environmental impacts, therefore, a Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution PCC 01-88
recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Negative
Declaration and approving the CUP establishing a child development center/preschool
for up to 100 children.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the State was requiring any modifications to the
existing buildings based on the number of children it will be servicing.
Ms. Vander Bie responded that all State of California requirements related to health and
safety will need to be met prior to them issuing a license.
Commissioner O'Neill inquired if any studies have been conducted to evaluate any
traffic and circulation impacts.
Ms. Vander Bie stated that a traffic study was conducted as part of the Initial Study,
which concluded that there were no significant traffic impacts and no further
improvements were necessary.
The Commission collectively expressed concern with the circulation and
maneuverability of cars dropping off children within the parking lot.
Ms. Vander Bie clarified that this is the type of facility where children are not dropped-off
like they are in an elementary school. These are smaller children whose parents drive
into the parking lot, park and get off their cars to escort and sign-in their child. It would
be no different than any other striped parking lot (i.e. supermarket) where there is
sufficient room to back out of the stall and exit the lot.
Public Hearing Opened 6:35.
Christina Breining, 121 Woodlawn #A, Chula Vista stated that head-start programs are of
great value to underprivileged families. She indicated she is a "head-start mom" and her
child has gone through the head-start program. Ms. Breining further stated that had it not
been for head-start helping her with child care, which enabled her to get on her feet and
find employment after going through a divorce, she and her child would have most likely
ended up on the streets or on public assistance. She therefore urged the Commission to
approve the project.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
December 5, 2001
Gene Merlino, 1261 Third Avenue #8, Director of Child Development Services who
oversees the head-start programs in the South bay stated that churches offer an optimal
location for head-start programs that are able to utilize facilities that have large
auditoriums and/or classroom buildings, with adequate parking that are not used during
the work-week. She also stated that traffic congestion would not be a problem because
children are dropped off at different hours in the morning. She urged the Commission
to approve the project and stated she was available to answer questions.
MSC (McCannlThomas) (5-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution
PCC 01-88 recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the
Negative Declaration and approving the CUP establishing a child development
center/preschool for up to 100 children, Motion carried.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to permit an existing second
dwelling unit as an accessory second dwelling unit behind the
primary single-family residence at 736 Church Avenue.
Applicant: Daniel Contreras.
MSC (McCannlThomas) (6-0-1-0) to continue public hearing to February 13, 2002.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT at 6:45 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2002.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:----1
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
ITEM TITLE:
Continued Public Hearing: Special Use Permit SUPS-OI-05, proposal to
construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area, and a 435-sq.
ft. customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and
driveway circulation.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee
recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-OI-038) and approval of the
proposed project at their December 3, 2001 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution SUPS-
01-05 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the Special Use Permit, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the draft
Redevelopment Agency resolution (Attachment 6).
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The site is a flat parcel ofland at the corner of Third and Montgomery, previously developed with
two single-family homes. There is still an existing single-family home located at 304 Montgomery
Street that will be demolished as part of this project. There is also a large open yard area where
another single-family home existed on the same lot at 1616 Third Avenue, the same address for the
proposed project, but was lost in a fire years ago. Some of the existing trees along Montgomery
Street and the rear property line, such as a Queen Palm and some Cypress trees, will be retained.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The property is located at the northwest corner of Third Avenue at Montgomery Street. The Otay
neighborhood (as it is known as according to the Montgomery Specific Plan) contains a number of
single-family, two-family and multi-family homes. There are also a variety of commercial uses along
Third Avenue, such as restaurants, automobile repair and painting, medical offices and storage
facilities along with the historic Otay Baptist Church one block south.
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN
Mercantile & Office Commercial
Mercantile & Office Commercial
Mercantile & Office Commercial
Mercantile & Office Commercial
Mercantile & Office Commercial
ZONING
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
CURRENT LAND USE
Single Family Residential
Auto Repair & Painting Facility
ResidentiallRestaurantlShoemex Imports
Los Panchos Mexican Restaurant
Multi-Family Apartment Complex
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
3. Proposal
The proposal is to construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area, and a 435-sq. ft.
customer service area, with accompanying landscaping, parking and driveway circulation.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was originally a much larger four-bay lube center with an automated car wash
facility when the application was submitted on January 31, 2001. The original site plan showed
complete on-site circulation of customer vehicles with a driveway on the side of the Third Street side
of the lube center and car wash. However the project did not consider the required Third Street
dedication as well as the required landscape setbacks along Third Avenue and Montgomery Street.
As a result, there were considerable circulation and landscaping issues to be resolved, and these issues
were discussed in meetings between staff and the applicant(s) in March, June, and July 2001. In
October, the applicant submitted the current site plan that substantially addresses concerns about the
on-site circulation driveways and vehicle queuing, reduces the size of the lube center from four bays
to two, and allows for substantial landscaping along Third Avenue and Montgomery Street.
The Design Review Committee recommended adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of the proposed project on December 3, 2001. However, additional
discretionary review is required since car washes and automotive repair facilities require a conditional
use permit in the Central Commercial Zone. Since the proposal is also in a Redevelopment Project
Area (Southwest Project Area), it is called a Special Use Permit. Special Use Permit's are subject to
final approval by the Redevelopment Agency.
Normally, a Special Use Permit would be sent to a Project Area Committee (in this case the
Southwest Project Area Committee) for recommendation prior to the Redevelopment Agency public
hearing. However, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and pursuant to the
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the Planning
Commission has been designated as the reviewing body to provide recommendations for development
projects to the Redevelopment Agency Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves the Special
Use Permit, the Redevelopment Agency will hold a public hearing on January 15, 2002 for final
approval of the proposed project.
Staff attempted to "fast track" this request for approval before the end of 200 I and originally
scheduled it for the Planning Commission agenda of December 12 and the Redevelopment Agency
agenda for December 18. However, after the staff reports were distributed, the City Attorney's office
noticed several issues and suggested that the matter be continued to prevent unnecessary confusion.
This report addresses all the City Attorney's concerns. Unfortunately, all available copies of the site
plan were distributed in December. If the Commissioners have not retained those plans, they should
contact staff to arrange for another set prior to the meeting.
2.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
ANALYSIS:
The Zoning Code requires compliance with specific criteria for both (1) Automated Car Wash
Facilities and (2) Automotive Repair Facilities as described and analyzed below:
1. Compliance with Section 19.58.060 of the Zoning Code
Automobile Car Wash facilities must comply with the following
A All equipment used for the facility shall be soundproofed so that any noise emanating there
from, as measured from any point on adjacent property, shall be no more audible than the
noise emanating from the normal street traffic at a comparable distance.
B. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 AM to I] :00 PM (maximum), unless specifically
approved by the Planning Commission.
c. Vacuuming facilities shall be located to discourage the stacking of vehicles entering the car
wash area and causing traffic congestion adjacent to any areas used for ingress or egress.
D. The car wash location, technology and related drainage facilities shall be designed and
constructed so as to prevent damage to pavement or other infrastructure rrom water rrom the
car wash operation being carried off-site, to provide a means to collect and retain potentially
toxic material, and to use recycled water to the extent possible.
With regard to Section A, the project should meet or exceed these requirements of the code, and will
be required as a condition of approval. According to the acoustical study, the equipment will be
soundproofed sufficiently with the block walls to reduce the audible noise to normal street traffic.
Dr. Leslie E. Penzes, Acoustical Consultant, completed an acoustical study for the proposed
Lightning Auto Center based on noise measurements taken at two similar car wash and lube center
operations in the San Diego area, noise measurements taken at the site, and acoustical modeling. The
acoustical analysis determined that noise generated by the car wash blowers would exceed the City's
noise standards by 10 dB (A).
To reduce the noise level at the property line to 60 dB (A), the project design was modified to extend
the western wall of the car wash building 30-ft. beyond the entrance of the car wash, and to extend
the wall at the exit of the car wash by ] O-ft. The height ofthese proposed "wing-walls" will be ] 4-ft.
The building extensions do not interfere with site clearance. The western wall of the car wash
building is adjacent to the multi-family residential apartment building, and a 5-ft. setback is provided
between the building and the property line. The extension of the walls, as shown on the site plan,
reduces the noise level at the property line to less than 60 dB (A); therefore, no mitigation measure
was required because the design of the project has been modified to reduce the noise level at the
property to less than significant.
With regard to SectionB, the hours of operation being requested will only be rrom 8: 00 AM to 6:00
3
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
PM in the summertime, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM in the wintertime. Thus, the hours of operation will
be significantly less than those allowed by the Code (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM). The hours of operation
will be memorialized as part of the conditions of approval.
With regard to Section C, the site plan and operational description state that stacking will be
controlled at the vacuum manifold entrance into the car wash. The number of cars allowed to queue
on-site for the car wash will be six (6), and the number of cars allowed to queue on-site for the lube
center will be two (2). The Third Avenue frontage will be red curbed to prevent queuing off-site that
could impact traffic flow. Directional signage will be provided directing vehicles that cannot enter the
site to make a right turn on Montgomery Street and return to the site by driving around the block.
Vehicles in the northbound travel lanes on Third Avenue will be prevented from entering the facility
by a raised median and directional signage.
Finally, with regard to Section D, the toxicity of the drainage into storm water and sewerage systems,
as well as the use of recycled water is addressed in the mitigation measures and conditions for
pollutant discharge permitting as required by the water resources agency.
2. Compliance with Section 19.58.260 of the Zoning Code
Automobile Repair facilities must comply with the following:
A. Repair, except as stated in Paragraph B, of motorcycles, motor trucks, and motor vehicles, as
defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, as well as boats, campers, and trailers is
prohibited in any residential zone unless all of the following conditions are met:
I. Repair (except as stated in Paragraph B) of vehicles, boats, campers, and trailers shall be
conducted within a garage or carport or behind a solid fence, gate, or wall not less than
six feet in height;
2. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, and trailers shall be conducted as a business;
3. No repair of vehicles, boats, campers, and trailers shall take place between the hours of
10:00 PM and 8:00 AM;
B. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the making of minor repairs, such as tire
changing or repair, replacement of spark plugs and minor engine adjustments or repair,
lubrication, battery and brake adjustments or repair by an owner on the vehicle on said
owner's lot, where said vehicle may be legally parked as determined by other sections of this
code.
C. Storage ofInoperable Vehicles.
I. No more than one vehicle, or one boat, or one camper, or one trailer shall be in a state of
disrepair or in an inoperable condition at anyone time on any lot.
2. No vehicle in a state of disrepair or in an inoperable condition may be located outside ofa
garage or carport or solid fence, gate or wall, not less than six feet in height for a period
of more than 72 hours.
tf-
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
3. No parts of a vehicle, boat, camper, or trailer shall be located outside ofa garage, carport,
or solid fence, gate or wall not less than six feet in height for a period of more than 72
hours.
The proposed project must meet or exceed the requirements of this section ofthe Zoning Code, and a
condition of approval is recommended requiring such compliance.
With regards to Section A, the requirement to conduct all automotive repairs within a screened or
enclosed building area shall be exceeded by a requirement to conduct all automotive repairs within the
lube center building. In addition, since the operation shall be limited to the hours of8:00 AM to 6:00
PM maximum, there will be compliance with this section of the code that prohibits repairs between
1000 PM and 8:00 AM.
Section B would not apply to this application since it is directed at the repair and maintenance of an
owner's vehicle on their own property and not commercial repair operations.
With regards to Section C, no storage of inoperable vehicles shall take place outside the confines of
the lube center building at any time, excluding the Code allowance for a period ofless than 72 hours
Zoning:
As shown in the table, the Central Commercial with a Precise Plan zoning (CCP) requires the
following development standards for the proposal:
STANDARD REQUIRED REQUIRED PROPOSED
(CCP Zone) (Specific Plan)
Front yard: 25 feet 15 feet (LIS) 15 feet
Exterior Side yard: 25 feet 15 feet (LIS) 40 feet
Interior Side yard: o feet Same as zone 40 feet
Rear yard: o feet Same as zone 5 feet
Lot Coverage: 50 percent Same as zone 20 percent
Height: 45 feet Same as zone 17 feet
Parking: 7 spaces Same as zone 6 spaces
The car wash facility is adjacent to a residential use, but not a residential zone. The apartment
building to the west is actually located in the same CCP zone. The project will include a 5-ft.
landscaped setback from the apartments, along with two 14-ft. high masonry "wing-walls" to match
the height and design of the exterior wall of the car wash. This will mitigate the noise and visual
impact ofthe car wash on the adjacent residential use
Parking:
The parking requirement is based on the two proposed uses. The car wash is required to provide one
parking space for each employee, and the lube center is considered an automobile repair or service
garage, requiring one space for each 400-sq. ft. of floor area. The operational profile states that up to
s-
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
seven persons could be employed on-site; five for the car wash and two for the lube center. The
parking standard for the 840-sq. ft. lube center would require 2 parking spaces utilizing either the
square footage standard or the employee standard. Therefore, 7 parking spaces would be required,
but only six parking spaces are shown on the proposed site plan.
According to the operational profile, at least three car wash employees, based on employee salary
range, will almost certainly take alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking, public
transportation, ride share or being dropped off as a method for commuting to work. Staff feels that
the six parking spaces provided could be adequate. However, reductions in parking must be
approved by a zone variance. The Zoning Administrator could handle such an application for this
project administratively, and the applicant has indicated that they favor this solution as opposed to
providing an additional parking space that they feel won't be used. The applicant has yet to apply for
the variance but would not like this application to be delayed any longer. Staff is therefore
recommending that approval of a variance for a reduction in parking be made a condition of approval
for this Special Use Permit (Condition I J).
Landscaping:
The landscaping proposed for this project will enhance the overall site, primarily by buffering the
harsh uses of the car wash and lube center with large planter areas on all sides, except along the alley
to the north. The Third Avenue (front) building setback is 25-ft. per the CCP zoning; however, the
project will require a l2-ft. dedication of property along Third Avenue. After the dedication, the
front building setback will be l5-ft., which meets the required landscaped setback per the
Montgomery Specific Plan for all new projects constructed along Main Street, Broadway, or Third
Avenue corridors.
The CCP zoning also requires a 25-ft. building setback along Montgomery Street (an exterior side),
with a landscape setback of 15-ft. per the Montgomery Specific Plan. However, the proposed site
plan shows a 10-ft. landscape setback. Staff feels that there are several options to redesign the
project that would allow for the additional 5-ft. landscape setback to be provided, while retaining
much of the existing layout for the project. However, the applicant would like to retain the narrower
landscape setback because the site would function better, and because Montgomery Street will have
an additional 3-ft. oflandscaping within the City's right-of-way behind the existing sidewalk.
The Community Development Department is in support of such a reduction in the landscape setback
because the project will still be able to provide an adequate landscape buffer along the street, and it
represents the type of financial investment needed in the City's Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area. The Design Review Committee at their December 3, 2001 public hearing recommended
approval of the site plan with a lO-ft. landscape setback, based on the fact that an additional 3-ft.
would be provided within the City's right-of-way along Montgomery Street.
Nevertheless, the proposed site plan (showing the reduction in the required landscape setback) is
ultimately subject to review by the Planning Commission and final approval by the Redevelopment
Agency. If a reduction in the landscape setback is felt to be an acceptable design feature, it would
still need a zone variance comparable to parking variance discussed in the previous section.
(p
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
Therefore proposed condition 1.1 for approval of a variance for this project includes the landscape
issue along with the parking issue.
Staff and the Design Review Committee agree that the proposed landscape planter areas adequately
define the driveway entrances, the car wash and lube center queuing edges and transitions, and the
parking space areas.
The final landscape plan is required to be revised in conformance with the reviewing comments of the
Landscape Planner, to ensure that the planting materials utilized will be appropriate for long-term co-
existence with the high-intensity automotive uses found on the site.
Site Plan and Circulation:
The site plan under consideration reflects the applicant's responses staff's initial concerns with a
number of issues surrounding the use of the site. The applicant has reduced the size of the lube center
by half, so that it is now a 2-bay garage instead of a 4-bay garage, eliminated an on-site driveway
between the lube center and sidewalk on Third Avenue, met the landscape setback requirements, and
provided stacking for six cars entering the car wash.
By responding to these requests, conflicts will be mitigated or significantly reduced. The result is
what staff feels is an acceptable flow and circulation system for the amount of vehicular activity that is
expected on this site.
Of note, as part of the project development, the portion of Third Avenue will be widened and will
provide an additional travel lane along the entire frontage of the project in conformance with the
commercial arterial street designation, and will be red curbed to allow ease in access to the facility.
Architecture and Signage:
As noted previously, the Design Review Committee considered this project at their December 3
meeting. The Committee was satisfied with the overall design of the building and landscaping for the
site. However, they indicated that they would like to see more consistent and uniform signage with
regards to the channel lettering. Therefore, the condition of approval for signage requires that the
sign permit application include scaled plans ensuring that the channel letters for both the "Shell Rapid
Lube" and "Lightning Auto Center" consist of similar font style and size, in addition to the proposed
logos.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Locator Map
2. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. SUPS-OI-05
3. Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624)
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Application Documents with Disclosure Statement
6. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution and Owner Participation Agreement
J :\PLANNINGIHAROLDlSUPS-O I-OS.DOC
7
.-
,
.-,
-
ORANGE AVENUE~
j EffiEHtEj
mm"
j Effi[]
~
00 cQ]]] 0
00 ~
00
00
00
88 B
00
DO
.0
j~ ~ ~
] < ~ TREMONT STREET
: ~ rmmrrn
] ~ ~ WlLLlLW
u.. ~z[[[IT
MONTGOMERY STREET
o w w
o I I nJIIIJ !I lUill.
] ZI ENITH STREET
~ UillIIIJ
] MAJ" STREET ElIIIIII
~ \ i I rJIIt \lW w DJJJII
lOCATOR MAP
?
. 117T19CHMEIVT.1
.
RESOLUTION NO. SUPS-OI-05:
A7TACf-IMEAJT Z
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SUPS-oI-oS, AND
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS-01-o38, FOR THE DEVEWPMENT OF AN
AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AND TWO-BAY LUBE CENTER AT 16161HIRD A, vENUE.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a special use pennrt was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department on January 31, 2001 by F. Leland Hope, Architect; and
WHEREAS, said applicant requests permission to construct a 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. 2-bay lube area,
and a 435-sq. ft. customer service area, at 1616 Third Avenue and 304 Montgomery Street; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee determined that the initial study was adequate and recommended
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of the proposal on the environment on December 3, 2001
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Special Use Permit is a Conditional Use Permit in a Redevelopment Project Area, and would
normally be sent to a Project Area Committee (in this case the Southwest Project Area Committee) for recommendation
prior to the Redevelopment Agency public hearing. However, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and
pursuant to the Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the Planning
Commission shall provide recommendations for development projects located in the Southwest Project Area prior to the
projects being presented to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the authority
granted in the Zoning Ordinance and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said special 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 SOO-ft. of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was continued from the time and place advertised, from December 12, 2001 to January
9,2002 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 subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend
that the Redevelopment Agency approve Special Use Permit SUPS-OI-05 in accordance with the findings and subject to
the conditions and findings contained in the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolutions granting a Special Use
Permit and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Owner Participation Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Redevelopment Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th
day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Kevin O'Neil!, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
l'
J: \PLANNING\HAROLD\REsoLUTIoNS\RESOsupsOl_05.DOC
A IT/1 (H /L1 EJ.JT 3
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1536
(COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18624)
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISSOLVING THE SOUTHWEST PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE AND
ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE
RECOMMENDING BODY FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee was established pursuant to California
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33385, et seq.1 by City Council resolution
on July 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area was adopted in December 1990; and
WHEREAS, the California Redevelopment Law allows for established Project Area
Committees to be dissolved by local jurisdictions three years after adoption of the project area;
and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee expired by its own terms in December
1993, and the "Rules and By-Laws" were replaced with revised "Roles and Functions" by
Redevelopment Agency resolution in March 1993; and
WHEREAS, by Council Ordinance in November 1993, the Council dissolved the
Montgomery Planning Committee and seated the remaining members on the Southwest Project
Area Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Project Area Committee has only four current members on a
nine seat committee and is, therefore, not able to conduct business due to a lack of quorum; and
WHEREAS, staff has not been successful in recruiting members to serve on the Southwest
Project Area Committee pursuant to the established tules and procedures for filling such vacancies;
and
WHEREAS, staff has been processing development projects located in the Southwest
Project Area through the Planning Commission for recommendations prior to the projects being
presented to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the
authority granted in the Zoning Ordinance of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency do hereby dissolve the Southwest Project Area
Committee and establishes the Planning Commission as the recommending body for projects
located in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
@~~k~
~~
J. n M. Kaheny 0
ity Attorney and Agency ~'>8f
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
It)
Resolution 1536
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFTHE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 15th day of April, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES:
Members Moot, Rindone, Padilla, Horton, Salas
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
~~
Shirley rton
Chairm n
ATTEST:
~~~.
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No.
1536 and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated: Ap'ii 16, 1997
~~
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
If
Mitigated Negative Declaration
4"
PROJECT NAME:
LIGHT'\I!\G AUTO CENTER
PROJECT LOCATION:
1(,]6 Tlmd Ave (Third Ave. & Montgomery St.)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
626-132-10
PROJECT APPLICANT:
F. Leland Hope
CASE NO.:
IS-O I -03 8
DATE:
November 13, 2001
A. Proiect Setting
The 0.28+-acre (12,320 sq.ft.) site is located on the northwest corner of the Third Avenue and
Montgomery Street intersection (see Exhibit A - Locator Map). The surrounding area is fully
developed with the following land uses:
North - commercial (auto body and paint shop);
East - commercial (restaurant across Third A venue);
South - single-family residences (across Montgomery Street); and
West -multi-family residences.
The site is currently developed with a single-family residence. A chain-link fence surrounds
the perimeter of the property. The site is flat and contains non-native plant material. No
listed plant or animal species is known to occupy the site or surrounding area.
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes to remove the residence and construct an auto center that provides
automated carwash (1,240 sq.ft.) and fast lube service (721 sq. ft.) (see Exhibit B - Site Plan).
Water used in the carwash will be filtered, recycled and released into the City sewer system.
A 469 square foot customer area would be located between the lube center and carwash.
Stacking for six cars entering the carwash, and stacking for two cars entering the lube center,
is shown on the site plan. The property frontage on Third Avenue would be improved to City
(' mdards with curbs, guttc'. and, dewalks, which currently do not exist. Curb, gutter, and
s!dewalk currently exist 011 the Montgomery Street frontage. The maximum height of the
building would be 18 feet.
The lubrication services would be limited to basic oil changes and related service. Business
hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent estimates that approximately 75-100 cars
would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per day would be processed through
tbe lube center. Three employces would staff the car wash and two employees would staff
the lube center. Other employees include a manager and cashier.
/:2..
II/13/01
Automobiles would enter the car wash and lube area from Third Avenue near the intersection
with Montgomery Street (south end of the site). Autos from the car wash would exit to an
existing concrete paved alley at the northern property line. Autos from the lube area would
exit onto Third Avenue near the northern end of the site. Employee and patron parking is
provided adjacent to the northern property line. The parking area would be accessed from
the northern site entrance on Third Avenue.
C Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed auto center is consistent with the CCP (Central Commercia] - Precise Plan)
zoning designation, CMO (Commercial - Retail) General Plan designation, and the city's
environmental plans and policies. The project is also consistent with the Montgomery
Specific Plan, which designates the site as Mercantile & Office Commercial. The site is
located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and is consistent with the Redevelopment
Area Plan.
D. Public Comments
On February 22, 2001 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a
500-.foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended March 5, 2001.
No written comments were received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initia] Study conducted by the City ofChula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant
environmental effect, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an
Environmenta] Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
I. Geophysical and Water
The proposed project includes digging 8 feet in depth with the excavation of 964 cubic yards
of soil in preparation for the building basement construction. As a standard condition by the
Engineering Department, the applicant will be required to submit preliminary
grading/improvement plans. Although any grading operations will be performed in
compliance with the City of Chu]a Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended),
significant erosion impacts could occur during the excavation and construction period due to
disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in sedimentation in the storm drain system.
A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit is not
required because the site contains less than five acres. However, the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that are included as a mitigation measure during and after
construction would reduce erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain system
to a less than significant level. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
]evel by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices as specified on the
Site Plan. These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and
13
2
11113/0 I
shoring. Protective devices will be provided at evcry storm drain inlet to prevent sediment
from entering the storm drain system.
Groundwater could be contaminated if automotive fluid spills occur on-site, or if
contaminated water from the automobile washing equipment is spilled. These potential
impacts are addressed below (see Hazards). The applicant will be required to submit an
application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the County of San Diego Industrial
Wastewater Control Program, who wi]] determine if an Industrial User Discharge Permit is
required for the proposed auto center.
2. Paleontological Resources
The proposed project includes digging 8 feet in depth and the excavation of 964 cubic yards.
The site is noted as a moderately sensitive paleontological resource area given the history of
what has been found according to the Museum of Man, Paleontological Curator, and the City
of Chula Vista General Plan, however, based upon the relative shallow depth of digging and
the small area that is to be excavated there is no known significant paleontological resource
impact created by the proposed proj ect.
3. Air Qualitv
The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction-
related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impacts to air quality.
Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related emissions are potentially
significant, they are considered short-term in duration since construction is a relatively short-
term, one-time activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with City of Chula Vista grading standards and the rules and regulations of the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
3. Hazards
Groundwater contamination could occur if petroleum products or water from the equipment
washing facility is spilled. Demolition of the existing buildings could result in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers or lead paint residue if the structures contain asbestos materials or
lead paint. Release of airborne asbestos fibers or lead paint residue would result in a
significant health hazard.
4. Traffic/Circulation
Traffic circulation impacts could occur as a result of the proposed project, auto lube center
and car wash, at the comer of Third Avenue and Montgomery Street. Vehicle conflict could
occur with vehicles entering and exiting the project site, as we]] as internal circulation of the
vehicles using the car wash and auto lube facilities.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures will be
l'f
3
11113/01
made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program (Attachment "A").
Geophysical & Water
Erosion and Sedimentation
1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to the Engineering Department, shall be
implemented during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the
downstream storm drain system. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
level by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices. These devices
include desiJting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
Air Quality
Construction Related Emissions
2. An unpaved construction areas shan be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shan be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
3. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spins.
4. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall
be enforced.
5. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to
reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes
to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
6. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
7. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible
and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
8. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic
reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment
shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance
IS-
4
11/13/01
Hazards
Asbestos
9. The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of
CaJifornia to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos in buildings to be demolished.
A report shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department
that identifies whether or not asbestos is present. If r~quired, a remedial work plan for
the removal and disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department and San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District.
10. Prior to demolition activities, a lead-based paint survey is required. If confirmed lead-
based paint is scheduled for demolition an environmental consultant certified by the State
of California shall remove it. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the
required permits from all affected state and local and regulatory agencies including the
Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to
precede with this process of the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a
building permit.
Petroleum or Contaminated Water Spills
II. The applicant shall submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the
County of San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all
conditions contained in any permit issued.
12. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to hazardous
materials from state and local regulatory agencies, including the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide proof of having obtained such
permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for any
maintenance work done on-site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding those
listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98). Petroleum spills shall be immediately
reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from the site as directed
by the Fire Department.
Traffic/Circulation
14. Installation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third Avenue, between Montgomery
Street, and the south driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway.
15. The northern driveway shall be a minimum of 30-feet in width to allow for two-way
traffic access. The south driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and
striped for ingress only.
(~
5
11/13/01
16. Installation of red curbing along Third A venue frontage to prevent on-street parking.
I agree to implement the mitigation
Mitigated N Declaration.
measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this
Name, Tit e
II ;;4/0/
Date ~ ~
G. Consultation
I. City of Chula Vista:
Maria Muett, Planning Division
Jim Greering, Fire Marshall
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
John Schmitz, Planning Division
Steve Power, Planning Division
Frank Rivera, Engineering Division
Ralph Leyva, Engineering Division
Applicant:
F. Leland Hope
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title ]9, ChuJa Vista Municipal Code, September 1997
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City
of ChuJa Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910.
0~ &/I?~ ~.
Marilyn . F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: 11/1~/I9/
I t
17
6
11/13/01
J :\Planning\M ARIA \Initial Study\ISO 138mnd.doc
If
7
11/13/01
j~
~
] J:
t-
] ~
D
D
] l
]
\c
\ \
-
I
I
I
i
]
.J
/
I
j
STREET
I)' I! I !' I'
, I: I
II I I I
I ~ II,
I r
STREET
I
,
--------
--- ----~
,
I
i
'!iIIWlil!1I
!IIWI'I)'
I~ III ,---r-I
I tij r--TI ~
,.~'=l: ii.:
!:! I d=H
D" ,111m
L Ii] II ill',
ANITA STREET
!
L~
'w
::J
2
w
~
)
'0
12
,en
I~
MONTGOMERY
I ! I' I
!! I
I
I
ZENITH
I ~
II
" ~II
/1
MAIN
I
ORANGE
.-
--.--
: ; ~
i i //~/
I(
Ii
.-'\11
I;" /1.-----'
--- \---(l
8~~~~\~~Y
, V', ~I v-:
I '~i VI v-:
....------: l---1 L.---1 I
I -1 !____
r~ v I f-.-11
~~H~
8~/:1' I
~BU' ,
,
I
I
, I
II
AVENUE
~.~
-----
! 11m
, lillw
, !~I
ii' I
I :~
I
J
I I
,I ___- .-~-
, _ --:-r-j . -_./~---=
---------,/ i I I I l->----- .__ ~--
....--r;l I H nC-J.F i> C--
r::Jn 01 I ! I " r-:...~~... t::
no 'I' I : I iT' ~ :/..- .-
n. :J:r 'i--;---j ''''-' .<
~'=:J gl'~J; r- r-rJ I' i='-.',~' :::
LJ 0 I f--I J ~--'---: ~
C D I V)' 1<
a D ~~
n 0 '~
D D) I I..--+- , i<
DO n I c.--
00
~ :C:ll \ \ \ \ II \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
lllll i I lillJ IlllTTTTT
TREMONT STREET
IfTIlTTTIiI ' i I
Ii IIII Il I I III
i II j III I II 'I I illwll!1 I I
L...lLJJLlJ..u::J IllJ ,
2
W
I' 111111:~omllli,
i ! I i I I I J---j II
I'll ;~[]' II'"
. I I:;; I I
I III
I III I tID I
I~i
I I
I
I I i
, i '
: I
STREET
c
,~
!::I:
't-
ITII
i1111giITIII
I: ,LJ.lJJJ I
[
I
I
I"
, II I
I I I I
iI---o..,\(! U
J ! I \ . I
--.-J U\\ !I
i \ L-J ,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPART'MENT
PROJECT F. LELAND HOPE
APPUCANT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 1616 THIRD AVENUE
ADDRESS:
LOCATOR
No Scale
C :\:nyfiles\lo:21 0: S "J S 0 1 c: 3B.::::d r:"2 '07 /01
Ie;
FILE NUMBER:
IS - 01-038
Request: Proposed construction of a neighborhood auto service
center to include: a car wash and auto lube center.
EXH/Brr A
,c.,
I
'1
-;
i
-
i
__J
-_.~
~
!
~ -!
-
"
~
o
"
"
w t'0 z C>:
:5 w
~~ f-
CL Z
W
0 Q) u
z L w
I- 0
f-
::J en ::>
..:(
0'> ....J C>
<:
.- ::::> z
ill&S;'I:OI'I~"'O" " u.... I- z
! i5 ~ CL f-
~ 8_ ~i~~1 w I:
< C>
~e". Qt~~ -- ~ . () ...J
b:;:/: ~ ~o-> oGe ...~;!;~ Z
b~<"~ ~:t 'd"'~'"
d~~ &= ~3~~ ~ b~o ~r<~~ 0
. "'><"'co~ ()
o
,
o ~
.<
zO
oa
z"
<.
~;
""
BE
Lt--"
.',
I 0-'"
. ~1iI~ I
.rJ .~- &:
" ~~~ t"'
I ~g:- )
! ~~j
...~... I
n,
1l3S0d:)1Id
0"
~~...
xa::.
..~
~
~o
.o,ze I
~
~~8~
. xC
~~~~
!!1~O-""
1:;~~!!:
(---
0 I )
z
.
o. " I ~~
,. ~,:;.... I
~- o~~ ~~~
.
~~ '->
" . I ---~
... I
@
~~
o~J>! 0
=.... .
:;;t:J!!'i' ~t
B~~ ~ a~
'--
I \
0 .....,
.'
.. ,,!-,.:. .D-,;I
8~
U
~
~
0
0
'"
..;
Q.
"
~
0
0
c
2
0
"
~
'5
!!
<
" "
" ;0: '"
'" c
0 ..=
E co
0
W I
z
u :5
0::
:;) Q.
0 '"
'" z
o
,
"
----~
.
I
~
'o~
~~
"
~
r\-~ ~r\-11
I' 'I~I\ 'I
!VI :ilIVI
II\I~II\I
r/\'~I/\1
t_:1 ~r_:1
I
I
/
V
I
I
/
V
~
.
55
5"
v>
'-<
---,--------)
\ ]
'" I ~ I
~ 151
t ~. I ... I
~~"H-~ I ~ ~~ ! i!~ 1-.1'
~. [Q ......0 .....'
_ _~_~ ~ ., """"'I 0:>
"'" ~",,,;;::r '""''0,- -- --
~ .Q-.. .0-61,.J
""~, .JNOJ~NI.l.$IX3
~ t:!~:;:
<.>~i\~~ ~
0'" "'l9::~ <C:
"-,,, <> ~~~~ I!'!:,
<>gb! ~....",~< <>i7;
. ~- ",~....... ~o
;;;~ ~ ~g!;!~~....d
~'" !O!<'!i5,,~BiS
c:2.o
4
l!l
~
~
~ <(
~ Q.,
o '"
U~Z
"';s:u..I
~<(~
-'....1.:1
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Li~htnin~ Auto Center, IS-OJ-038
This Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista in
conjunction with the proposed Lightning Auto Center project (IS-OI-038). The proposed project
has been evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) 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 implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-OI-038.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation
of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Geophysical & Water
2. Air Quality
3. Hazards.
4. Traffic/Circulation
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista. The applicant shall
be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program are
met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form
confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-01-038 shall be
provided by the applicant to the Enviromnental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review
Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been
accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, lists the mitigation measures listed in
Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, 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.
~
(H:\home\planning\naria\IS-01 -049 MMRP text.doc)
<(
-
c::
Q)
E
.r:
(.)
:2
<(
I
I,' .
I
I
I...
.
I~ :,~
"-
oS!
c::
Q)
(.)
o
-
~
<(
. ..
! ',.!
. . ~
~
, ...
f';.
. ~
~ . E==
.:-- ~
. ".
.
.
.' .'
." ~.
/ ~
'" ~
. ~
. .
,
.
.
,
:::i
CO
M
.
...
o
,
~
I
I
I
~
c
E
E
o
U
"
" "
:< 0
~
C.
E
o
U
~'
-=,
~
:Q
-;;;0
c _
o .
~..
~
0:
- =
0.9:
~;;
c "
.- ~
E .-
.- -
... ,~
~
_ c
o 0
"r:::I'Z
c ~
-=",
!jot:
~ ~
"'>
~
-
~
.
~
::;:
c
.S
;;
.~
~
c Q
.2Z
- ~
. -
.~f;;
.- .
~ ~
"'~
'"
I
.":-
U
15-
0.>
Q
oD
"
'C
0.>
0.>
"
'0;,
"
'"
I
I
I
E
'"
.'!
0.'0
"-"
~ '"
--'
~ ~
o 0
"u
~~
~5a X
""u
-'
Col..'"
~ C
.. 0
u
~ c
- .
U5E:
.2
u
"
"-
~
.!:
.~
C/J
.8--gt::c~~
~ :: .~ 'E .s c
.= Co) 0"0 "'d 0
".. ~ ~ ~ a Q)-;::
, o-EI-og~
8~Q)~-g]
('C.: > ... OJ']
___ Q) e E !1).5
,..,VI.!:) 0. ('C ..0
~ "-"
-':::-:;0.;::::2:.::
~."...... VI::I
e.~ :::: c:: 0
-'.52 [; "
if: ::: u"O C
.S:! ~ ::! ~.~
g.5~_o
0': 8. 5.5 ~ E
o U c: E ~
Q ~ .9 E ~_-
~~...... t
.= ro ~ ~
k; -0 Q)...t::
.5 ;; .9 V)
on '0
"bJ) 0.>
w:::: VI
01 $'~ '"g
.co_""Oro
0:
~
,..
-<<:
~
'0<$
j.J c:
<( ~
8 tU
C/J bJ)
>- ~
== '"
~ ~
o
~
"
-
'" ;>,
8~
":;: -
Q) ~
'0 C
"
0""
~
1: ;i
8;;:; o;!
'" -
g..o 'C
>>._ tJ) 0
..0 (g s:::~
"i) ti.;;;~
> ""0 u ~
~ c::" V)~
'" "0.>
0.0 -g ~
"Ej ~ -o~
- - ~
.-'- Q)
c: VJ VI U
.~~ ~ ~
V) ._ t.;.;.
c C ~.....
rn e""O VJ
.s 0 <:.)
Q.V)vJ
E ~ ~
2I=..o
.:
iiJ
~ ~
~ ~
;>'0.>
~ -
'0 '0
~ ~ 0.
- "
gfi.O
.- !1) 01J
...... 2 a.5
c ~ OJ) ti
ro c... c:: 11)
~ ~.=
2: .f' '5 gf
~uoo'"
~ ~
o c
"u
~.~
'i: 5 ><
':;u
.t;
_ c
.. 0
u
~ c
- .
ii3E:;
"
.52
U
0.>
"-
.5
.~
C/J
a:: E ~"2 0
~~-oc~v
"i: ro (I) 8 -5 :D
5;--0 g...... ro'-
... -0 VI v.~
~'E~='3:>
........0 ""0 '0
c;;~.8o~~
~::I VI 01) I..,
V'J ""0 ..3.:: ~ ~
~ ~ :~ ~ ~ .~
c c.. ro::: .~
.g Q) -0 ~
_ g gft; ~ tU
g ceo.;:: 5:5::t)
~~~:E~.g
........ c-5~""Oo
r: OOd)""O,.D
r'""" U I-.!~
::s '"2 ~ tn ~
-<r;~.g~u;
5 go ~ 01).2
~ ;:j...:::.5.~
- =."'::: ~ E
-< ...::r:: :::""0 d)
('oj
o4:l.
""0""0 ""0 "'0 "'0"'0
" "-=, "" -=' "" ..
~~:+ CtICtI~ CtICtIo.
~ d) ~ Q.) ~ Q.)
gfi.Q ~i.0 gfi.O
'c 0 g '2 0 gf 'g 0 .&
C ;; O1)'c c a OJ) -;: C CtI 01) I-<
13 0:::.5 ~ 13 C:::.5 ~ ;j C:::.5 ~
:.:::: ""0.:::':::: "'0.5:.:::: ""0.5
"-;>':='~ "-;>'=='~ "-0== bJ)
0.."'::: ;:j co..-=:: ;:j c 0..._ ;:j C
~uoo"'<uoo"'~uoo'"
x
...:
.2
u
0.>
"-
.s
.~
C/J
;>,
"C
"
"-
o
5.~
~.~
'0
<;; "
.c '"
~
~
~ "
-C:"'O
"" "
-15 "
o
'O:;s
"'0
'" "
1:: .~
~ d)
"
1:: gf.g
: :; ~
~~ .9
'0 '0
VI >..,52 ~
c""O U d)
~.:: 2 >
CtI S E-< 8
M
x
...:
.g
"
0.>
"-
.~
.~
C/J
'0 0.>
,,""
>
8.~
".c
" ~
~
" ~
0.0'
~
"-
] 0.>
-s
'O.c
IU .~
15."
~ "
I-. .2
" u
o 0.>
.." "
~ "
0.> 0
"-,,
~ .5
EVJ-o
088
N~I-.
~<B
...::r:: ~ 5
.".
x
"
.52
u
0.>
"-
~
.!:
E
;;;
"'0 d) >. 0 ~
~ g..D - 0
1113"'0 tn.Q
I-. IU d)'-
o 0 ~ '5 CtI
E-CtIo"'O
o >. U I-.
"'021-.
~CtI~
:-:::~CtI
"- 0.> 5
~ 5
.~ E d)
1-.'_ _
.c 0..!S!
~ ;:j B
<;;
"'0 Q..'€ ..s:::
C d) CtI . <n
CtI ~ 0..'0 r.I:I
1:: "-< "5 0.>
~ ~ 0 d)'~
>
o "
e .g
<;;
"'0 ...: 'i:
"" "
.c".,;1;;
u ~ (ij 5
"'- "
e u ~
~d)~
<::..D~
.5
r.I:I~= c
~~.9
"'0 tn C
>'~&o
~- u r.I:I-
"'0 ~ ;:j.~
c5Z~
o r.I:I 1-.;>
'"
'0 '0
[ij ~ 1i
- 0.>
00......0
.!: \} ~
~ a Q.!:
a.!:! 00 ~
u 0....5 ~
:.= '0 .'"
~.q~ c
~uoo~
x
"
on
'"
0..
"
.52
u
0.>
"-
~
.5
E
;;;
0.>
""
<;;
.c
~
1::
:;:;
'0
"
1;;
0;
~
,
"
o
'';::
" "
55
~ ~
" "
o 0
" "
'0
"
1;;
>
'"
"
"
"
"-<
o .
~"'g
- ~
.- 0.>
"-1;;
~ "
.9 ~
~ 0
~-g
'Vi I-<
, "
" >
o 8
'JO
<I:
....
r:::
CI>
E
..r:::
(.)
~
<I:
,
Eo<
'"
~
'u
\~i;::;':::~
==
U
,~
C
o
~
c
z
....
!2
,,",'0
:J ~
~" ~
Eo<Z
<
C
Z
, i:i:
o
Eo<
....
Z
o
::s
z
o
....
Eo<
<
C
....
Eo<
....
::s
.
I
I
I
..
CI>
....
r:::
CI>
o
o
....
:::I
<I:
I
I,'~: ,
I
I
I
I
:::i
CO
M
,
.....
o
,
I/)
o
.
E
E
o
U
"
'E 8
"
C.
E "
o .3
u :.e
.
:c
'i;j .c
o _
o .
,..",
.
"
"'0"'0 "d"'O
~~~ ~~E..
- OJ ~ 11)
gfi.o gfi.o
'2 ~ ~ ...... Q.) bl)
C 1-1 .= 2 Q .5
E ~ OJ} '- c ~ OJ):O
~ ;:;:.s: 8 B 0...5 (1)
:..::: "'0.::"::: "0.5
0.. >>=-= "Oi: 0.. ;;...,:-::: on
o...~ :::I ::: 0..::: ;::I s:::
.o:UC1W.o:UC1W
~ 0
c.:!
00.
o "
.- t::
E .-
.- -
.... .
. ;.
><
~ 0
o 0
"0 '':
o ~
~!E
.... QJ
"";.
"
.2
U
'"
0.
.~
2
Vi
-0-"2
'" -
c."
'" '"
~~
""
" ~
'" '"
-""
, "
a:: '"
"" '"
"'-
~:e ~
2 ~ ;::!
"'0 0 U
~0.0J)
...:::: ~ v;
.E ;:;.... ::::
:;<""
~.~ 8
-;n g...g
tn VJ !lJ
'" '" -
~ "'0 ~
m ~~
"'0 0'-
~"iiU
- ;> '"
,'; '"
~ ""-
65E
.
-
o
.
.
~
""
o
.5
.
:~
:;
_ .;
.2Z
- .
. -
.!::O;;
;= co:
- .
""-
""
r--
'':: -
S; .<;: ~
:<:<0:;
OJ)
-g.s
o.~
.9- E
" '"
8"~
.:-:
'" "
~ cr
'"
- -
~~~
a:J""Uj tn
E ~
5" ~ "01 ~
0":= c: ~I.:."
01) 0.. IV <l)
"'0"5""03 E :>
~ g".1rJ "l;I::
~ t: ~ !:;"'C E rIl
..c 0 &.e] 9J ;j:~:
V) ""8 v t) ;:: 0 :':g:::::
"0 ;::1.5 2 ;; ~ . <'
'-~ot;-B"; N'
c c V) c (\)...... .0(
88~8E..$ ==
><
.g
"
'"
0.
.5
2
Vi
"" ~
'" "
c:: 0
:; .~
o ~
6'S
'"
-5 _
.~ ~
'0 -
fJ..8
"
OJ) 0
C '--ci
:.0 U Q)
'" " ~
8J"2 ;::I
- '"
~
~ OJ) "
6"'-
~ 'C .:; ~
5.~:::I~v;
.- >... "'0 ca
,,~ U
cr ""
'" - '"
.~ .~
u v:i
ILl '5 .~
:5' Q.) :~
~u
'"
.9
u
"
b
~
,,-
o '"
,,2
~'2
- 0
" .-
""-
. ~
~"
;>~
'" 6
'" 0
:r "
co
;:
'"
."
i5.
0.
.0:
--'
. .
o 0
"'u
00 .
01;;
'.c'g
~u
<:.0,'';;
0::8 X
u
N
u 0
- .
CiS=:
'"
00
'"
'"
~'O 0
.D~ca- ca
5''2 c ~
~~Ec S
.... c.s
'- 2 -; 2
~ 'S: C C) ';;
~~58.s~
...:
o
;;;
~~
'" -
'S: 0
'" 0
o::u
c; .8.5 11.) "'0 "0 ~ -:::: .c t: '0
E ..D ~ C o..t::'''''' Q,) -.
Q).~ <I'J :;.. IZI U E E
o ~ 0.0 5 ;> 0
EE~.cc"C6B.s~U
e ;g ~ .: .@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co
.:::: ~ ~ .. ttI ..... ..... ..... i--I
CU4..8..E:]E~-o.o.';::
11) 4.. 0 e ~ ~ e <.,... ~.5 ~
~ 0 cu<r.:.>~ ~ ttI":: ~;g~
-s~g 5-offio.=
.~ V5 ~ -rj -5 ~.~ ~~ ~ ~
- ~~ .. i1) .c ~ =..... c c
g _ o..c U g'"O ttI ttI >.
i .s.s i ~ ~ ;;; ] .~ .~ ~
--g~~."= E E~ e ~U
]50J)cu~E~E~E:o
IZItC.D-B~..cu ~~
~ ~.~.9.9 ~o.~-g ~a
~ E !! ~"O a .~ -S .E :>
o.ttluo.ocuo.o~..E!:~~
~~ =.5 .E ~ ~ t8 .g .E en ...
~ J:3];g]::::~ c ~u"'O.~
........oo==,.;::~!:i1)<.,...c;.::::
E- u u.D ~ ~ ,.. o..D 0 ~ .....
cJ.3
'"
<t:
...
.:
Q)
E
..c:: ~
0 -=
I'll E
...
... E
<t: 0
u
....
>
\
"
~ "
.v " 0
..
. Q. ~
E ]
0
U
...
.s
c
Q)
o
o
...
:I
<t:
~.
. ~
.., ~
~
g
. g:
C
~
~
...... 0
r.:I ~
.~..~
<-<!j2
. -<
C
Z
-
~
o
t::.
z
o
. ;E
~
5
-
!::
~
.
.
'.
:::i
co
M
.
....
o
.
en
"
"
~
~
~
~
=
~
~
," :.e
:<
"
:c
";;; .c
= "
o =
~..
"
cz:
"
'"
.~
0.
c.
<
~ =
o.~
~~
= "
.;: t:
= .-
f= J:i
....
~ =
o 0
"C ",c
o ~
~o:
~ .;:
~ "
~;;.
1::"
o "
c.-.=
~ .~
"
~ u
2",
OJ >0
..J.D
CC~
.~.~ c'
0..0.03
"'d"'O~
~ ~ (3
'" '" ~
..D,.!:J .~
..0..0
co ('j 0
" "
--
",-g
u)'E
.~ ~
:'::: C
;.. 0
',= u
g~
"
'.~ -0 I-
- e -S
"0.;
" 0""
0:> v C,)
,,~-
q.~ 11
- >>...::::
~ " u
o ;.. ~
";:: I-.
0... ~ OIJ
= 03
oZ
",c ~
~ "
.~~
:: eo:
~ "
~~
~
><
~ E
u B ;a :5
E'" E ~
~ ..... c
g-:: e~i5
.:: ~ OS;";;: 0
~8-BJ3~8
I-. "'0 OJ) (!) .... .~_
~t2<l)C-o _
Vi (\) U ;.a ";; .~ :2 .~
.~_ :c ~ Be(\) "5 c
= -Vi ~ g c.. -g cc 5
~ g ~ -;: c; g D..
c; g. ~ .~ ~ E..].B
u~ou-o.8~::g
r.t: C c:
to- d) ~ ro"'@ 0.0;:J
,,,o..o~l:au;>c.D
c * ~ "s c"i: 2 .~ ~
.2.......c~o.~O'coc
~ ~ D.. ~ 0 g. 0: "2
-0 -:5 B"'O"'5 -""R .~
;:: u:eo1}2cv15
~E:'::::'5 e C"c;.s 0
"2 ~ [] 8 .g ~ ~
C (],) (1) C bl} o.~
I... ...::::..s C;.S .S V'J E..
~t-c;j.9]>V)"'"
-' 0 ~ U" :'1
c.-:: -........ """
~ u gp-g 0... ....... 2 E
::i >"0 co.!::: 0 o...t
~ g'~ Q) :_~ g.~ ~
003..DI3.;.. .....
U I-. 0 V') 0.-50
o
-
"
'"
.~
0.
c.
-<
;:
'"
.~
c.
c.
-<
"
'"
.~
0.
c.
-<
><
><
><
><
~
"
00
'"
..
~
o
0,-:...
"01) VJ
.~ E'
E
.D ::
" "
C/Jc.
~
o
"
.S r....
V1 _~,
.~ =
..0 "g
" "
C/J C.
;: -
v .s
.5 ~
~ u
"'-'=
v 0.'-
~ " -
~og
E ~ -::: ~ ~ ~ t;"2 ro b.!::::g .;g -::: ~ ~
co..... .'" '''' .... .... .- co 0 E 1: ....
00 ('ij OJ)"i: ~ 4-< ctI 4-. U go "'C 0 '" lUa "
O~ CIU~ OOMO "'~~~ ~
~.- .=~~ ~c ~ ~="'~'"
0... ........ .:::: ~ c v 0.. -;:: IU - >.. - ctI a ~ ~,
'-" ctI C -- E "' 8 u c '''' U 0.. - ....
o~ .:C ~ """ctlC EctI~ U')~-=
~ __ 0 '" on t:: "'C _ ctI 0 - IU ~
E S ~ g -~ [-s: Co; ~ ~ b O.s 8 v E
OC ~~~lUelU.~ _~~ ~_~o
u 8 11) ~ ~ 0 c...:;: .~ ...... ~.s '0 ~ ~
~~ ~~ctI ~BB ~5b"'C~IU"'C~
ca .g on C >>..c CI) ~ E -en ~ ~ ;S ~ c
~_ COo-:::on_~ <<It::(l)~ o~
~,._ ~_~::::........-~-o ctI~ Oa"
.;::: -0 ..... .", - '"" 'C C 0..";:J (l) A. ..... 1::
EuU')c U')-o-oc 0.. --U~U')~-olUctI
.D~~O vu~uctlQ) ..sOc.8oO\Q)~c..
B;.",:>U ~Ctt~ ...c~0.._.D -=u~EI1)
~~~ .D~;0~]5 OeSM~&=o
.~_- - _a ~;~ -u~.~p
s'.,;:: "';j UCJ)IU", ."'_u-...._
~QU');S ...c~Ol1)x"'C~~~..s~~~~g~
~ .g .~ U') '2 ~ i5 ~ ~ o..'s E'~ t: Q) 0\ ~ 8. Q)
:s ..5 >>~ ~ E ~ E .~ Q ~ ctI > 0 ~ ~ ~ .s
oc.=uo.C1) u:5 ~U Q)Q) ~"'O~
~E.~~-o~~~o~;~~gi~~~~
;.:::: 8:::: ~ .~_ t:; 0 M._ C ~..c "'0 -I:: U a c. 2
- = _ ,~c"'C"'C U~Q) U')u
C ~ t: u ~ =: > ._> ;;::: Q) ~ - Q)'- ........ Q)
ctI ..c'-"o~s:::: = ~ Octl~ '""~
~~8.~e~~~~~]~~~E~~~~
,,~
'" 0
~g
c.8 ::;
" 0
oU
.~ ~
.~ -:::
0.0
c.-
'"
- "
ca 5
0..
;:
'"
.~
0..3
o.~
'" -
~
" "
-"
- "
f-_
_;).. tf
N
M
-
-
-
oCt
-
c
Q)
E
or:
<.>
2
oCt
....
'"
~
U
IioiI
:i :::1
u
i:a
'" .~
"
o
g:
"
z
'" """'i
~
"""0
'~ ~
....' IioiI
,,~,',,~
~x~
...:
"
z
s:
o
....
....
z
o
:a
z
o
....
....
...:
"
....
....
....
:a
...
Q)
-
c
Q)
o
.s
::I
oCt
::i
co
M
.
....
o
,
!!2
c
~
E
E
o
U
~
." ..
~ 0
..
c.
g ]
u ~
~
-
;;
.
,!i
~
c
.E
<<
~
~
~
i:: ~
.~ OJ 0
~ ~ .5
E V5 trJ
'" >> E
" - "
~ " ~
.~ E Q::
- 0 '"
""-
~ ~
~ ~
o v
~ (;
- ;>,
v c.. cd
Q) .8 ~
~ >..:::
" '" -
~,,'O
nf ~ -5
;:1.- ;::I
~..a ~
;>"" ~
<:::;....
"E ~ ~
:.; Q) e
1--5
"
E
"t
- .
- ~
u ~
.,,0
c '"
~ .~
.. ~
u u
,- c
c."51
~c
-<UJ
><
><
.9
u
u
5:-
.=
"
r.i3
""
'" '"
4-< ~ c:
o " '"
a ~ ~
" "
E S "E
:~ g ~
E ;:.... ~..s:
'" '" -
(U ~ '5"E
~ 0 "
:: t).-
].....D~
~ -
>.<B~"E
(';j ~ "'Vi ~
~o>';>'
Q)_ cd C'::I
.2: 0; " "
-d.8~~
:::: ,-Oi:"C
~-;:::"'O"'O
"''''
'B.~ ::I Q)
g.5 ~ ~
Q)!i~~
t:~i=~
,~
~
c
D@
- ~
u ~
.,,0
c '"
. c
~'E
u U
- C
C. "01
~c
-<OJ
><
><
'2
I
"
v,
'"
-
:2
I-
"""
=:.;;;:
.2 _
'" '"
""~
.:: Q)
~ "
- -
,,-:;:
" .c
~ 0
- E
f] ?;
.5 ~
-;;.8
-" '"
~
E E
'" 0
.::2lt:;
0.",
c."
'" "
;2 ~
f=..:
~
.,.
"
on
'"
c..
"
o
'0
W
:c
ro
0:
'"
:;;
:;;
'"
'"
o
U)
0-
~
'0
~
ii5
~
'2
'"
a:
-<
:;;
0,
c
,,2:)~
ro
~
,
Case No,IS-OI-038
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: F. Leland Hope
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: P.O. Box 6029
San Diego, CA 92166
(619) 220-7115
4. Name of Proposal: Lightning Auto Center
1616 Third Ave (Third Ave. & Montgomery St.)
Chula Vista, CA 91911
5. Assessor Parcel No. 626-132-10
6. Date of Checklist: November 13, 200 I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less tban
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
D
D
D
"
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
D
o
D
"
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts rrom
incompatible land uses)?
o
D
o
o
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (induding a low-income
or minority community)?
o
D
D
o
Comments: The 0.28:!:-acre (12,320 sq.ft.) site, located on the northwest comer of the Third Avenue
and Montgomery Street intersection, is currently developed with a single-family residence. A chain-
link fence surrounds the perimeter of the property. The project proposes to remove the residence and
construct an auto center that provides automated carwash (1,240 sq. ft.) and fast lube service (721
sq. ft.).
;;(Jp
Stacking for six cars entering the carwash, and stacking for two cars entering the lube center, is shown
on the site plan. The property frontage on Third A venue would be improved to City Standards with
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk currently exist on the Montgomery Street
frontage. The maximum height of the building would be 18 feet.
Water used in the carwash will be filtered and recycled through the car wash system. A 469 sq.ft.
customer area would be located between the lube center and carwash. The lubrication services would
be limited to basic oil changes and related service. Business hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. in the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent
estimates that approximately 75-100 cars would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per
day would be processed through the lube center. Three employees would staff the car wash and two
employees would staff the lube center. Other employees include a manager and cashier.
Automobiles would enter the car wash and lube area from Third Avenue near the intersection with
Montgomery Street (south end of the site). Autos from the car wash would exit to an existing concrete
paved alley at the northern property line. Autos from the lube area would exit onto Third A venue near
the northern end of the site. Employee and patron parking is provided adjacent to the northern property
line. The parking area would be accessed from the northern site entrance on Third A venue.
The proposed auto center is consistent with the CCP (Central Commercial - Precise Plan) zoning
designation, CMO (Commercial - Retail) General Plan designation, and the city's environmental plans
and policies, The project is also consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan, which designates the
site as Mercantile & Office Commercial. The site is located in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and
is consistent with the Redevelopment Area Plan.
The project site is on the northwest comer of third Avenue and Montgomery Street. Surrounding land
uses are:
North - commercial (auto body and paint shop);
East - commercial (restaurant across Third Avenue);
South - single-family residences (across Montgomery Street); and
West -multi-family residences.
The proposed Lightning Auto Center project is compatible with these surrounding land uses. The
proposed project would not impact the physical arrangement of the established land uses along Third
Avenue,
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
PotentiaUy
SignifK:.aDt
Unk>>
Mitigated
"'" than
Significant
Impact
No
1m.."
II. POPULATION A.l'I;J} HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
o
o
o
"
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
o
o
o
"
~7
2
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastmcture)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
o
o
"
o
Comments; Thc project is surrounded by existing commercial and residential development and does
not involve an extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. One vacant housing
unit would be displaced. The loss of one housing unit would not be a significant impact. In addition, it
is a legal non-conforming use within a CC (Central Commercial) Zone and CMO (Commercial Retail)
General Plan designation. A car wash and lube center is consistent with the General Plan and would
not exceed the regional or local population projections.
Mitigation: No mitigation is required because the project would not result in significant impacts.
Potentially
Significant Les5 than
Potentially Unless Signif'lc8nt No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 "
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 " 0 0
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 0
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 0
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 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,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
~
3
- ---------------.---
Comments: There are no known geophysical conditions present that would expose people to geologic
or earth hazards. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone; the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
is approximately 21 miles to the north, and the La Nacion earthquake fault is approximately three miles
to the east. Compliance with the building design and construction requirements of the Uniform
Building Code requirements would avoid potentially significant structural impacts resulting from
seismic activity.
Approximately 10-percent of the O.28-acre site is covered by the existing single-family structure.
Impervious coverage of the new facility would increase to 9,643 sq.ft. (78% of the site). The project
site is essentially flat (3% slope) and 964 cubic yards of material would be excavated for a basement
area under the lube facility. If the excavated soil is not to be used on the project site it will be relocated
to another off-site area. The applicant will be required to obtain a Transporting Permit from the
Engineering Department will regulate the route that will be used to transport soil to ensure that the
operation will not adversely impact traffic circulation. Mitigation measures to reduce fugitive dust
associated with the hauling operation have been included in the Air Quality Section.
Standard engineering conditions require that a geotechnical/soils study be submitted with the first
submittal of improvement plans. No significant effects, such as a change in topography, geologic
hazards, etc., would result from construction of the facility.
Although grading operations will be performed in compliance with the City of ChuJa Vista Grading
Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended), significant erosion impacts could occur during the
excavation and construction period due to disruptions of the soil. Soil erosion could result in
sedimentation in the storm drain system resulting in a significant impact unless mitigated to a level of
less than significant. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
Permit Order No. 2001-01 and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to be implemented
during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain
system.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 t;o 0 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 0
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 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 t;o
O)..CJ
4
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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 " 0 0
i) Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters? 0 0 0 "
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 "
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The site is not located in a mapped flood zone and no significant flood impacts would
result from developing the site as an auto center. Existing drainage patterns would not change as a
result of constructing the new facility and the project would not result in potentially significant off-site
flooding. Approximately 10-percent of the site is currently covered with structures and paving. The
Engineering Department reports that the on-site drainage facilities are not adequate to serve the new
facility. A condition of project approval will require that on-site drainage facilities be included in the
first submittal of grading and improvement plans. The on-site drainage system will discharge to the
curb and gutter on Montgomery Street that flows westerly to a storm drain curb inlet at the intersection
of Montgomery Street and Fresno Street.
The project would be subject to the provisions of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) for the treatment of runoff if construction commences after February 21, 2002. If
constructed after that date, the project would also be subject to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-0 I.
All grading operations will be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Grading
Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended). A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) construction permit is not required because the site contains less than five acres. However,
the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are included as a mitigation measure
during and after construction would reduce erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain
system to a less than significant level. Short-term erosion would be reduced to a less than significant
level by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices as specified on the Site
Plan. These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
Protective devices will be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the
storm drain system.
;3D
5
Groundwater could be contaminated if automotive fluid spills occur on-site, or if contaminated water
from the automobile washing equipment is spilled. These potential impacts are addressed in Section
IX (Hazards). The applicant will be required to submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge
Permit to the County of San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program, who will determine if an
Industrial User Discharge Permit is required for the proposed auto center.
Adequate public water service is available to the site. Groundwater level would not be impacted
because there would be no additions or withdrawals from the local aquifer.
Mitigation: See Section XIX for hazard related mitigation measures.
Potl.'ntiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
o
o
o
I:!':I
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
I:!':I
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
o
o
o
I:!':I
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
o
I:!':I
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
o
o
o
I:!':I
Comments: The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction-
related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. During
construction, dust generated by grading and the combustion of fossil fuels by construction equipment
would create emissions. Fugitive dust would also be created as a result of clearing, earth movement,
and travel on unpaved surfaces. Although air quality impacts resulting from construction related
emissions are potentially significant, they are considered short-term in duration since construction is a
relatively short-term, one-time activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in
Section XIX.
The proposed auto center is consistent with the General Plan commercial designation that was used as
the development intensity for the Regional Air Quality Model. Negligible air quality effects would
result rrom the emissions of the project's 650 ADT that are consistent with the assumptions of the air
quality model and emission projections. No sensitive receptors are located in the adjacent areas.
Operation of the facility would not result in odor impacts.
3(
6
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in SectIOn XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
PutentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifJCant
Unless
Mitigated
Les.sthan
Si~nmcant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result ill:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
o
o
o
o
b) Hazards to safety ITom design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
o
o
o
o
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
o
o
o
0;0
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
o
o
o
o
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
o
o
o
o
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
o
o
o
0;0
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
o
o
o
0;0
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
o
o
o
0;0
Comments: Third Avenue is classified as a Class I Collector and provides two lanes of travel in each
direction. Curbside parking is generally prohibited in the project area. Montgomery Street is an east-
west unclassified residential roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. Curbside parking is
permitted along both sides of the road. Main Street is classified as a four-lane Major Arterial with two
lanes of travel in each direction. Curbside parking is generally prohibited in the project area.
A traffic study for the Lightning Auto Center (dated October 4, 2001) was completed by Linscott, Law
& Greenspan, Engineers. The carwash is projected to generate 470 average daily trips (ADT) and the
lube center is forecasted to generate 180 ADT. The PM peak-hour traffic is forecasted to be 33
inbound ADT and 32 outbound ADT. Twenty percent of the project traffic is forecasted to use Third
Avenue north of the site and 75% of the traffic is forecasted to use Third Avenue south of the site. The
remaining five percent is expected to use Montgomery Street.
Third A venue is a Class I Collector street and has a 22,000 trip capacity (with Level-of-Service C).
3~
7
The existing ADTs is 15,210 and with the project proposal w1ll increase the vehicle trips to 16,230.
Third Avenue currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A, and is forecasted to continue operating
at LOS A with the addition of the project traffic. The Third A venuelMontgomery Street intersection
operates at LOS A and would remain at LOS A with the addition of the project traffic. The Third
AvenuelMain intersection operates at LOS C and would remain at LOS C with the addition of the
project traffic. The northern entrance to the project would operate at LOS B.
Queuing calculations concluded that a queue space of six vehicles for the carwash, and a queue space
of two vehicles for the lube center, would provide adequate queuing space. The site plan for the
project includes a total of eight queuing spaces. The project wil1 be conditioned to widened Third
Avenue by seven feet and to instal1 a curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
The traffic study indicates potential for significant circulation impacts and recommends the fol1owing:
a) Instal1ation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third Avenue, between Montgomery Street, and
the south project driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway b) the northern
driveway be a minimum of 30 feet wide to al10w for two-way traffic access and the south driveway be
constructed as an al1ey type driveway, striped for ingress only c) Third Avenue frontage should be
painted as a red curb to prevent on-street parking. Implementati;m of these mitigation measures will
reduce potential impacts to circulation to less than significant.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Potentially
Significant Less than
Potentially Un"" Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of D 0 D "
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Local1y designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? D D D "
D 0 0 "
c) Local1y designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal D D D 0
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D D D "
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning D D 0 "
efforts?
Comments: The site is not located in a biological1y sensitive area as identified in the City's General
33
8
Plan. The site is fully disturbed and is located In an urbanized area. There are no sensitive plant or
animal SPV;;( ie. No biological impacts would result from the proposed use of the site.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Si~nificant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
MitiJ:3ted
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VITI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
o
o
o
181
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
o
o
o
181
c) If the site is designated for minerai resource
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
o
o
o
181
Comments: The proposed Lightning Auto Center does not conflict with the recently adopted C02
Reduction Plan. The project will add a curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Third Avenue rrontage that
will provide for pedestrian circulation in the project area.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with the energy requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and, therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner. The project is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection as
defmed in the City's General Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Lesstban
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)?
o
o
o
o
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
o
o
o
o
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
o
o
o
o
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
o
o
o
o
31
9
potential hea1th hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
o
o
o
o
Comments: Groundwater contamination could occur if petroleum products or water from the
equipment washing facility is spilled. Demolition of the existing buildings could resu1t in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers if the structures contain asbestos materials or lead paint. Release of airborne
asbestos fibers or lead paint residue would result in a significant health hazard. The auto center would
not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Potentially
Significant Less than
PotentiaUy Unless Significant No
Significant Mitigated Impact Impact
Impact
X. NOISE. Wauld the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0
Comments: The City ofChula Vista Municipal Code (919.68.030) establishes commercial land use
noise standards of 65 dB during the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. on weekdays (8:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M. on weekends) and 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. on weekdays
(10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. on weekends). Business hours are proposed to be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. in the summer months and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the winter months. The proponent estimates
that approximately 75-100 cars would be washed per day, and approximately 20-25 cars per day would
be processed through the lube center.
Dr. Leslie E. Penzes, Acoustical Consu1tant, completed an acoustical study, dated June 4,2001, for the
auto center. An amendment to the study was submitted on September 28, 2001. The analysis was
based on noise measurements taken at two similar car wash and lube center operations in the San Diego
area, noise measurements taken at the site, and acoustical modeling. All mechanical equipment for the
car wash will be located \\~thin the carwash structure. The acoustical analysis determined that noise
generated by the carwash blowers would exceed the City's noise standards by 10 dB(A).
To reduce the noise level at the property line to 60 dB(A), the project design was modified to extend
the western wall of the car wash building 30 feet beyond the entrance to the carwash, and to extend the
wall at the exit of the carwash by 10 feet; the height of these walls will be 14- feet. The building
extensions do not interfere with site clearance. The western wall of the carwash building is adjacent to
the multi-family residences on the adjoining property; a six-foot setback is provided between the
building and the property line. The extension of the walls, as shown on the site plan, reduces the noise
level at the property line to less than 60 dB(A).
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required because the desif,'I1 of the project has been modified
to reduce the noise level at the property to less than 60 dB (A).
3S-
10
l'otentiallJ
Significant
Impact
Potentia!!J
Significant
linless
Miti!:ated
Less than :'>10
Significant Impact
Impact
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
all effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any ufthe/allowing
areas:
a) Firc protection?
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
o
o
o
o
Comments: No significant impacts would occur because no new or altered public facilities
would be required to serve the proposed Lightning Auto Center.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentiall
Significant
Impact
PotentiallJ'
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant :'>10
Impact Impact
XII.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
o
o
o
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
o
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to
respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5
minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that
this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is two miles
away and would be associated with a four-minute response time. The proposed
project would_comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: According to the Fire Department, the Lightning Auto Center will not impact
the current level of service and this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire
station is at Fourth A venue and Oxford Street, approximately one mile away. No
significant impacts to fire/EMS threshold standards would be created as a result of the
proposed project.
30
11
Mitigation: No mitip,ation measures are required.
b) Police
o
o
o
c;!I
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of
Priority I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
10 all pnOlity I 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
would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: According to the Chula Vista Police Department, the proposed project will not
impact the current level of service. The Police Department reports that the proposed
project, Auto Lightning Center, would not result in a significant impact to the Police
Threshold Standards.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
o
I. City-wide: Maintain LOS "c" or better as measured by observed average
travel speed on all signalized 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 1991 LOS, but shall not
worsen.
Comments: The project would generate 650 average daily trips (ADT). The Engineering
Division reports that the LOS "c" level would continue to be met on Third Avenue. The
additional trips would not result in the traffic threshold being exceeded.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
o
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: The proposed project is located west of I-80S, therefore, the Parks and
Recreation Threshold Standard does not apply. No park pad obligation will be required
because the proposed project is a commercial use.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
37
12
c) Drainage
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards.
Comments: The City Engineering Department reports that the project will be required to
construct new on-site drainage facilities. The facilities will be shown on the first submittal
of the project improvement and grading plans. These new facilities, and the existing off-
site storm drain facilities, will adequately serve the project and that no significant impacts
would occur. No new off-site facilities are required. The proposed project would comply
with the Threshold Standard for storm water flows.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
t) Sewer
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The City Engineering Department reports that the existing 8-inch sewer line
located on Montgomery Street is adequate to serve the proposed project. No significant
sewer facility impacts would result from the proposed project. The proposed project would
comply with the Threshold Standard for sewer service.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Water
o
o
o
o
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: The Sweetwater Authority reports that a l2-inch water main is located in Third
A venue and an eight-inch water main is located in Montgomery Street. No additional water
service would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would comply with the
Threshold Standard for water service.
3<6
13
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
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?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
t) SGiid waste disposal?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
o
o
o
o
o
o
Les.~ than
Significant So
Impact Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: No new utilities would be required to serve the proposed facility. On-site
drainage facilities will be constructed as approved on the project's improvement and grading
plan. The City Engineering Department reports that an 8-inch sewer line is located in
Montgomery Street. A wastewater generation study will be required with the first submittal
of the improvement and grading plans. No significant utilities or service system impacts are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
39
14
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
o
o
o
Less tban
Significant No
Impact Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
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?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed facility is located within an urbanized area and there are no scenic
vista or viewpoints on, or adjacent to, the property. The entrances to the carwash and lube
bays are oriented to Montgomery Street and will be screened by landscaping along the
Montgomery Street frontage. The exit from the carwash is oriented to the alley along the
north property line. The Third A venue frontage will be landscaped with planter areas
containing a massing of vegetation at the northeast comer and center of the project site.
Another planter area will be located at the comer of Third A venue and Montgomery Street.
The western side of the carwash building, adjacent to the multi-family residential building,
will be stucco with a repeating pattern of split face concrete block. The setback area will be
planted with Italian cypress and trumpet vines on trellises. The proposed Lightning Auto
Center would not result in significant aesthetic impacts or create additional light spill. The
proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change, which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c;!
o
o
o
o
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does not
WJ
15
identify the project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources.
The site has been previously disturbed by residential development. The site currently
contains one single-family residence. The residential structure contains no distinguishing
historic features and is not historic according to City inventory records. No significant
cultural impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will
the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Potentiall)' Potentially
Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does identify
the project site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential paleontological resources.
According to Tom Demere, Museum of ManJPaleontological Curator, the site is noted as a
moderately sensitive paleontological resource area given the history of what has previously
been discovered. However, according to Mr. Demere, based upon the relative shallow
depth of the project digging and the small area that is to be excavated there will be no
significant paleontological resource impact, nor will monitoring be required.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
o
o
o
o
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
o
o
o
o
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation
plans or programs?
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and
Recreation Element. The proposed facility does not increase the need for new parks or
recreational facilities. Park pad fees would not be required as the project is a commercial
land use. No significant recreation impacts would be created as a result of the proposed
project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
C;,.,n ~r;,..,,".
C{-(
16
XVIII. MANDA TORY 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless
Miti~ated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
o
o
o
o
Comments: The site is fully disturbed and is located in an urbanized area. No sensitive
plant or animal resource impacts would occur.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed project will not affect long-term environmental goals of the City
because the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Draft
Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (dated October 9,2000). The project
site is slated for development. The proposed project would not negatively affect long-term
environmental goals.
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
o
Comments: The proposed project would not result in cumulative effects because the site
and surrounding area is fully developed. No other projects have been recently approved in
the area, nor are there any known future projects. No significant impacts would be created
as a result of the proposed project.
1.{.'1-,
17
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
o
Comments: No significant effects on human beings are anticipated to result from
approving the proposed Lightning Auto Center.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented
during the design, construction and operation of the project:
GEOPHYSICAL & WATER
Erosion and Sedimentation
I. Best Management Practices (BMPs) as approved by the City Engineer, shall be implemented during and after
construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation in the downstream storm drain system. Short-term erosion would
be reduced to a less than significant level by the installation of temporary desilting and erosion control devices. These
devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
HAZARDS
Asbestos and Lead
I. The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of Califomia to conduct testing for
the presence of asbestos in buildings to be demolished. A report shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department that identifies whether or not asbestos is present. If required, a remedial work plan
for the removal and disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
2. Prior to demolition activities, a lead-based paint survey is required. If confirmed lead-based paint is scheduled for
demolition an environmental consultant certified by the State of California shall remove it. The applicant shall be
responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected state and local and regulatory agencies including
the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to precede with this process of
the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit.
Petroleum or Contaminated Water Spills
I. The applicant shall submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to the County of San Diego
Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all conditions contained in any permit issued.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to hazardous materials from state and
local regulatory agencies, including the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide
proof of having obtained such permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
lf3
18
3. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for any maintenance work done on-
site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding those listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98).
Petroleum spills shall be immediately reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from the site as
directed by the Fire Department.
AIR QUALITY
Construction Related Emissions
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents during dust-
generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry
weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-suspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City to
reduce dust generation.
7. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be
utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
Also, construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance.
TRAFFICICIRCULA TION
Construction-Related Impacts
1. Installation of a four-foot wide raised median on Third Avenue, between Montgomery Street, and the south
driveway to prevent left turns into the project's south driveway.
2. The northern driveway shall be a minimum of30-feet in width to allow for two-way traffic access. The south
driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and striped for ingress only.
3. Installation of red curbing along Third Avenue frontage to prevent on-street parking.
w
19
Nov-14-01 03:25P A.O_HINSHAW ASSOC.
619 258 8214
P.04
XX. AGREE;\H;~T TO II\1PLEMEl'iT MITIGA TlU:-I :\1F.ASURES
I:>y signing the line(s) provided below, the Appllcant(s) ilOd/or Ol'erator(s) stipulate that they have each rcad, understood
and ha,,'e their respc(;tivl,: ('\)lI\pany's .wtbority to and do agn;(,; to the mitigation 111(,;i:tSUr~s contained hL::n.:in, and will
irnplt.:rncnt same to the :;.1tisfaction of the Environmental Review Cuordinator. Failun; t.u .~igll the Jine(s) pro,,-idcd. helow
prior to pt"ting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with tbe County Clerk shall indicate the Applie;mls' andlor
Operator's tksirc that the rrojr..:L:t be held in abey,U1Ci.: without appro\'.tI and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall
apply for an I:::::nvironmcntallmpact cporl.
c
--j~~
SIJ::naturc of Pro
_.~~l Df D~
\vncr
Printed Name and Titk ufOperator
.~--
Signature of Operator
Dale
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTE:-iTlALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked helow would be potemia]]y affected by this proJect, involving at least one impact
thai is a "Potentia]]y Significant lmpdct" or "I'oremia]]y Significdnt Unless :'v!itigated_" as indicatcd by the checklist on
the following page".
0 Land Use and Planning . Tran~portation/Cj rcuIa! iun 0 Public Services
0 Population and HOl,Jsing 0 Biulogical Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Sy"lcms
. Geophysical 0 Energy and M incraJ Resourcc~ 0 Aesthetics
. Water . Hazards 0 ClIltlJral Resources
. !\ir Quality D Noisc D Ret:fcation
D Paleuntology D Mandatory Findings ofSignifkance
'-f)'
20
Nov-14-01 03:Z6P A.D_HINSHAW ASSOC.
619 2SB B214
XXH.
DETI::K:\lINA nUN:
On the hasis of this lnitial eVillllation:
T find that the proposed project COULD NUT have a significant effect on the envirunmcnt,
and a NEUAlIVr DECLARA nON will be prepared.
I find that althuugh the propu,eJ project coulJ have a significant effect on the
environrnent, there will not he a signifir..:ant effect in this case bec;\usc lhc mitigation
measures described on :m altached sheet have bcen added 10 tbe prolect. A Mrf1GA TED
NEGATIVE VFCLARAT10N will bc prepared.
1 find that the pruposed project MA Y have a significant effect on Ihr..: (:nvil'onment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i;; required.
I find that the propused project MA Y have a significant etfect(s) on thc environmunt, but
ilt k,~t one effect: 1) ha.<;; heen <)(.I~quaLc\y analyzed in an esrlier dOl.:umcnt pllrsui.2nl Lo
applicahle legal standards, and 2) has bccn addressed by mitigation meas"rcs hased on the
earlier analy.,is as described on attached ,heets, if the effect is a "potentially signiticant
impacts" llr "potentially significant unless mitigatcd." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is re(luircd, hut it must analyze only the cffccts that remain to be addressed.
I find that "!though the prupu,oc1 project could have" significant effect on the
environment. thcrc WILL ~OT be a signiticant cffcot in this case bccause all pOlentially
significant effects (it) have been analYl.cd adequately in an earlier SIR pu,"uant tu
applicable ,t3"dards and (b) have heen "vuided or mitigated pursuant to that carlie,' ElR,
including revisions or mitigatiun mcasures that arc imposed upun the proposed projcct. An
adJendurn has been prcparcd!O provid" a record of this ,.ktcnnination.
~(ifUva(>S,
Environn1crHa1 Review Cuordinator
City of CI1lI1a Vista
( 1/;'1/0/
j);tf {
l:\rliH1ning\MARIA\Juitial StuJy\IS-O 1_~l:>chk Jst.J()l'
'-f-{p
21
P.DS
D
.
D
D
D
.\
~(ft-
~
~~:;;:~
. CIlY OF
. QlUL~,vISrA
~
"lA tTlI(HM6AJT S
D&IIelopment Processing
Application Form - Type A
Page One
~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691:5101
~::~" 'i7[ThffiE'OR"REYIEWREQUESTED
1~)'J:~~~~,*,~'\.~$-/;:~r:~it;,~j~l<'~1~:"";:t.i(~:"';;:-~:::J;',"/::" "/ .
Jfi c::r Cof)dltlonalUse Permit ',' .
0;:" 8~~~~n~e' '.,... .' . .
. '(J' ~Slgn ReYle;""
~.'speclalland Use Permit (Redevelopment Areas Only)
o Miscellaneous:
rstaffuSEl()l1M,iCaSElNo.: J)IlC.-bl. 1.1 <;uP -DI-O
FinngDCrte:I/~11 b Ii By:. 1>J(2) I
AsslgnSd Planner: tDtWh {/4" f1J".+"J.
Receipt No.:
PtoJect Acct: BL -4:DI BS- o'3b'
Deposit Acct:_DQ,4$
Related Cases:
.OZA.
1.:,APPLlCANT INFORMATION
Applicant Name'
Lp1-\t'-\o
o E:-
Phone No. .
(.::A"'\ 72-0 ~ \I':;:;
'1b
Applicanfs Interest in Property
o Own 0 lease 0 In Escrow
(oJ'L4 ~ PI~oi LA... '1'-1 f.o""-
It applicant is not owner. owners authorization
o Option to purchase Is tequired to process request. See signature
on Page Two.
Phone No. iIffI(
b\~ --z..-z.o -, liS
Architect/Agent
F. L t:::L<\r-<i/-:)
Architect/Agent Address
.p'Thox. bO'Z...: ~ D\ F-:~ 0
GENERAU PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types)
PtojectName;..., Proposed Use
. L\4\ T\--I\~?j A.UTo ~\E:i ~'F=-~~I cA.\Z- Lv~ ~TQ
Ge:D~r(Jl,pesc~ptionof .Proposed Project
(pt~seu,seAp~rJdlx A to prcNldea full description and justlflcatlon for the project)
. .
~
"'121 lob
j:':Y,,'"
.,,+//";
.-SR=.- A\F~\=::>\~ A
Has a representative attended 0 Pre-Application Conference to discuss this project?
If so. what was the dote? Pre-App No.:
./
Ion
,~
Assessors Parcel No.
. I.oZe rs "Z-
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all
Location/ treet Address -n\ ~
\ l.o\ \0 \\<-D A......JE.... L
,/
Total Acreage
\'Z..., ""'-:::;LO S. F '
10010
v'
Is this in Montgom ry S.P.?
-(t::-~
FORM A-OEV PL IfJO.GE 1 OF 2)
~7
12199
, ,
~{~
-.-
--: --
----=
- -
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
DE::velopment Processing
Application Form
Page Two
01Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
I
I'
I PROPOSED PROJECT (all types)
I Type of Use Proposed
,
, 0 Residential t&tComm. Dlnd. o Other
I (staff use onlY)
Case No.:
I Landscape Coverage (% of Lot)
~ Building Coverage (0;. of Lot)
I
II RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Type of Dwelling Unit(s) Number of Lots
No. of Dwelling Units
Proposed
Existing
!Parking Spaces
,
i
I Requited by Code:
I Provided:
!Open Space Description (Acres each of private. common. and landscaping)
Total
Off-stteet
Type of Parking (size; whether covered}
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
Proposed Existing
...-::,. <0 '2:>.Lj -S - N A.
Hours of Operation (Days & Hours)
1-"\- -sA.T: 500 AM - Co OOft'" \
Anticipoted Total # Employees
'I -~ 'PA
Parking Spaces Required
'1 .'2.. ~
# 0 tudents/ ,hlldten {if applioable)
\~~F
,\....,~~v-::J c ""f-:--
Prin Applicant at Agent Nom
,:i'ShA1'-T"E..X INC.
Print Owner Name
I !-2-Lj 0\
Date' I
OJ - :=" - 0 t
Date
ant Is not Owner)
* Letter of owner consent may be used In lieu of signature. lf~
FORM A-PAGE 2 OF 2 11199
~!~
---
--
~~~~
C1IY OF
CHULA VISTA
Planning & ,Iding Department
Planning Division - Development Processing
276 Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619)691-5101
Application Appendix "An
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
L~\ ~ :;\~ AJ \: _ L-P>->Te:12-
, . ,,- _L_~ d ,C
I
APPLICANT NAME:
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.
UGHTNING SERVICE CENTER
The project submitted is intended to be a neighborhood service center for their automobiles. Service
includes a car wash and an auto lube center. The project includes a dramatic lobby entrance lobby to a
customer waiting area. The design of the center attempts to create a desirable atmosphere for
customers as well as upgrading the surrounding neighborhood.
Findings:
1. The area supports auto dealers, yet does not have any service oriented facilities of this type.
The owner believes the area will embrace and use this type of service.
2. The project is designed to be pleasing architectural1y. Customer service and customer safety is
a primary element in the design. There is no major repairs being performed at the center. The
neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the project.
3. The project will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use.
4. The granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city, or the
adopted plan of any government agency.
lf9
----
-',
Appendix B
: CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STAl
ENT
THE cm
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.
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. Q
..::Jose. /\2 "'V~"J cc-::."....\3
;~ ( G 0 (2. c::... 1-:: I D r I C-:" L; E- ,~o A
c
uOC...E GuA0ALU/-::>E i'2>ALAC/OS
0' L.; .-'\ U 1"'-\ L c, ,> L r~ A L '4 r:: J C> ;:,
p C I~ L 1-\ C' A ,~ /-< A ~, ~
o Q
LCOV IG IL;~/';
t3 A '::: I~ A /_ ~
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 sta!y
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.jn this matter.
:::J 0 S G I~ ,/ C "-, c GAS [) E /~ "-, r:::....:) 6 I i\J S 0 f\J
L E. E..
H Q ,-:::. C
o
<:..-^-' ,-:::", Que A AYALA
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed mo;:e ,than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No V - f yes, state which
Councilmember(s): /
Date:
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY)
/ L_b
/
I
,
/
/
Q\
Signature of eSRlraeto /~pr cant
A~I~I
L-F--<..A-.r::> ~
Print 0 type name of contractor/ap licant
S--D
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. jreaternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. tltis and any other county. city and country, citV-DIUnicipality, district. or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit. "
Permit Applicant:
Applicant's Address:
Type of Permit:
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount:
APPENDIX C
(I of I)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT
F, L.t:::L ~'~r-) \1D\""=-
\e? '-:'c)<. IcO'2Jl \
t 'S. Dot?
00
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal
corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of
the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit")
which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of
property; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various
departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and,
Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in
connection with providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained,
as follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to
Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of
Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty.
As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit").
1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing
Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing 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 Permit, the amount of
the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the
opinion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide
such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue
Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said
deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty".
2. City's Duty.
City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's
Permit application.
2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's
Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by
Applicant or estimated by City.
5'(
APPENDIX C
(20f2)
2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which
Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's 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 addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject
matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit
which Applicant has before the City.
3.2. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and
upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.
4. Miscellaneous.
4.1 Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States
mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at
the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented.
4.2 Governing LawNenue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of
Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder,
shall be the City of Chula Vista.
4.3. Multiple Signatories.
If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such
signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set
forth.
4.4. Signatory Authority.
This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly
designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this
Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay
and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by
Applicant.
5'-'-
APPENDIX C
(30f3)
4.5 Hold Harmless.
Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed
officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or
administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing
Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving
of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights,
except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole
willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant.
Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability
incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the
same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request
by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees.
Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any
such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this
condition.
4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement against the City unless a
claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are
incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in
good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this
agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
By:
Dated: 0 / - ::0 i - 0 I
'\
:s h A, I~ T 11 C. X I ", C'
S I "7 ., c:.... L C. ('_ 1-::::' r) /7:> t-/ C A 1,-/ Y 0 IV '-:::... D .
c... r--t \J '- A 'I J S T A c::.......-'\ '7 I '7 I ()
By:
5'3
4tT,4CHMc.;1)t 0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUPS-01-05) TO
PERLA BARRAZA/SMART-MEX, INCORPORATED / LIGHTNING AUTO
CENTER PARTNERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMATIC
CAR WASH AND TWO-BAY LUBE CENTER AT 1616 THIRD
AVENUE/304 MONTGOMERY STREET WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose
of general description is located at 1616 Third Avenue/304 Montgomery Street ("Project
Site"); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2001 duly verified application for Special Use Permit
SUPS-01-05 was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department and the
Community Development Department by F. Leland Hope, Architect ("Applicant"); and
3. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, applicant request permission to construct an automatic 1 ,240-sq. ft. car
wash and 840-sq. ft. two-bay lube center, and 435-sq. ft. customer service building,
including required on-site parking, landscaping and driveways ("Project"); and
4. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, in absence of a Southwest Project Area Committee, and pursuant to the
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 1536 (City Council Resolution No. 18624), the
Planning Commission has been designated as the body to provide recommendations
for development projects located in the Southwest Project Area presented to the City
Council and/or Redevelopment Agency for consideration pursuant to the authority
granted in the Zoning Ordinance and the Southwest Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
project on January 9, 2002 and voted X-X-X-X recommending that the City Council
approve the project in accordance with Resolution SUPS-01-05; and
5. Redevelopment Agency Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the project was held before
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on January 15, 2002; to receive
'S''f
Resolution No.
-
Page 2
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
B. 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 January 9, 2002 and the
minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project requires a
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the Resource Conservation Committee
for review November 19, 2001 and was forwarded without a recommendation to the
Design Review Committee for lack of a quorum, and the Design Review Committee
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on December 3, 2001.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator 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.
E. SPECIAL 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 special use permits, as herein below
set forth, and sets forth, hereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding
to be made.
1. 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 proposed use at this location will provide a service or facility that will contribute
to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. The project redevelops
an underutilized parcel designated for commercial use, and assists in the elimination
of physical and economic blighting conditions as found in this Montgomery
community and will provide necessary services that are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area.
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.
s-s-
Resolution No.
-
Page 3
The proposed development will not 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 design of the lube center, customer area, and car
wash will conform to the design manual guidelines for commercial developments. In
addition, a complete landscape setback as recommended by the Montgomery
Specific Plan can be provided at the recommended width of 15-ft. along Third
Avenue (arterial thoroughfares) and along Montgomery Street (residential collectors),
unless a zone variance is granted by the Zoning Administrator for a reduction to 10-
ft. along Montgomery Street. Landscaping and a screening wall will also be provided
along the rear property line adjacent to the existing apartment building to minimize
visual impacts and to provide noise attenuation. The driveway access to the site will
be limited to one exclusive entrance driveway along the Third Avenue street frontage
for the car wash and lube center, with another entrance/exit driveway for employees
and the lube center; car wash patrons will exit on the existing dedicated alley,
satisfactorily minimizing overall circulation conflicts.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in the code for such use.
The proposed development conforms to the zoning restrictions and development
standards and is consistent with the regulations of the CCP zone and the
Montgomery Specific Plan, and is in conformance with the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area Plan and Implementation Plan. The construction of a
lube and car wash center has been analyzed within the environmental document and
determined to be a less than significant noise and traffic impact to the Third A venue
commercial corridor. If the Special Use Permit is approved according the proposed
site plan, the applicant may request a zone variance from the Zoning Administrator
for a reduction from seven (7) required parking spaces to the six (6) parking spaces
shown on the site plan, and a reduction from a 15-ft. landscape setback to a 10-ft.
landscape setback along Montgomery Street.
4. That the granting of this Special Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation
of Central Commercial, and the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element
regarding commercial development, which identifies automobile-oriented services
(Lightning Lube and Car Wash Auto Center) in conjunction with other central
commercial uses in the vicinity.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit SUPS-01-05 subject to
the following conditions whereby the Applicant and/or property owner shall:
1. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use
of the subject property in reliance on this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the
following requirements:
5"'""
Resolution No.
-
Page 4
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
A. Provide revised plans and elevations incorporating all conditions of approval. The
revised plans and elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit.
B. Provide planting and irrigation plans incorporating all conditions of approval. The
planting and irrigation plans shall be revised in conformance with a revised
conceptual landscape plan, subject to review and approval by the Landscape
Planner prior to issuance of building permit.
C. A water management plan shall be required in conjunction with the conceptual
landscape plan for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to issuance
of building permit.
D. A fencing plan shall be provided indicating all perimeter fencing to be provided. The
fencing plan shall be incorporated with the planting and irrigation plans and
submitted for review and approval by the Landscape Planner prior to the issuance of
building permit. The fence on the west property line shall connect to the southwest
corner of the wing wall.
E. Lighting for the facility shown on the site plan shall be in conformance with Section
17.28.020 of the Municipal Code. A lighting plan shall be provided that includes
details showing that the proposed lighting shall be shielded to remove any glare from
adjacent properties, and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Building Director.
F. 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 Chula Vista Municipal Code
regarding graffiti control.
G. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Special use
Permit. Building Plans shall comply with 1998 Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and
National Electrical Code article 500. Building shall comply with handicapped
accessibility requirements and 2001 Title 24 energy requirements. Show fire rated
walls on plans. If the car wash wall is adjacent to the property line it must be a one-
hour fire rated wall. No wall openings shall be permitted if less than 5-ft. unless fire
protected. Fire protection is required if less than 10-ft. separation. Adjust the
building occupancy type from "M" occupancy for the office to "S3" for the lube and
car wash (areas with cars inside). Firewall separation is required between differing
types of occupancy for construction. Provide ladder as a secondary exit from the
lube pit area.
H. A separate building permit shall be required for the wall sign permits. All proposed
signage shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to the application
for the building permit for conformance with Design Review Committee
considerations. The wall sign permit application shall include scaled plans ensuring
that the channel letters for both the "Shell Rapid Lube" and "Lightning Auto Center"
consist of similar font style and size, in addition to the proposed logos.
5"7
Resolution No.
-
Page 5
I. The Design Review permit is subject to any and all additional conditions as required
in the Special Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission and
Redevelopment Agency.
J. A Zone Variance will be required for approval by the Zoning Administrator for specific
deviations from Zoning Code requirements and the Montgomery Specific Plan. A
reduction in the required number of parking spaces from seven (7) to six (6) parking
spaces shown on the proposed site plan; a reduction in the landscape setback along
Montgomery Street from a 15-ft. to a 10-ft. landscape area from the property line,
shown on the proposed site plan.
K. Automobile Car Wash facilities shall comply with Section 19.58.060 of the Zoning
Code, to ensure that all car wash equipment will be sufficiently soundproofed, the
hours of operation requested are limited to 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (summer) and 8:00
AM to 5:00 PM (winter), stacking will be limited to six (6) vehicles in front of the
vacuum manifold for the car wash, and two (2) vehicles in front of the lube center,
and site drainage will conform to required mitigation for sewer and storm water
systems.
L. Automobile Repair facilities shall comply with Section 19.58.260 of the Zoning Code,
to ensure that all vehicle repairs will take place within the lube center building during
the prescribed hours of operation, that only minor automobile repairs will take place
within the lube center building and no where else on the premises, and there will be
no storage of vehicles outside the lube center building on the premises.
Environmental Section (Mitigation Monitoring) Conditions:
M. The applicant shall contract with an environmental consultant certified by the State of
California to conduct testing for the presence of asbestos in buildings to be
demolished. A report shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department that identifies whether or not asbestos is present. If required, a
remedial work plan for the removal and disposal of asbestos shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department
and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
N. Prior to demolition activities, a lead-based paint survey is required. If confirmed
lead-based paint is scheduled for demolition an environmental consultant certified by
the State of California shall remove it. The applicant shall be responsible for
obtaining all the required permits from all affected state and local and regulatory
agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and shall provide proof of having
obtained approval to precede with this process of the Planning and Building
Department prior to obtaining a building permit.
O. The applicant shall submit an application for an Industrial User Discharge Permit to
the County of San Diego Industrial Wastewater Control Program and comply with all
conditions contained in any permit issued.
P. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits related to
hazardous materials from state and local regulatory agencies, including the San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health, and shall provide proof of having
~
Resolution No.
-
Page 6
obtained such permits to the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Resource Recycling and Conservation Coordinator Conditions:
Q. Applicant shall have trash enclosures, bins, or carts that meet design specifications
of the Recycling and Conservation Coordinator. The locations and orientation of
storage bins and dumpsters shall be pre-approved by the City franchise trash hauling
company. Provide sufficient space for designated recyclables as determined by the
Recycling and Conservation Coordinator. The Recycling and Conservation
Coordinator may permit a shared paper/cardboard bin, along with food and beverage
container cart with other storage. A commercial trash enclosure large enough for
solid waste, mixed paper, and a cart for food and beverage containers must be
provided to meet the minimum 50 percent recycling requirement. Contact the City
Conservation Coordinator at (619) 691-5122.
Fire Department Conditions:
R. Obtain all necessary permits from the Fire Department including an annual
inspection for the lube center. Applicant shall obtain a permit for storage and use of
hazardous materials. Provide a fire extinguisher per 3,OOO-sq. ft. or every 75-ft. of
travel distance, with a minimum rating of 2A-1 OBC, or the building must include a fire
sprinkler system. A fire alarm is needed and must be approved by the Fire Marshall
prior to installation. Fire hydrants must be available within 300-ft., or a fire hydrant
will be required at the time of construction. A one-way check valve between the post
indicator valve and the Fire Department connection is required at the time of
construction.
Public Works Department Conditions:
S. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met prior to issuance of
the building permit. Applicant shall guarantee by mechanisms to be determined by
the City Engineer and install all missing street improvements along Third Avenue,
Montgomery Street, and the dedicated alley, including the two driveway approaches
per Chula Vista Construction Standard No.1, and installation of new curb, gutter and
sidewalk at 32-ft. from centerline and installation of curb return with handicap ramp
on Third Avenue to match existing sidewalk improvements on Montgomery Street.
Right-of-way dedication along Third Avenue will be required 42-ft. from centerline.
Handicap ramps are required at curb openings if alley type driveway openings are
proposed. Installation of 100-watt street light standard on Montgomery Street,
including conduits traffic signal pull box, and relocation of existing street light
standard on Third Avenue. Striping plan will be required to match existing striping for
street improvements.
T. The traffic section will require review and approval of all directional signage and
striping at the time of construction. Due to traffic conflicts that may be imposed by
left turn movements from northbound Third Avenue, a 4-ft. wide raised median will
need to be installed to eliminate left turns beyond the intersection of Montgomery
Street into the facility, and shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
sq
Resolution No.
-
Page 7
U. Applicant shall pay all required fees, including, but not limited to fees for sewer
capacity and connections, development impact for public facilities, and traffic signal
fees as defined in the development checklist as part of the building permit
application.
V. The applicant shall provide a sewage generation study/analysis showing the flow to
be generated by the development and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to
accommodate the proposed development prior to issuance of building permit.
W. The applicant shall submit plans for car wash water recycling at the time of the
submittal for grading and improvement plans. Storm drain inlets shall be protected at
all times during the demolition of existing buildings, and construction of the new
buildings and improvements
X. The grading and improvement plans shall include temporary and permanent erosion
control and pollution prevention components, as well as all drainage facilities. A geo-
technical/soils study shall be required with the grading and improvement plans.
Y. Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for a high priority commercial facility, in conformance with the NPDES
Municipal Permit Order No. 2001-01, and subject to the relevant requirements,
including implementation of minimum Best Management Practices for pollution
prevention, and site inspections as needed. Contact the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board at (858) 467-2971 to insure compliance with the relevant laws
and regulations.
Police Department Conditions:
Z. The security lighting fixtures shall be low wattage bulbs. The lighting for the signage
and interior nightlights shall be independently wired so that they can be
independently used. This will aid in complying with the Governor's Executive Order
D-19-01.
AA. Applicant shall obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention Unit of the Police
Department prior to issuance of the building permit. The Crime Prevention Unit shall
provide specific requirements for access control, surveillance detection, and police
response. The plans show the use of a chain-link fence to replace a wooden fence.
Consider use of a wrought-iron fence rather than a chain-link fence for better
security. In addition, training of management and employees in security procedures
and crime prevention shall coincide with the commencement of operations. The
Crime Prevention Unit should be contacted at (619) 691-5127 for more information.
Other Conditions.
BB. Due to the proximity of the project to the Sweetwater Authority's existing and
proposed demineralization facilities, the Authority is concerned about the use or
storage of potentially hazardous chemicals that may be harmful to groundwater. The
applicant shall contact the Chula Vista Fire Department about fire flow requirements
(pD
Resolution No.
-
Page 8
and submit a letter to the Sweetwater Authority stating the requirements. The
Authority will determine if there is a need for new or substantial alteration to the
existing water systems, as well as the availability of water for operational and fire
protection purposes.
CC. The applicant shall pay all applicable school fees for the Sweetwater Union High
School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District prior to issuance of
the building permit.
2. Prior to use or occupancy of the property in reliance on this approval, the
following requirements shall be met:
A. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,
landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions
contained herein, Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
B. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building.
C. All landscape and hardscape improvements shall be installed in accordance with the
approved landscape plan and the comments of the City Landscape Planner.
D. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.,
shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a
combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
E. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment
and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans.
F. A fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute for duration of three (3) hours must be
provided. The back flow preventor shall be screened from view, and the Fire
Department connection shall not be located with the back flow preventor.
G. Best Management Practices (BMP's) according to the Engineering Department, shall
be implemented during and after construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation
in the downstream storm drain system. Applicant shall control short-term erosion to
by installing a temporary de-silting and erosion control devices. These devices
include de-silting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring.
H. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days
until dust emissions are not visible.
I. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust
fo!
Resolution No.
-
Page 9
and spills.
J. A 2D-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project
shall be enforced.
K. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
L. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
M. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as
possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
N. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems
for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities.
Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also,
construction equipment shall be equipped with pre-chamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) together with proper maintenance.
O. The northern driveway shall be a minimum 3D-ft. width to allow for two-way traffic
access. The south driveway shall be constructed as an alley-type driveway and
striped for ingress only.
P. The applicant shall install red curbing along the Third Avenue frontage to prevent on-
street parking.
Q. The Special Use Permit approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or the
approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval,
unless a written request for an extension is received prior to the expiration date.
3. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the subject property as long as it
relies upon this approval.
A. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of Title 19 of
the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
B. Buildings and Landscaping shall be maintained according to the approved plans
unless modifications are approved by the City of Chula Vista.
C. Fire lanes shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20-ft. width and 13-1/2-
ft. vertical clearance.
D. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department for
any repair work done on-site or for the storage of hazardous materials exceeding
those listed in the California Fire Code 1998 (CFC 98). Petroleum spills shall be
immediately reported to the Fire Department, and spilled petroleum removed from
the site as directed by the Fire Department.
102-
Resolution No.
-
Page 10
E. This special use permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one
year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this
permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
F. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate govemmental interest
related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be
heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved
right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a
substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of
the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
G. 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 attomeys' fees (collectively, "liabilities")
incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and
issuance of this special 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 construction. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this conditional
use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and this provision
shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
H. Developer shall be responsible for any and all relocation expenses related to the
project. Developer indemnifies, holds harmless, protects, and defends City from any
and all relocation claims arising from or related to any action taken by the Agency,
including the consideration, and/or approval of the Owner Participation Agreement.
G. 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 shall be retumed within ten days of recordation to the Agency's
secretary. Failure to return said document to the Agency's secretary 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 Agency's office and known as document No. _'
Signature of Property Owner
Date
&3
Resolution No.
-
Page 11
Signature of Representative of
Lightning Auto Center
Date
Signature of Representative of
Shell Lube Center
Date
H. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT
This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval by the
Redevelopment Agency. After ten (10) years, the applicant may apply for an extension
of this Special Use Permit for whatever period is deemed appropriate by the Agency.
After the first five (5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this Special Use
Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in
consultation with the applicant, whether new conditions are necessary.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE
The Redevelopment Agency directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a
Notice of Determination and file the same with the County Clerk.
J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition
herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions
are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable, this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney and Agency Counsel
tpLj
Resolution No.
-
Page 12
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 15th day of January, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Shirley Horton
Chairman
ATTEST:
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
Califomia DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution
No. _ and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated: January 15, 2002
Chris Salomone
Executive Secreta ry
J :IPLANNINGIHAROLDlRESOLUTIONSICARWASH SU P .DOC
-----
(P')
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-
01-038 AND APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH PERLA BARRAZA/SMART-MEX, INCORPORATED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AND TWO BAY
LUBE CENTER AT 1616 THIRD AVENUE/304 MONTGOMERY STREET
WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, Perla Barraza/Smart-Mex, Incorporated has presented development plans
for the construction of an automatic 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. two-bay lube center, 435-
sq. ft. customer service building, and required on-site parking, landscaping and driveways; and
WHEREAS, the site consists of a vacant .28-acre site located on 1616 Third Avenue/304
Montgomery Street in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and
control of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, which is shown in the Locator
Map attached to the Owner Participation Agreement and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed
project and issued Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-01-038 for the project in accordance with
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing the Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed project
subject to the conditions listed in the Resolution for SUPS-01-05; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has presented an
Owner Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Office of the Secretary to
the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 00- , approving the
construction of an automatic 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. two-bay lube center, 435-sq. ft.
customer service building, and required on-site parking, landscaping and driveways in the
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, as depicted in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions
listed in Exhibit B of said agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment;
accordingly Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-01-038 was prepared and is hereby
adopted in accordance with CEQA.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and the
Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan.
3. The proposed project will be beneficial for the City of Chula Vista, because it will
convert an underutilized parcel into a higher and better use, bring new private sector
~(p
Resolution No.
-
Page 2
investment into the project area, and contribute to the elimination of blighting
influences.
4. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves an the
Owner Participation Agreement with Perla Barraza/Smart-Mex, Incorporated to
construct an automatic 1,240-sq. ft. car wash, 840-sq. ft. two-bay lube center, 435-
sq. ft. customer service building, and required on-site parking, landscaping and
driveways in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, in the form presented in
accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions
listed in Exhibit B of said agreement.
5. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the
subject Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and
Perla Barraza/Smart-Mex, Incorporated.
6. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized to record said Owner
Participation Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego,
California
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney and Agency Counsel
J:\PLANNING\HAROLDlRESOLUTIONS\CAR WASH OPA.ooc
&1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 2a
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been prepared for the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan. This staff report discusses the
content of the Final EIR, focusing primarily on those areas in which the majority of comments
were received. The Final EIR contains responses to comments received during the public review
period.
On November 14, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to close the public
review period for the draft ErR. At this meeting, a representative from Sweetwater Valley Civic
Association commented on issues related to water availability, traffic, and increased
urbanization. These comments have been included in the responses to comments section located
at the beginning of the Final ErR (Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution EIR 98-01 recommending the City Council certify that the final Second-Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) for the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional
Planning Area Plan has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
A meeting was scheduled for the Resource Conservation Commission's (RCC) review of the
Draft EIR on November 5, 2001. After reviewing and discussing the document, the RCC
recommended that project traffic report be revised to include the level of service (LOS) after
mitigation. The RCC then voted 4-0 to recommend certification of the Final EIR (please refer to
the attached meeting notes in Attachment 2).
/
Page 2, Item: 2a
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
DISCUSSION:
McMillin Land Development has submitted an application requesting approvals for approval of a
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for Village Six. The Village Six EIR evaluates the
environmental effects of the proposed Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan, and the subsequent Conceptual Tentative Map (TMs). The Village Six SPA Plan and
Conceptual TM proposes development of 2,086 residential units, as well as a village core area
containing commercial uses, public and community purpose facilities, an elementary school,
parks, and open space areas. A private Catholic high school is also proposed at the southeastern
comer of the project site. Should the proposed private high school not be developed, the
underlying land use would permit the construction of 146 single-family homes. If single-family
homes are built instead of the high school, the total number of units proposed would be 2,232.
CEQA Compliance
Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout time frame of the Otay Ranch
Project, both the planning and environmental documentation associated with Otay Ranch were
tiered trom the general to the specific. The first tier of planning and approvals included approval
of the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program ErR (90-01). The Final Program ErR for Otay
Ranch was prepared and certified jointly by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego.
The Program EIR for the Otay Ranch GDP was certified with the intent that the individual SPA
planning projects within Otay Ranch would be reviewed as "second-tier" projects pursuant to
Section 15153 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Under such
tiering principles, the Village Six SPA and TM analysis are analyzed at a second-tier level of
review (project level).
The Village Six ErR incorporates by reference and serves as a second-tier EIR to the following
documents: the Chula Vista General Plan ErR; the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program ErR
(90-01), the City ofChula Vista Sphere of Intluence Update (94-03); Otay Ranch SPA One and
Annexation Final Second Tier ErR (95-01); Final Second Tier ErR for Otay Ranch SPA One and
GDP/SRP Amendments (97-03); the Otay Water District Resources Master Plan Final Master
ErR (97-04); the Village Six SPA Plan; the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; the
Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 00-33); the Final Eastlake III Woods and
Vistas Replanning Program EIR (01-01), as well as their associated Findings of Fact and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Comments on the Draft EIR
Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR trom the following agencies and individuals:
I. California Department of Toxic Substance Control
2. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
3. California Department ofFish and Game
~
Page 3, Item: 2a
Meeting Date: I/9/02
4. California Department of Transportation - District 11
5. City of San Diego
6. County of San Diego, Department of Public Works
7. Otay Water District
8. San Diego County Archeological Society
9. Sweetwater Val1ey Civic Association
10. Otay Ranch Company
1 I. McMillin Land Development
The letters and responses are included in the Final EIR 98-01. The Final EIR also includes
minor changes and clarifications, which have been added as a result of the comments received.
Findinj!s of the Final EIR 98-01
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that would result /Tom the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TMs. Some of these
significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Other impacts cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible
environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is
included as a part of the proposed "Findings of Fact." Implementation of the proposed project
will result in significant unmitigated impacts, which are listed below and further described in the
attached Findings of Fact and Statement ofOveITiding Considerations (Attachment 3).
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR.
Project level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into three categories: significant
and unmitigated, significant and mitigated to less than significant, and less than significant.
Significant and Unmitigated Impacts
The significant, unmitigable impacts identified in the Village Six Final EIR are either cumulative
or regional in nature. Cumulative impacts are significant when the project is combined with
other projects in the subregion, whereas an impact that is regional in nature is beyond the sole
control of the City ofChula Vista.
The Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01 identified several significant and unmitigated impacts
associated with the development of the Otay Ranch. All identified significant and unmitigated
impacts associated with the Village Six project and described below, are consistent with the
previously identified significant unmitigated impacts in the Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01.
The Village Six project does not result in any new unmitigated impacts, which have not been
already been identified in the Otay Ranch Program ErR 90-01.
3
Page 4, Item: 2a
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
Land Use (Cumulative): Implementation of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs would
contribute to the conversion of vacant land throughout the Otay Ranch area to urban uses. The
overall loss of open space associated with the conversion of the proposed Village Six SPA, in
conjunction with buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in a significant, cumulative
and unmitigable impact.
Landfonn Alteration and Aesthetics (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six
SPA Plan/TMs would contribute to an overall change in visual character of the region from rural
to an urban setting. The overall loss of the rural setting associated wifh the development of
Village Six SPA would result in a significant, cumulative and unmitigable impact.
Biological Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs
would result in significant unmitigable impacts to raptor foraging areas. These impacts would be
directly related to implementation of the proposed SP NTMs.
Agricultural Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed Village Six SPA Plan/TMs
would contribute to the loss of important agricultural lands throughout the Otay Ranch area. The
combined conversion of open space to developed land represents a significant, cumulative and
unmitigable impact.
Transportation, Circulation and Access (Cumulative): For the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020,
and the buildout scenario, significant cumulative impacts are identified for 1-805, between Bonita
Road and Telegraph Canyon Road. The mitigation for these impacts is continued freeway
planning efforts by Caltrans and SANDAG to determine acceptable mitigation strategies for the
regional freeway system. Freeway improvements are regional in nature and beyond the control
of either a single developer or the City. Therefore, the impacts to freeways are considered
cumulatively significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level ofless than significant.
Air Quality (Proiect and Cumulative): The proposed project will generate air pollutants during
construction as well as during long-tenn operation. Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin exceed
federal and state standards, and the basin is therefore classified as non-attainment. Any
incremental increase in pollution, therefore, is considered a significant impact. The regional
impact of the proposed project is beyond the control of the City and the applicant, and cannot be
mitigated to a level less than significant.
Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant
Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas. Mitigation
measures required in the EIR would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
. Landfonn Alteration and Aesthetics (project)
. Biological Resources (project)
. Geology/Soils (project)
Lf
^......~_.___._._,_u__..
"----~._~_._-.._~-_._.._._._-
Page 5, Item: 2a
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
. Paleontological Resources (project and cumulative)
. Agricultural Resources (project)
. Water Resources and Water Quality (project and cumulative)
. Transportation, Circulation and Access (project and cumulative, except as discussed
above)
. Cultural Resources (project and cumulative)
. Noise (project and cumulative)
. Water Supply and Facilities (project and cumulative)
. Sewer Service (project and cumulative)
. Integrated Waste Management (project and cumulative)
. Law Enforcement (project and cumulative)
. Fire Protection (project and cumulative)
. Schools (project and cumulative)
. Library Services (project and cumulative)
. Parks and Recreation (project and cumulative)
. Hazards/Risk of Upset (project and cumulative)
Less than Significant Impacts
Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas:
. Land Use, Planning and Zoning (project)
. Housing and Population (project and cumulative)
. Geology and Soils (cumulative)
. Mineral Resources (project and cumulative)
. Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative)
CONCLUSIONS:
At the time the Program EIR (90-01) was certified and adopted in October 1993, the City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social,
environmental and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and
unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Otay Ranch project was approved. The proposed Village Six SPAlTMs are consistent
with the adopted Otay Ranch GDP, which was comprehensively and carefully considered at that
time.
All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts for the Village Six SP AlTMs
have been included in the Final EIR (see Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
Attachment 4). As described above, the Village Six project will result in uumitigable impacts
that would remain significant after the application of these measures; therefore in order to
approve the project, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to
-------
b
Page 6, Item: 2a
Meeting Date: 1/9/02
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 (see Attachment 3, Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, Section XI).
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the
proposed project described in the Final EIR. Based on this examination, the City has determined
that neither of the alternatives meets the project objectives, or is environmentally superior to the
project (see Attachment 3, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section
X).
Staff believes that the Final EIR meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and, therefore recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that they find that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and
recommend adoption of the Draft Findings of Fact attached to this staffreport.
Attachments
1. Final EIR 98-01
a. Comments and Responses
2. November 5, 2001 - RCC Minutes
3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
h
RESOLUTION NO. EIR 98-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND
TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 98-01) FOR
THE VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN;
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, McMillin Land Development, submitted an application requesting
approvals for approval of a Sectional PI arming Area (SPA) Plan for Village Six
("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 98-01 was issued for public review on September 28,
2001 and was processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing for Draft EIR 98-01 on November 14, 2001 to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 98-01) was prepared
on the Village Six Sectional Plarming Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 98-01 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address
the subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan EIR; the Final Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01), the City ofChula Vista Sphere ofInfluence Update (94-
03); Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR (95-01); Final Second
Tier EIR for Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments (97-03); the Otay Water
District Resources Master Plan Final Master EIR (97-04); the Village Six SPA Plan; the
Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; the Olympic Parkway Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS 00-33); the Final Eastlake III Woods and Vistas Replarming Program EIR
(01-01), as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Project, dated December 17,2001 (Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that
proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR 98-01 are feasible and have not been
modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the
Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are
not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will
come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted
mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
7
are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings
of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby recommend that the City
Council of the City of ChuIa Vista find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearings on Draft EIR 98-01 held on November 14, 2001 and the
minutes and resolutions resulting therefIom, are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted
to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings
for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Resources Code 921000 et seq.).
II. FEIR 98-01 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 98-01 consists of the following:
1. Second Tier EIR for the Village Six SPA Plan (including technical
appendices); and
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 98-01")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR98-01
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 98-01, the Findings of
Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a
copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) are prepared in accordance
. with the requirement ofCEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA
?
Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 915000 et seq.), and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
Tj1at the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 98-01 reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accepts as its own,
incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of
the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this
Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any
feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant
environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain.
Therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby
issues, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit "A," a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, identifYing the specific
economic, social and other considerations that render the unavoidable
significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of
Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning Commission
hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the
above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon
the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to
implement the same.
D. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 98-01 and in the Findings of
Fact, Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
cr
a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning
Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the
project, which were identified in FEIR 98-01, were not found to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk. The Planning Commission further
finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project
implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible
parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation
measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed
after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of
Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These
documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers,
including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6,
subdivision( s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources
Code 921000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista recommends to the City Council that FEIR 98-01, the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is
on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the
City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, 921000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14
915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista
and therefore, should be certified.
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 January 9, 2002, by the following
vote, to-wit:
/0
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neill, Chairman
-'
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
.
If
RCC Minutes
- 2 -
November 5, 2001
Episcopal Community Services Head Start Program proposes to utilize an existing
church building and modify a recreational area to include a playground. The Head
Start Program will operate 179 days a year and is licensed for a maximum of 100
children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years. The proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan, Zoning regulations and development standards. Staff received one
written response from a property owner along the southwest boundary who was
concerned about additional traffic and noise from the playground area. Potential
impacts of noise would be less than significant, and the additional traffic of 245 ADT
would not create a significant impact on the adjacent street segments.
Staff Recommendation: Adoption of the Negative Declaration.
Vice-Chair Reid asked if staff typically looked at requiring solid fencing or acoustical
walls with daycare uses associated with pre-existing church uses. Ms. Muett
indicated that projects of this nature are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If it is
determined that a noise study is needed and a significant impact is identified, an
acoustical wall may be required as a mitigation measure. This particular use at this
site did not create a significant noise impact because the proposed project contains
the following features: solid wooden fencing around the perimeters, distance of 50-
240 feet away from surrounding residential uses and, due to the level of ambient
noise from the surrounding streets, the noise associated with the child development
center and playground would not be significant.
MSC (Thomas/Reid) to accept the Negative Declaration for the Episcopal
Community Services Head Start Program. Vote: (5-0-0-1) with
Bensoussan absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Cont'd)
MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) to approve the minutes of October 15, 2001.
Vote: (4-0-1-1) with Reid abstaining and Bensoussan absent.
NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd)
2. Otay Ranch Village Six EIR
Chair Bull recused himself from this item.
Ms. Marilyn ponseggi (Environmental Review Coordinator) relayed to the
Commissioners some of the discussion City Council had during the Village 11 EIR
hearing. Staff reported to City Council that the RCC vote was 4-2; that one
Commissioner did not state why she was opposed, and one Commissioner was
opposed because of regional traffic issues. The concern that the City Council raised
was to remind the RCC they are charged with determining the adequacy of an EIR
and not in making a decision on the project itself. If the RCC does not believe that an
EIR is adequate, the RCC should state for the record why the document itself is not
adequate. Ms. Ponseggi cautioned the RCC that, if the EIR is adequate, and it has
been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and the RCC does not see any problems
/~
RCC Minutes
- 3 -
November 5, 2001
with the document, even if the RCC does not like the project, they should vote to
certify the document. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, If the RCC feels that the document is
not adequate, and it has not met the requirements of CEQA, and it has not met the
requirements of the environmental review guidelines, then the RCC needs to take a
second motion to oppose and state for the record why the RCC does not believe the
document is adequate. The City Council is looking to the RCC for their input in
considering an EIR.
Commissioner Burrascano stated that she was frequently going to have a problem
with traffic because, in terms of it meeting the City requirement, the traffic
documents do. The impacts are disclosed, but they are not adequately dealt with in
terms of significance because she does not agree with the way Chula Vista has
chosen to interpret what an "F" means. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, if Commissioner
Burrascano felt that the description of level of service "F" is not adequate for CEQA
and, therefore, she felt that the document was not adequate, she should state that
she was voting against certification because she did not feel that this section of the
traffic analysis meets the requirement of CEQA CEQA requires the lead agency (in
this case the City) to establish significance criteria. If Commissioner Burrascano had
a problem with the significance criteria that is being used, that should be a separate
motion.
Mr. Rick Rosaler (Principal Planner) gave an overview of the Otay Ranch Village Six
SPA Plan via PowerPoint graphics. There are three property owners in Village Six:
the Catholic Dioces. The Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies. McMillin
Companies proposes 482 single-family dwellings and 212 town homes. The Catholic
Dioces proposes a parish and private high school. The Dioces wanted to have an
underlying land use if for some reason their funding for the private high school fell
apart, so this has been designated with 146 single-family units that the EIR has
analyzed as a secondary land use. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401
single-family lots and 991 multi-family units in their northeast portion and 202 single-
family homes on 41 acres in their southeast portion.
Ms. Marisa Lundstedt (Environmental Projects Manager) gave an overview of the
Otay Ranch Village Six Draft EIR The EIR covers 443 acres that is fully covered
with agriculture fields and non-native grasses. The EIR is currently in the 45-day
public review period, which ends November 14 at the Planning Commission hearing.
Because of traffic concerns, this project, along with the other two major projects that
the RCC has seen, LLG performed short-term model runs because there is a
concern about when SR-125 will be constructed. This project is also subject to the
9,400 dwelling unit cap prior to construction of SR-125. There are unavoidable
significant impacts to the cumulative traffic impacts on 1-805. There are cumulative
visual quality impacts from the conversion of open space to urban uses. There is an
unavoidable significant impact to the lose of raptor foraging land and unavoidable air
quality impacts.
Commissioner Burrascano noted a typo on page 128 of the Traffic Report, Table 35,
#7 of the Draft Mitigation Measures. Change Village "11" to Village "6".
/3
RCC Minutes
- 4 -
November 5, 2001
Commissioner Diaz inquired about the elevation of SR-125 and the trolley alignment.
Mr. Rosaler responded.
Commissioner Burrascano had problems understanding what the mitigation brings
the level to in terms of traffic. Mr. Jon Boarman (Linscott Law & Greenspan, 1565
Hotel Circle South, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92108) referred to Table 21 on page
87 of the Traffic Report. All the levels of service "F" are mitigated to "D" or "E".
Commissioner Burrascano wanted to know where in the document does it show how
the level of service "F" is mitigated. Mr. Boarman indicated that it might not be
explicitly stated in the document.
Commissioner Thomas wanted to know where the sewage was going to end up. Mr.
Robert Pletcher (McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA
91950) stated that it would be going to the Point Lama treatment plant. Ms.
Ponseggi indicated that, in the long-term, it would be going to the South Bay plant.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the City has a contract with the Otay Water District
to supply water. Mr. Rosaler responded that no one has a contract with Otay Water
District.
Commissioner Thomas would like to see a motion that would give the City of Chula
Vista the option of keeping some of the paleontological that have been sent to the
Natural History Museum. Ms. Ponseggi stated that, if the City had a facility to house
and display the artifacts, the Natural History Museum would likely assist in displaying
these artifacts. The developers are talking of some of those kinds of displays within
the Ranch at various community buildings. None of that has come to fruition yet.
Vice-Chair Reid noted that it was not shown on the map if the FAA still owns vortac.
Mr. Rosaler responded that they do.
Vice-Chair Reid recalled a discussion regarding the Ranch Complex. A report was
supposed to be prepared as a result of that discussion. Mr. Rosaler stated that an
analysis report of what was there had been prepared.
MSC (Diaz/Thomas) to accept the draft Village Six SPA Plan EIR. Vote:
(4-0-1-1) with Bull abstaining and Bensoussan absent.
Commissioner Burrascano made a request that the EIR adequately reflect what the
level of service would be after mitigation for all the areas that are shown as level of
service "F" prior to mitigation.
MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) that the EIR be revised to include information
on post mitigation of levels of service "F". Vote: (4-0-1-1) with Bull
abstaining and Bensoussan absent
Chair Bull returned to the meeting.
/Y
RCC Minutes
- 5 -
November 5. 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR COMMENTS
3. 2002 Preservation Design Awards information was distributed by Ms. Ponseggi.
4. Police Department Annual Report was presented by Ms. Ponseggi who asked if
anyone wanted a copy. Chair Bull requested a copy.
Ms. ponseggi announced that the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) is
doing a nuts and bolts CEQA workshop at Sempra Headquarters on November 16,
2001. If anyone is interested, she would check if there is a budget for RCC members.
CHAIR COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Thomas thought Item #3 would be the Governor's Historic Preservation
Awards because she wanted to be able to make a motion recommending the City of
Chula Vista for the award. Ms. Ponseggi indicated that staff had not received that
information as yet. When it does arrive, the RCC members would have to put together
the nomination package because there is no staff available. Staff can put it on the next
agenda.
Chair Bull and Commissioner Diaz stated that they would not be at the November 19,
2001 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Chair Bull adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m. to a regular meeting
on Monday, November 19, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. in the Mercy Building Conference Room,
430 'F' Street, Chula Vista, CA.
Prepared by:
Linda Bond
Recording Secretary
(A:\lIb\RCC#1\RCC11 0501 MINS.doc)
---'
/')
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~ b.
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 99-05; Consideration of a Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design
Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and other
regulatory documents for 2,232 dwelling units on approximately 386 acres
in Village Six of Otay Ranch located generally in the north central portion of
the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media Road,
north of Birch Road and west of future SR-I25.
Applicant: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, part owner of Village Six.
Participant: Otay Ranch Company, LLC, part owner of Village Six
McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, has submitted an application for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan and associated regulatory documents for Village Six in Otay Ranch. Village Six is located in
the north central portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway, east of La Media
Road, north of Birch Road and west of future SR-125. The SPA Plan proposes 2,232 dwelling units
on 386.4 acres ofland in Village Six. The ownership of Village Six is split between three property
owners: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, the Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese of San
Diego. McMillin is proposing 482 single-family dwellings and 212 multi-family units on their
portion of Village Six, while Otay Ranch Company is proposing 401 single-family dwellings and
1,392 multi-family units. The Catholic Diocese is proposing a church on an I1.5-acre site and a
32.5-acre private high school in a neighborhood zoned residential.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined that the
Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, a Final Second Tier
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR 98-01) has been prepared. Certification of the Final
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for this Project will be considered by the Planning
Commission as a separate item.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PCM 99-05 recommending that the City
Council adopt a resolution approving the Village Six SPA Plan and other regulatory documents
including the Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Affordable Housing
Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Non-Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan and Park, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, and adopt an Ordinance
approving Planned Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on November 5,2001 to consider the Final Second
Tier Environmental Impact Report EIR 01-02 and voted 4-0-1-1 (Bull abstained; Bensoussan
absent) for certification of the document. The Planning Commission held a workshop on the
Village Six SPA Plan documents on December 12,2001.
DISCUSSION:
In October 1993, the City Council and County Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,000-acre Otay Ranch. The GDP
authorized 990 single-family homes and 1,242 multi-family units for a total of 2,232 dwelling
units in Village Six. The boundaries of Village Six were established by the major arterial
circulation system. The GDP based the development concept for the Otay Ranch on the "Village
Concept". The Village Concept provides villages that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly,
with mixed commercial, office and multi-family residential uses along with schools and
neighborhood parks within a village core. The cores are surrounded by single-family
neighborhoods in secondary areas of the village. Village Six is a transit village that implements
the Village Concept as described in the GDP.
In 1998, McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC became the owners of approximately 1,030 acres in the
Otay Valley Parcel (in Villages One, Five, Six, Seven, Planning Area 12/Eastern Urban Center
and Freeway Commercial) and initiated plans to develop their ownership in Village Five and
Village Six. McMillin has completed development of Village Five and is now proposing a SPA
Plan for the entire Village Six area as well as a Tentative Map for their ownership within the
Village. The Otay Ranch Company and the Catholic Diocese have participated in the
development of the SPA Plan and are proposing separate tentative maps and plans for their
ownership.
1. Existing Site Characteristics
Village Six, located at the north central section of the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch,
consists of approximately 386 acres of gently rolling hills. In the recent past, the area that
constitutes Village Six was used for grazing and dry farming.
Directly to the north of the Project adjacent to Olympic Parkway is Village Five, currently under
development by the McMillin Company, the Otay Ranch Company and their guest builders.
Planning Area 12/Freeway Commercial is located on Village Six's eastern boundary across the
proposed right-of-way for SR-125. To the south is the area of the future development of Village
Seven. The area for the future development of Village Two is located on the western boundary
of the Project, separated from Village Six by the southern extension of La Media Road.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP designate the land within the Otay Valley Parcel
for urban villages that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly. Otay Ranch villages are
intended to contain higher residential densities and a variety of mixed-uses in the "Village
Cores", surrounded by single-family homes in the secondary residential areas outside of the
village cores. The General Plan designates residential land uses in Village Six as Low-Medium
Village (LMV) at 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre, and Medium High at 11 to 18 dwelling units per
acre. In addition, there is a Village Core (VC) land use, as well as land uses for parks and
recreation and an elementary school, all consistent with the land use designations for the Otay
Ranch GDP.
The GDP, which authorizes 2,232 dwelling units for Village Six, further details the General Plan
land uses and densities and separates them into various categories as outlined in the following
table:
VILLAGE SIX GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND
USES
Chula Vista General Plan Land Otay Ranch GDP No. of Units Existing
Municipal Use Designation Land Use Land Use
Code/Zoning Designation
PC Low-Medium Low-Medium 990 Units Vacant
Village (3-6 Village (4.8
DUs/Acre) DUs/Acre)
PC Village Core Medium-High 1,242 Units Vacant
(18.0 DUs (Acre)
PC Parks Parks N/A Vacant
PC Elementary School Elementary School N/A Vacant
The Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities
in Chula Vista such as Sun bow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the
Planned Community District Regulations within each master planned community's Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan along with a zoning boundary map, which designates neighborhood
zones. The Village Six SPA Plan Zoning Districts Map (SPA Plan, Exhibit PC-Ion page II.3-6)
identifies the individual zoning districts for the Village Six project.
3. Proposed Plan
The Village Six SPA Plan implements the goals, objectives and policies found in the Otay Ranch
GDP and defines, in more detailed terms, the development parameters for the village, including
the land use mix, design criteria and guidelines, circulation pattern, open space and recreation
concept and infrastructure requirements. The plans for Village Six are contained in a series of
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
documents, including: I) SPA Plan; 2) Planned Community District Regulations; 3) Village
Design Plan; 4) Public Facilities Finance Plan; 5) Affordable Housing Program; 6) Air Quality
Improvement Plan; 7) Water Conservation Plan; 8) Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan;
and 9) Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan (Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan). A
brief summary of each of these plans follows:
a. SPA Plan
The GDP policies for Village Six identify the village as an Urban Village adjacent to existing
urban development and planned for transit-oriented development with higher densities and
mixed uses in the village core. The multi-family residential uses are to be located in the core
area in order to provide housing opportunities adjacent to the planned San Diego Trolley
extension. The village core design is to be based on the "Main Street" theme as an
identifying feature, which will be developed at a later date with the submittal, review and
approval of a Village Six Core Master Precise Plan.
Village Six is not as constrained as other villages in the Otay Ranch because it does not have
steep topography, easements crossing the village, sensitive habitat and adjacent sensitive
receptors. Village Six and the surrounding areas were most recently used for grazing and dry
farming. The only constraint to Village Six may be the proximity of SR-125 immediately to
the east, which precludes entries from the east and, therefore, there are only three village
entry points. In addition, SR-125 poses a future noise source along Village Six's easterly
edge. To address this issue, noise walls will be built along the property line between Village
Six and SR-125.
Ideally, the village cores should be located at the geographic center of each village in order to
best serve the entire population. Due to the rout of the trolley from Village Five to the
Freeway Commercial area, the Village Six Core is located northeast of the geographic center
of the village. In the case of Village Six, the trolley right-of-way crosses Olympic Parkway
from Village Five, passes through the Core and continues to the east over SR-125 to the
Freeway Commercial area. The current alignment has been coordinated with the
Metropolitan Transportation Development Board. Because of the location of the trolley line,
all multi-family neighborhoods are located within a Y. mile of the core with detached single-
family generally around the edges of Village Six.
There are three entries into Village Six: East Palomar Street off of Olympic Parkway across
from Village Five, Street "J" off of La Media Road across from Village Two and Street "R"
off of Birch Road across from Village Seven. Because of the adjacency of SR-125 to the
east, an eastern entry into Village Six is precluded. However, the trolley will continue east
from the Village Six Core on a bridge over SR-125 into Planning Area 12/Freeway
Commercial where it will turn south, go into the Eastern Urban Center and the future
University site.
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
The design of the Village Six Core is based on the "Main Street" concept. As with Villages
One and Five, there will be a transit stop with mixed-use development, CPF uses, an
elementary school and a neighborhood park in close proximity. Diagonal parking is
proposed on the southwest side of East Palomar along the mixed-use frontage. A 7-acre
neighborhood park and 10-acre elementary are located to the southwest of the mixed-use
area, while a CPF site and a common usable open space area will be located to the northeast
of the Core. Multi-family will be located to the north, south, east and west of the transit stop.
The single-family developments are located in the out-lying secondary areas of Village Six.
In addition, another CPF site and private high school are located in the secondary area. The
CPF site is located at the south-central entrance to Village Six at Street "R" and Birch Road
and will contain a church. The private high school campus is located next to the CPF site.
SPA Plan Analysis
The land use plan for Village Six is consistent with the GDP goals and objectives for the
Village Concept. Densities in the village core are higher supporting the future trolley and,
along with the community services, are located within a V.-mile radius of the Village Six
Core. Only 2,086 dwelling units of the 2,232 authorized in the Otay Ranch GDP are utilized
under the proposed Village Six SPA Plan with the private high school. The Village Six
Planned Community (PC) District Regulations function as zoning regulations for the village.
The PC District Regulations provide standards and regulations to guide the development of
the Project. These regulations are applied in conjunction with the Village Six Design Plan.
I. Residential Land Uses
Eight single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed which will contain 883
single-family residences ranging from 4.0 to 6.8 dwelling units per acre on lot sizes
averaging from 3,400 square feet to 6,000 square feet. The Applicant proposes to include
several pedestrian-oriented features to serve the single-family neighborhoods including
the continuation of the Village Pathway which is a 15-foot wide, landscaped and themed
pedestrian walking/cart trail that comes from Village Five to the Village Six Core and
from there leads to Village Two to the west and Village Seven to the south. The Village
Pathway will eventually connect all villages in the Otay Valley Parcel and is a major
common element throughout the villages and planning areas.
The Catholic Diocese proposes to construct a private high school serving 2,200 students
and 150 staff in Neighborhood R-Il. The Diocese has requested a residential alternative
to construct 146 detached single-family dwelling units in Neighborhood R-ll if the
private high cannot be funded. With the private high school, the total number of dwelling
units proposed in Village Six, according to the Site Utilization Plan (AttacIunent 5, SPA
Plan, Exhibit 5, Page 11.2.1-13) is 2,086. However, if Neighborhood R-ll is developed
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
with the 146 dwelling units, there will be a SPA Plan total of2,232 dwelling units, which
is the GDP- authorized number of dwellings.
Five multi-family developments provide an additional 1,203 dwelling units, which range
from 7.5 to 28.8 dwelling units per acre. These multi-family developments will
incorporate a variety of housing types including alley-product homes, townhouses and
apartments. Each of the multi-family developments will provide street frontage to
enhance the pedestrian experience and provide human scale. In higher density multi-
family neighborhoods, individual pedestrian connections to some of the units will be
provided as well. The following table illustrates a summary of the residential land uses in
Village Six.
EIGHBORHOOD LAND TARGET WELLING
AREA USE CREAGE DU'S/AC UNITS
R-1 SF 26.2 4.0 105
R-2a SF 19.7 4.4 87
R-2b SF 21.3 5.4 115
R-3 SF 35.6 4.5 159
R-4 SF 20.4 4.5 92
R-5 SF 16.6 6.7 111
R-6 SF 20.4 6.2 126
R-7a SF 12.9 6.8 88
SUBTOTAL SF SF 173.1 5.1 883
R-Il All. SF 32.5 4.5 146
UBTOTAL W/R-ll SF 205.6 5.0 1,029
R-7b MF 58 28.4 165
R-8 MF 11.7 28.8 337
R-9a MF 21.8 7.5 163
R-9b MF 12.7 25.7 326
R-1O MF 12.1 17.5 212
SUBTOTAL MF MF 64.1 18.8 1,203
TOTAL WO/R-ll ESIDENTIAL 237.2 8.8 2,086
TOTAL W/R-ll ESIDENTIAL 269.7 8.3 2,232
Residential Land Uses Analysis
The single-family and multi-family residential components of the land use plan in Village
Six are designed to provide a variety of housing types, lot sizes and densities consistent
with the goals and objectives of the GDP as well as the Housing Element of the City's
General Plan. Lot sizes for single-family homes will range from averages of 3,400 square
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
feet to 6,000 square feet with densities ranging from 4.0 to 6.8 dwelling units per acre.
The Planned Community District Regulations contain detailed requirements for the
Zoning Administrator Site Plan and Architectural Review and for the administrative
Design Review for model home complexes. Design Review Committee approval of
multi-family and commercial projects is required. The regulations will ensure that all of
Village Six is built in accordance with the principles and other criteria contained in the
Village Design Plan.
11. Mixed-Use Commercial
As with all villages in the Otay Valley Parcel, Village Six will contain a mixed-use
commercial core. This area is 3.0 acres in size and is intended to serve the day-to-day
retail needs of the residents of Village Six. The mixed-use area will be more thoroughly
examined when the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan is prepared by the Otay Ranch
Company. A future SPA amendment will be processed to allocate residential units to the
mixed-use site similar to SPA One process.
Mixed-Use Commercial Analysis
The 3,0-acre mixed-use area in Village Six is consistent with the GDP policies for the
Village Core since commercial uses will be available for the day-to-day needs of the
Village Six residents. The SPA Plan provides for a mixed-use area that will be refined at
a future date and will be included in the Village Six Core Master Precise Plan. The design
of the Village core will be analyzed in relationship to the GDP village policies.
111. Community Purpose Facilities (CPF)
The Village Six Project is obligated to provide Community Purpose Facilities (CPF)
pursuant to the Planned Community Zone of the City Zoning Ordinance. The PC zone
requires 1.39 acres of CPF land per 1,000 persons. Based on the approximate GDP
population of 6,336 persons in Village Six, the CPF land acreage requirement is 8.8
acres. The Otay Ranch Company is proposing a 5.2-acre CPF facility in the Village
Core. The Catholic Diocese will also provide a second 11.5-acre CPF site on the south
central side of the village at the northeast corner of Street "R" and Birch Road next to the
R-IIIS-2 private high school site. The Catholic Diocese is proposing to build a church
on this CPF site next to the private high school.
In addition to these two proposed CPF sites, the developers of Village Six are required to
install three common usable open space (CUOS) areas that serve the residential
neighborhoods of Village Six in conformance with the City Design Manual. These
CUOS areas are required due to the large number of small lot single-family
neighborhoods proposed in the project. The CUOS include passive and active recreation
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
amenities such as tables, shaded seating areas, barbecues, courts and tot lots (page 1-3,
City Design Manual).
Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) Analysis
The City has reviewed the permitted use of a "Recreational Facility" (for non-profit
organizations) authorized in the CPF Ordinance of the Planned Community (PC) Zone.
During the review of the Village II SPA Plan, Brookfield Shea Otay requested their
common useable open space that is maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association be
permitted as a CPF use. After reviewing the recent CPF amendment for the EastLake
Little League fields, staff determined that the privately owned Village II recreation
facilities qualify as a CPF land use. The CPF credit for Village Six focuses on the
ownership of the CUOS. Otay Ranch Company is proposing that a homeowner's
association own their CUOS sites while McMillin proposes their site by owned by the
community facilities district (CFD). CFD's are public entities and in staffs opinion do
not qualify as a non-profit entity envisioned by the CPF zone amendment. McMillin has
indicated they will propose a PC zone ordinance amendment to allow public entities to
qualify for CPF credit.
IV. Elementary School
The 10-acre elementary school is located in the center of the village in order to provide
close access from all locations in the village. The elementary school is also located next
to the 7-acre neighborhood park to provide additional common uses between the school
and the public park. The pedestrian-oriented design theme for Village Six allows for
children attending the elementary school to walk to it rather than taking a bus. The
Village Pathway and other trail connections will provide pedestrian access to the
elementary school in the Village from Streets "R" and "J."
Elementary School Analysis
A I O-acre elementary school will be provided in Village Six. The location of and access
to the school is consistent with the goals and objectives of the GDP. Locating an
elementary school in Village Six is consistent with the facility needs of the Chula Vista
Elementary School District. Access to the site from both Streets "J" and "R" has been
reviewed and accepted by the school district. The developers have been conditioned to
grade the school site in the first phase so it can be conveyed to the elementary school
district as soon as the district needs the site to meet their threshold standards.
v. Private High School
The Catholic Diocese is proposing the construction of a private high school on 32.5 acres
of land at the southeast quadrant of Village Six. The school is planned to comprised of
Page 9, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
245,000 square feet of building area on a campus for 2,200 students, 150 faculty and 50
support staff. The campus will include buildings for administration, a library, fine arts,
student support, classrooms and a gymnasium, and athletic facilities for football/soccer,
baseball, softball, track and tennis. In order to avoid congestion in the Village Core
around the elementary school, primary access to the private high school will be via an
entrance from Birch Road just east of Street "R". Although there is an entrance off of
Street "R" in the vicinity of the elementary school, this is a secondary access point.
Private High School Analysis
The Village Six SPA Plan specifies that private schools are a conditionally permitted use
in residential neighborhoods, subject to design review. In this case, the proposed private
high is to be located in Neighborhood R-II and will supplant 146 dwelling units.
Private schools have been allowed as conditionally permitted uses in other SPA plans in
the City. In addition, these sites require Design Review Committee approval. A private
high school in Neighborhood R-II can be considered consistent with the provisions of
the Otay Ranch GDP since private schools are normally found in residential
neighborhoods elsewhere in the City. The Diocese has acquired the land from the
McMillin Companies and is concerned about the future approval process. Staff suggested
that a complete description of the design and operation of the high school be part of the
SPA Plan so that the use permit application can be analyzed in relationship to it. The high
school use is described in the SPA Plan and a conceptual design was provide in the
Village Design Plan. McMillin has proposed in the PC District Regulations that the
Zoning Administrator approve the high school use permit. Staff, however, believes the
facility is of sufficient size to warrant approval by the City Council. This requirement
has, therefore, been included in the conditions of approval. Pursuant to the conditions of
approval, the location, access points and circulation within and around the private high
school would be reviewed when the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
applications are submitted to the City for processing.
v!. Circulation
The Village Six Circulation Plan (see SPA Plan, Page II.2.3-4) details the hierarchy of
vehicular circulation for internal neighborhood residential streets, promenade streets,
village entry streets, and the roadways that define the boundary of Village Six: major
streets, prime arterials and a freeway. Vehicular traffic, while important for the
circulation in all Otay Ranch villages, is considered secondary to pedestrian traffic.
Design alternatives that provide wider-than-normal pedestrian pathways, which were
adopted with the original Otay Ranch GDP, have been implemented with the Project.
Streets are designed to be narrower to reduce vehicle speeds, and the wide-spread use of
dead-end cul-de-sacs is discouraged as being non-pedestrian friendly.
Page 10, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
Four Circulation Element roadways surround Village Six: SR-125, the proposed freeway
which defines the eastern boundary of Village Six; Olympic Parkway, which continues to
be a "Scenic Corridor" and a Six-Lane Prime Arterial roadway, including its unique
landscape theme, on the north; La Media Road, also a Six-Lane Prime Arterial, on the
west; and Birch Road, a Six-Lane Major Street, on the south.
Access to Village Six is provided !Tom three Village Entry Streets: East Palomar Street,
which serves as the main entry point, from Olympic Parkway on the north, Street "J"
from La Media Road on the west and Street "R" from Birch Road on the south. Access
to SR-125 is provided from the future Olympic Parkway and Birch Road interchanges. A
Transit Village Entry Street for East Palomar and a Secondary Village Entry Street for
Streets "J" and "R" provide the entrance into the Village. The Secondary Village Entry
Streets extend about 500' into the village, at which point the median is eliminated and the
streets become promenade streets.
In order to connect the Village Six Core to the residential areas, three types of Promenade
Streets are provided. Streets "J" and "R" south of East Palomar are Village Promenade
Streets, Street "I" is a Residential Promenade Street and Streets "I" and "R" north of East
Palomar are Core Promenade Streets. The Village Promenade streets in Village Six are
32 feet curb-to-curb with two 12-foot travel lanes and one 8-foot parking lane on one side
of the street. The Core Promenade Streets "I" and "R" north of East Palomar Street are 36
feet wide and provide two 12-foot travel lanes and two 6-foot parking lanes. The
promenade streets are wider than those built in Villages One and Five. The right-of-way
for the promenade streets depends on the location and width of the Village Pathway,
which is either 10 or 15 feet wide.
The Residential Streets consists of two types: Parkway Residential Streets and Alleys.
All single-family neighborhoods are served by Parkway Residential Streets that are 32
feet wide curb-to-curb and allow parking on both sides. Alleys are 20 feet wide and paved
with concrete consistent with City standards.
Circulation Analysis
The Village Six internal traffic study indicated that the three points of vehicular access to
Village Six !Tom Olympic Parkway, La Media Road and Birch Road are sufficient to
provide adequate access to the village. The Promenade Streets provide connectivity
throughout the Village to the core. All street designs, including curb-to-curb width
conform to and implement the GDP Mobility policies and pedestrian-oriented design
features. Based on the City's experience with Villages One and Five, staff has required
wider promenade streets and at least two access points into each neighborhood. These
access points plus the grid system within the neighborhoods will be provided on the
tentative maps. Both the Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the internal
circulation and access and believe the circulation system addresses their requirements.
Page II, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
vii. Transit
The proposed Transit Plan for Village Six consists of trolley and bus stops based on
"Yellow Car", "Red Car", "Blue Car" and "Green Car" service concepts created by the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), transit services to and within the
City of Chula Vista. The Yellow Car is a regionally serving mode with fewer stops than
the Red Car. One Yellow Car stop in the Eastern Urban Center is anticipated for the Otay
Ranch. The Red Car is generally based on the San Diego Trolley and right-of-way is
provided for this mode in East Palomar. A transit stop for the Red Car is planned for the
Village Six core. The Blue Car is based on local buses, which will stop at the transit
station in the Village Six Core. The Green Car represents local circulators using mini to
mid-size buses. The Green Car would act as a collector and provide feeder access to the
Village Six Core. These four levels of service are planned to work together to provide
improved service within the local village area and the region, and will compliment longer
trips provided by Chula Vista Transit buses and regional fixed rail. The Transit First
Planning Program will analyze transit service in the coming year.
Transit Analysis
A conceptual Transit Plan for Village Six has been prepared (see SPA Plan, Exhibit 14,
Page II.2.3-14) consistent with the requirements of the SPA Plan and the policies of the
GDP. Several transit stops, both bus and fixed-rail, are located within Village Six. The
"Transit First" Planning Program will analyze transit service in the coming year.
b. Planned Community District Regulations
The Planned Community District Regulations will be adopted by ordinance as the zoning
regulations for Village Six. These regulations set the development and land use standards for
all property within the village for setbacks, building height, parking, landscape, lot sizes and
sign regulations. These regulations contain the standards that implement the pedestrian
orientated goals and design guidelines for the Village.
Villages One and Five (SP A One) in Otay Ranch were the first villages designed for
pedestrian-orientation based on the "Village Concept" as described in the Otay Ranch GDP.
Both villages are close to being built out, and have been successful at implementing the goals
and objectives of the GDP. Staff believes, however, that through improved development
standards, we can make future villages even more successful. To this end, staff has worked
closely with both McMillin and Otay Ranch Company to refine the standards which are
reflected in the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations.
The standards for Village Six are more specific and have increased the requirements for
pedestrian-oriented design over those found in SPA One for Villages One and Five. A
Page 12, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
definition of the goals and principals for pedestrian-oriented design has been included in the
Village Design Plan. Specifics such as garage setbacks from the streets for single-family
residences have been increased. Also, the requirements have been increased to require
pedestrian-oriented features on a greater number of all single-family residential units. The
balance of homes are required to have strong entry features.
Pedestrian-oriented architectural designs appear in Village Six in the form of porches,
verandas, balconies and courtyards. These features are required to be the dominant
architectural feature of the structure, rather than the garage.
Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for single-family residences have increased from SPA One from
50% to 65% but will produce less intensive development. This reduction is because the
requirement in SPA One was for 50% or a maximum of 4,500 square feet, whichever was
greater. In the vast majority of cases in SPA One, the maximum square footage was used,
which in some cases led to aFAR greater than 70%. The Village Six SPA Plan F ARs do not
have an associated maximum square footage option. The City Council expressed concerns
over the intensive development on the small lots in the master planned communities.
Council directed staff to review the standards and find a solution to the intensity of the small
lot single-family developments. Staff discussed this issue at length with the developers of the
Otay Ranch. McMillin's proposed solution to the issue is to require a "Sky Exposure Plane"
(see SPA Plan, PC District Regulations, Exhibit PC-2, Page 11.3-13). This standard requires
second-story elements on one side of the house to be angled away from the neighboring
property at a minimum 450 angle. The Sky Exposure Plane will result in either hip roofs or
in an increased distance between houses. Staff believes this will address the City Council's
concern in a simple and straight forward manner but not restrict the design options of the
architect when developing architectural renderings for single-family homes.
Single-family residences with three-car garages have been further restricted from but not
eliminated from the SPA Plan. Three-car front -loaded garages off the street have been
restricted to those neighborhoods with 60-foot wide lots with strict design requirements
including additional standards for off-set garage doors, landscaping and architectural
enhancements limited to one model in two neighborhoods, R-l and R-4. Other three-car
designs are also restricted to "tandem" style or side-loaded for a "split" garage style. Based
on the SPA One experience, three-car side-loaded styles have been eliminated due to the
large amount of concrete paving one can observe in the front yard.
Planned Community District Regulations Analysis
The PC District Regulations have been refined since SPA One for Villages One and Five and
are more pedestrian-oriented than before, further implementing the GDP goals and policies.
Requirements for pedestrian-oriented design features have been increased in Village Six over
those initiated in SPA One.
Page 13, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
c. Village Design Plan
The Village Six SPA Plan and supporting Village Design Plan implement the design
guidelines from the GDP "Village Concept" and the GDP Overall Design Plan. The Village
Six Village Design Plan provides more detail and identifies the procedures for
implementation of these documents. The design elements identified in the Village Six SPA
Village Design Plan reflect the GDP policies but are more location-specific for Village Six.
The GDP discusses the Village Concept for Otay Ranch and establishes the following
policies for the "Core" area - the heart of each village:
. Establish a unique character and sense of place within each village;
. Land uses, roads and buildings shall be designed and located to encourage walking
between uses and foster a pedestrian scale; and,
. Encourage a pedestrian-friendly village environment through the use of amenities such
as: shade trees, street furniture, on-street parking, buildings fronting the streets, narrow
streets, reduced design speeds, visible landmarks, entries and porches facing the street,
commercial areas with decreased setbacks, plazas and courtyards in commercial areas and
multi-modal circulation systems.
The theme for Village Six is centered around the "California Heritage" architectural design
concept established in Villages One and Five, which will be continued through the design
criteria described in the Village Six Design Plan. Landscape and architectural elements
ranging from Village Entry monuments to public buildings will incorporate the unique flavor
of the California Heritage influence throughout the design of the village.
The California Heritage design theme can embrace a variety of specific styles: Spanish
Colonial, Mission, Ranch House, Bungalow, Moorish, Agrarian, Craftsman, etc. In general,
California Heritage architecture reflects the climate and materials indigenous to Southern
California, which is generally relaxed, simple and somewhat rustic. The Village Six Design
Plan offers more information on design specifics than was provided in SPA One for Villages
One and Five. Sample plot plans of both single-family and mutli-family products have been
included in the plan indicating porch, front door and garage locations which are key to
ensuring pedestrian orientation of the residential units.
The Village Design Plan also provides a conceptual layout of the private high school. The
school buildings are located toward the residential neighborhoods on the conceptual plan and
the sports fields, including the lighted football field, are located toward the freeway and Birch
Road.
Page 14, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
Village Design Plan Analysis
The design theme for Village Six, which focuses on a "California Heritage" architectural
framework for its community buildings in the village core, is detailed in the Village Six
Design Plan. This document describes the design requirements for the entire village,
consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch GDP. The Village Six Design Plan represents
a significant advancement in design of homes, community buildings and businesses from
SPA One in order to meet a higher standard of pedestrian-oriented design for the Project.
The purpose of the guidelines in the Village Six Design Plan is to guide the design of site
plans, architecture and landscape architecture within the Project area. The residential design
guidelines for Village Six were prepared utilizing the SPA One development as a base. The
Applicant has added design features that promote pedestrian orientation including increased
single-family homes requirements for porches and other seating areas, as well as limited
garage-oriented single-family homes. In addition to the styles listed in the previous section,
the styles of single-family homes may also include American Colonial, Monterey and
Spanish Revival architecture. Principle design criteria features include single-story elements,
recessed front second-story, rear articulation, porches, verandas, balconies, roof forms,
wrapping trim, garage treatments, variable garage setbacks and plotting and massing criteria
as required in the Village Six Planned Community District Regulations.
Special attention will also be devoted to enhancement of those side and rear house elevations,
which are exposed to public view. Basic enhancement techniques include different roof
planes intersecting at right angles, single-story element for a part of the house and off-set
planes on the rear elevation. Rear elevation enhancement techniques include balconies,
window pop-outs, recessed windows, enhanced window surrounds, window shutters,
cornices at rear eaves and other criteria. Housing at the development edge will require special
attention such as designing homes with different roof forms, interspersing single-story homes
and other techniques to avoid ridgeline monotony.
A greater emphasis on the design of multi-family developments will be used as well. The
Applicant has detailed examples in the Village Design Plan. The design of these units will
increase the front-door pedestrian connections on many of the multi-family developments in
the Village Core. The multi-family, retail and commercial developments in the Village Core
will be guided by the Village Design Plan criteria for site planning, architecture, building
material and colors and special conditions. A separate "Master Precise Plan" for the Village
Six Core will be prepared by the developer of that area prior to Design Review Committee
approvals for any of the projects in the Village Core.
The future private high school CUP application will be reviewed for consistency with the
conceptual design in the Village Design Plan.
Page 15, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
d. Public Facilities Finance Plan
Village Six includes a separate Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), which implements the
standards and policies for infrastructure improvements and demands for public service and
the funding for such services. The PFFP also compares the Village Six development with the
City Growth Management Program and Ordinance. The Village Six PFFP describes in detail
the public facilities that are required for the development of 2,086 dwelling units for the
village (2,232 if R-II is developed as residential), and analyzes the phasing and thresholds
for development. The intent of the PFFP is to ensure that development phasing of the village
and the funding of infrastructure is consistent with the requirements of the City's General
Plan for required public facilities and infrastructure, as well as compliance with the City's
Growth Management Ordinance.
Public facilities and infrastructure such as water supply, sewer service, storm and drainage
systems and roads and streets are analyzed in the development of the village. Other public
facilities and services that are required for the village include: schools, child care facilities,
police, fire and emergency services, and library and other social services. The PFFP also
evaluates the demands on public facility services based on the estimated village population
and phasing of development. Village Six will be developed in non-sequential phases,
depending on which developer is ready to build first.
Because two major developers own Village Six, the McMillin Company and the Otay Ranch
Company, the phasing will be non-sequential in order to allow for the implementation of
each developers' business plan. However, certain sites or facilities, such as the elementary
school and the neighborhood park, even though on Otay Ranch Company-owned land, will
be developed by the McMillin Company if they proceed faster than the Otay Ranch
Company. If McMillin develops their portion of Village Six faster the Otay Ranch Company,
dwelling unit thresholds have been established that will require McMillin to grade the
elementary school and park sites and/or to install emergency access via East Palomar. The
reverse condition has also been required. If Otay Ranch Company proceeds faster, Otay
Ranch Company may be required to install emergency access via La Media and Streets "J"
and "R" even though that area is under McMillin ownership. The two developers have
indicated that in their land swap agreements with each other that they have agreed to this
level of cooperation.
The Catholic Diocese has indicated the timing of the construction of the private high school
is dependent on the construction schedule of SR-125. Because the private high school serves
the regional population, the Diocese anticipates most students will arrive via SR-125 to Birch
Road to the main entrance.
Page 16, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) Analysis
The Village Six Project has been evaluated for implementation of public facilities, public
services and infrastructure through the Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan. The
Project has also been analyzed to ensure compliance with the City's Growth Management
Ordinance. Thresholds have been established to require the Applicant to provide
infrastructure improvements and grading of the elementary school and park sites as the
village builds out. The transportation thresholds include the same limitation on the overall
number of units for the remaining capacity on the arterial streets as was applied to EastLake
and Village II SPA Plans. Standards adopted by City Policy require that the Project be thus
analyzed to determine whether the approval of the project, as conditioned, will have an
adverse impact on the City's adopted threshold standards.
The fiscal analysis conducted as part of the Village Six PFFP indicates that the village will
generate a surplus until the third year. The change is caused by the increase in population
and, therefore, services required, when the multi-family residential units with lower property
tax revenue streams are constructed and occupied. The analysis was based on City standard
fiscal assumptions and did not take into consideration the Property Tax Agreement with the
County. When the 50% property tax split is assumed, the deficit is covered. In addition, the
Village Six SPA conditions of approval require the village to participate in the Otay Ranch
Reserve Fund, which has been established to fund the update of the FIND Model and to
reduce any deficit generated by the development of the Otay Ranch. There will not be a
deficit under current conditions or in the future.
A review of Final EIR 98-01, Village Six PFFP and other supporting Village Six SPA
documents provide evidence that the project is consistent with the adopted threshold
standards of the City including the Growth Management Ordinance. An analysis of
thresholds is contained in the environmental document Final EIR-98-01 and the Village Six
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP).
e. Affordable Housing Plan
Consistent with the requirements of the General Plan's Housing Element and the Otay
Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Program, the Village Six Project is required to provide
affordable housing opportunities through the development of moderate and low-income
housing in the village. A separate Affordable Housing Plan has been prepared with the
Village Six SPA Plan, which requires a subsequent agreement between the Applicant and the
City.
In general, 10% of the dwelling unit total must be developed as affordable housing. Village
Six would normally require 209 dwelling units to be dedicated to affordable housing, half of
which must be for low-income (105) and half of which must be for moderate-income
families.
Page 17, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
In the case of Village Six, both major developers, the McMillin Company and the Otay
Ranch Company, have affordable housing credits, which they earned in previous residential
developments in Chula Vista by providing more affordable housing units than required. The
McMillin Company's obligation in Village Six is for a total of 70 affordable (35 moderate-
and 35 low-income) for-sale or rental housing units. Because of credits McMillin has from
Rancho del Rey (17) and Village Five (12) their low-income affordable housing obligation
for Village Six is six units.
McMillin is proposing to fulfill their obligation for low-income affordable housing by
providing Accessory Second Units in single-family detached product neighborhoods. The
McMillin proposal is to provide one model in Neighborhood R-I that will have an option for
an accessory unit. Staff is aware of the Planning Commission concern that if too many ofn
these accessory units are developed it may change the character of the proposed single-family
neighborhoods. In order to address this concern, McMillin is willing to cap the number of
secondary units at approximately 25. Final number of the cap will be in the affordable
housing agreement. These accessory units are considered in the GDP as a viable form of
affordable housing that have yet to be used in the Otay Ranch. The reporting requirements
on affordability for six of these accessory units would be onerous for the individual property
owners. So staff has assumed that within the 25 units at least six will be affordable. The 35
moderate-income units are proposed to be located in Neighborhood R-IO, McMillin's
townhouse development.
For Otay Ranch Company the obligation for 134 affordable housing units (67 moderate- and
67 low-income units) was satisfied by the mixed-use project in the Village One Core.
Moderate affordable units will be located in Neighborhoods R-7b, R-8 and/or R-9b.
Affordable Housing Plan Analysis
Except for McMillin's six unit obligation, the Village Six affordable housing obligation has
been satisfied in Villages One and Five or in the Rancho del Rey project. The provision of
accessory second units for affordable housing is a goal of the Otay Ranch GDP and is
consistent with the GDP affordable housing policies. The SPA housing plan complies with
the requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch-wide Affordable Housing Program and the
General Plan's Housing Element. The Applicant will be required to enter into a separate
agreement with the City to ensure implementation of the affordable housing units.
f. Air Quality Improvement Plan
On November 14,2000, the City Council adopted the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan,
which included implementation measures regarding transportation, energy efficient land use
planning and building construction measures for new development. It was recognized that
the City's efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new developments are directly
Page 18, Item:
Meeting Date: 01109/02
related to energy conservation and air quality. As a result, the City is initiating a pilot study
in order to develop specific guidelines for the preparation of Air Quality Improvement Plans.
The pilot study involves the development of a computer model to evaluate the relative
effectiveness of applying various site design and energy conservation features in new
developments. The pilot study will analyze and produce the corresponding Air Quality
Improvement Plan for the Village Six SPA project.
Air Quality Improvement Plan Analysis
The City's effort to develop guidelines for the preparation of an Air Quality Improvement
Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The attached City
Council resolution contains a condition requiring the Applicant to process an amendment to
the SPA incorporating the Air Quality Improvement Plan produced by the pilot study prior
to, or concurrent with, the Project's Tentative Map or as otherwise directed by the Director of
Planning and Building.
g. Water Conservation Plan
The City is in the process of developing guidelines for the preparation and implementation of
Water Conservation Plans for each of the new planned communities in the City. This effort
involves a pilot study to evaluate the relative effectiveness associated with the
implementation of additional water conservation measures beyond those currently mandated
in the Otay Ranch. The evaluation will encompass additional technical water saving devices,
as well as expanded use of recycled water and possibly gray water. The pilot study will
provide information to be used in finalizing a Water Conservation Plan for Village Six.
Water Conservation Plan Analysis
The City's effort to develop guidelines for the preparation of a Water Conservation Plan is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP. The attached draft City
Council Resolution contains a condition requiring the Applicant to file an amendment to the
SPA Plan incorporating the Water Conservation Plan produced by the pilot study prior to, or
concurrent with, the Project's first Tentative Map.
h. Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for each SPA to
address energy conservation within each village. This plan identifies the most feasible
measures to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy through land use and
community design, transit facilities and alternative transportation modes, building siting and
construction techniques. Transit-oriented development and pedestrian-friendly design of the
village core are methods to reduce energy consumption.
Page 19, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Analysis
The preparation and implementation of a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for
Village Six is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP.
!. Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space
The Village Six land use plan incorporates a pedestrian-oriented theme throughout the
Village. This pedestrian orientation is connected through a network of parks, trails and
common usable open space. Village Six has a total park obligation of 16.54 acres to meet the
City park requirements. A 7.0-net acre public neighborhood park will be the major park
element in Village Six. The 9.54-acre balance of parkland will be provided in the community
parks. The McMillin Companies and the Otay Ranch Company will be required to either
dedicate land within their ownership for the community parks or pay fees in-lieu of land.
Community parks are currently planned in Villages Two, Ten and the EUe.
Three additional Common Usable Open Space recreational facilities for the Village Six
residents are planned: one between Neighborhoods R-I and R-3; one between
Neighborhoods R-2a and R-2b; and one associated with CPF-I. Each of these is
approximately 0.8 acre in size and must be developed in accordance with the City of Chula
Vista Design Manual and provide appropriate amenities.
The Village Pathway, the pedestrian corridor between all the villages in the Otay Valley
Parcel, is located along the south side of East Palomar through the Village Core and the north
sides of Streets "]" and "R in Village Six. The Village Pathway in Village Six is 15 feet
wide from Village Five through the Village Six core, but narrows to 10 feet along the park
and school and into the residential neighborhoods. This refinement from SPA One was
requested by McMillin to reduce the amount of pavement along the promenade streets.
As required by the GDP, an average 75-foot wide open space buffer surrounds Village Six
along the frontages of the major Circulation Element roads. In all, there are approximately
24 acres of open space in and around Village Six.
Two pedestrian bridges are planned for Village Six. One will link the Village Pathway to
Village Two to the west at Street "J" and La Media Road, while the other one will link to
Village Five to the north at East Palomar and Olympic Parkway.
In addition to the Village Pathway, there are six pedestrian access points around or within
Village Six. Five of these are planned at various points along the edges of Village Six to the
Circulation Element roads. In addition to these five access points, additional access is
proposed from Neighborhood R-4 to Streets "J" and "R" that will serve that neighborhood
and be in close proximity to the elementary and private high schools.
Page 20, Item:
Meeting Date: 01/09/02
The Otay Ranch GDP Resource Management Plan requires Village Six developers to
convey land to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The development of I acre of land in Otay
Ranch requires a dedication of 1.1 88-acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve with the
approval of each Final Subdivision Map. Pursuant to the requirements, the Village Six
obligation is approximately 364 acres of land that are to be dedicated to the Otay Ranch
Preserve.
Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Analysis
The location of Village Six in the Otay Valley Parcel presents some unique opportunities
to provide connectivity to parks, recreation, trails and open space in the Village. A 7-acre
net public neighborhood park next to the elementary school in the Village Core is in a
centralized location within the Village. As provided for in the GDP, the balance of
parkland will be provided in the community parks. The developers will either dedicate
land that is acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Director or pay fees under the
Parkland Dedication ordinance. The three Common Usable Open Space areas scattered
around Village Six will also provide additional passive and active recreational
opportunities in the single-family neighborhoods.
The requirement of land conveyance in the Project to the Otay Ranch Preserve is
consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. The
system, which includes parks, recreation, trails and open space that are provided in
Village Six, complies with the policies, goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP and
Resource Management Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Within Village Six, the proposed land uses and development intensities directly implement the
goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP. All designated public facilities are located
within the areas designated by the GDP, and the permitted density and land use intensities are
consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP and City of Chu1a Vista General Plan. Staff recommends
approval of the Village Six SPA Plan and related documents.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Corrections to November 30, 2001 Draft Document (Village Six SPA Plan) previously
distributed.
3. Planning Commission Resolution (PCM-99-05)
4. Draft City Council Resolutions No.
5. Draft City Council Ordinance No.
6. Disclosure Statement
H:\PLANNING\Otay_Ranch\Village ~6\V6 SPA PC STAFF REPORT.doc
q.
~
'<1
C',o
'1~k._
~~)o-
FREEWAY
COMMERCIAL
EASTERN
URBAN
CENTER
VILLAGE 7
PROlleT
IOCATIO,N ~
VILLAGE 11
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECr DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH LLC SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 6
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed SPA Plan for Village 6 for 2,232
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: dwelling units on 386.4 acres for an urban village
NORTH No Scale PCM-99-05 served by transit. ATTACHMENT 1
h :\home\plann ing\DAI\locators\PCM9905.cdr 12/18/01
. ._-_.._--'",._--..--_.._---..~---~._.._^.__._.__..~.._-"--.-.
r1TTACHMFI//T -3
RESOLUTION '\"0. I'C\1-99-0S
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A SECTIONAL PLANl\'ING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AND SUPPORTING
REGULATORY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN,
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINAl\'CE PLAN, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRA\1 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY
386 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS OTA Y RANCH, VILLAGE SIX
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
02-03. and is commonly known as Otay Ranch. Village Six ("Property"): and,
WHEREAS. an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan. was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on October 13, 1998
by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"): and
'VHEREAS. the Otay Ranch Company. beingjoint ovmers of Village Six with the McMillin
Companies. is a participant in the de\elopment and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan and
related documents: and
WHEREAS. the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan,
and supporting regulatory documents including PJanned Community District Regulations, Village
Design Plan, PubJic Facilities Finance Plan. and Affordable Housing Program invol\ing approximately
386 acres ofjand known as "Otay Ranch. Village Six" located in the north-central portion ofthe Otay
Valley ParceL between the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch
Road and SR-125: and.
WHEREAS. The City's En\ironmental Re\iew Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the en\ironment, therefore, a
Second-Tier En\iroIU'11emal Impact Report (EIR 98-0 I) has been prepared: and,
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch. Village Six Sectional Plmming Area (SPA) PJan (PCM-99-05) 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 ovmers 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.
January 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth A venue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
/
_ .. ,_ '_'''~_"'__'_~' ._.._____.._.__.,~____"...__d____.__..
""OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to th,'
Planning Commission. the Commission has determined that the approval of a Sectional Plann:n!2
Area (SPA) Plan for Otay Ranch Village Six (PCM-99-15) is consistent with the City ofChula \i""
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. and all other applicable Plans, and that the
public necessity. convenience. general welfare and good planning practice support the appro\'al.
BE IT Fl1RTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSIO!'\ recommellcb
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Arc"
(SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) and supporting ref,'lllatorv dOCWllents including Planned Commwlity Districl
Regulations, Village Design Plan. Public Facilities Finance Plan. and Affordable Housing Program
involving approximately 386 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-
central portion of the Otay Valley ParceL between the future extension alignments of Olympic
Parkwav. La Media Road, Birch Road and SR-125 in accordance with the findings contained in the
~. ~
attached City Council Resolution No. .: and.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the Cit\
CounciL
~
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA. this 9th day of January. 2002 by the following vote. to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'NeilL Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H:\PLA:\N!NG\Otay_Ranch\'illage _6\\16 SPA PC RfSOLlJT!OI\.doc
3
, --..- ._-,"-~-" ,.,. . -,..~,. ,---...-.-.--,..---.-.- ....,---~_._-_..._..,..- .-"
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN, AND SUPPORTING REGULATORY DOCUMENTS
INCLUDING, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 386 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN
AS OT A Y RANCH, VILLAGE SIX.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03, and is commonly known
as Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application for adoption of the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on
October 13, 1998 by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, being joint owners of Village Six with the
McMillin Companies, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Village Six
SPA Plan and related documents; and
WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan, and supporting regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations,
Village Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving
approximately 386 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" located in the north-central
portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension alignment of Olympic Parkway, La
Media Road, Birch Road and SR-125; and,
WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project
and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore,
a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch, Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) 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.
January 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project and said hearing was
thereafter closed; and,
tf
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista on the Village Six SPA Plan, and adopting the ordinance to approve the
SPA's Planned Community District Regulations for Village Six, namely 6:00 p.m. January 22,
2002.
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 January 9, 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. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-
Tier final ErR 98-01 would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final ErR
(Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Plan and supporting
regulatory documents including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design
Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, and Affordable Housing Program involving
approximately 386 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Six" based upon
findings contained herein and 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.
IV. SPA PLAN FINDINGS
A. THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA)
PLAN IS IN CONfORMITY WITH THE OT A Y RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CITY Of CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land
uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista
General Plan.
s-
B. THE PROPOSED OTA Y RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTlALIZED
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Village Six SPA Plan and Public Facilities Financing Plan contain provisions
and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the Project. The
Public Facilities Financing Plan specifies the public facilities required by Village
Six in order for it to function properly and not become a public burden, and also
the regional facilities needed to serve it.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SIX SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND
USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other existing projects, and
future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional
Planning Area. The project will provide a variety of housing types compatible
with existing adjacent land uses, as required by the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project and
provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed SPA Plan
follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation measures
specified in the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Final Second-Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 98-0 I).
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT
SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION,
AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH
AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF
SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH
DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The Project does not involve areas planned for industrial or research 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 ARE
PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH
DEVELOPMENT.
o
The Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan involves an Elementary School (S-I), a 7.0
net acre Neighborhood Park (P-I) and two Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
sites. These land uses are considered appropriate for the area, location and over-
all planning for Village Six in that such uses are called for in the GDP. They have
also been evaluated for their adverse land use effects on proposed surrounding
development and none have been identified. The Catholic Diocese is proposing to
construct a private high school in Neighborhood R-II. Such institutional uses
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with findings prior to their construction.
At such time as a CUP is applied for by the Catholic Diocese for said use, it will
be evaluated against the criteria found in this finding.
F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND
ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON.
The circulation system depicted in the SPA Plan is consistent with the Circulation
system identified on the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and contains adequate internal circulation consistent with the
policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the City's General
Plan. Road improvements will be constructed per the timing and threshold
requirements outlined in the Village Six SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN VILLAGE SIX CAN
BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET BY
THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AT THE
LOCATION PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION.
The location of proposed commercial development area in the Village Six SPA
Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the GDP in that the Village Core
is intended to serve the residents of Village Six.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED
AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY
WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The Village Six SPA plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations
applicable to surrounding areas and, therefore, said development can be planned
and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development.
The proposed Village Six SPA Plan is consistent with the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, as amended.
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth III
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated in the Project.
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the conditions listed in Exhibit "B" fail to occur, or ifthey 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.
XII. 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 Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
~
VILLAGE 11
FREEWAY
COMMERCIAL
EASTERN
URBAN
CENTER
VILLAGE 7
PROJECT
LOCATIO,~ ~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: MCMilLIN OTAY RANCH llC SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
PROJECT OTAY RANCH VilLAGE 6
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed SPA Plan for Village 6 for 2,232
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: dwelling units on 386.4 acres for an urban village
NORTH No Scale PCM-99-05 served by transit.
h:lhomelplanningIDAlllocatorsIPCM9905.cdr 12/18/01 ,
EXHIBIT ^
Exhibit "B"
PCM-99-05: Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Plan
January 9, 2002
SPA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE SIX
1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the
Developer( s) as to any or all of the Property.
2. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they
are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such
conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of
building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived
from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
3. Deve10per(s) shall indemnifY, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and
against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from
challenges to the Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR #98-01, for the Project and/or
any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
4. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula
Vista including its General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch
General Development Plan; Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan; Overall Design
Plan; Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan and all supporting documents including: Village Six Village Design
Plan; Village Six Public Facilities Finance Plan; Village Six SPA Parks, Recreation Open
Space and Trails Plan; Village Six SPA Affordable Housing Plan and the Non-
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.
5. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) that the City is in the process of conducting an Air
Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) Pilot Study to evaluate various transportation and
energy efficient land use planning and building construction measures for new
development, and that the Project area is part of that Study. The Developer(s) further
acknowledge(s) that the AQIP Pilot Study will include cost effectiveness and feasibility
analyses of the various measures under consideration, and will result in a Draft AQIP for
the Project recommending which measures should and are to be included in the Project.
6. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the first Tentative Map for the Project, unless the
Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Draft AQIP must be
considered and acted upon by the Plauning Commission and City Council. The
Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to implement the final AQIP measures as approved by the
City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the AQIP.
10
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
7. The Developer(s) acknowledges that the City Council may from time to time modify air
quality improvement and energy conservation measures related to new development as
various technologies and/or programs change or become available. The Developer(s)
shall be required to modify the AQIP to incorporate those new measures which are in
effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each Final Map approval within the Project.
The new measures shall apply, as applicable, to development within all future final Map
areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas that received Final Map approval prior to
effect of the subject new measures.
8. The Developer(s) shall implement all mitigation measures identified in final EIR #98-01,
the Candidate CEQA findings of fact, for this Project and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reports Program.
9. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch
Resource Management Plan (RMP) approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993,
and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP2), including the Preserve Conveyance
Schedule, as approved by City Council on June 4, 1996, or as amended from time to time,
and shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the first Tentative
Map for this Project, in order to implement the provisions of the Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan.
10. The Developer(s) shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the Preserve
Owner/Manager (POM) and any lien holder, an easement restricting use of the land to
those permitted by the RMP, to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an
amount of land equal to the final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve, as
required by the RMP. Where an easement is conveyed, the Developer(s) shall be
required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the
POM has a first priority interest in such land. Where consent and subordination cannot
be obtained, the Developer(s) shall convey fee title. Where fee title or an easement is
conveyed, each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the Developer(s) shall
execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the
Developer(s) to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Preserve Community Facility
District has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance
responsibilities. Where an easement is granted, each tentative map is subject to a
condition that fee title shall be granted upon demand by the POM.
11. Improvement Area "A" of the existing Preserve Maintenance District (CommW1ity
Facility District 97-2) shall include the Village 6 project area prior to the first final map.
12. The Developer(s) shall obtain any necessary permits and comply with any applicable
requirements of the California Department of fish and Game, the U.S. Department of
Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If required, Developer(s) shall
apply for and receive a take permit/authorization from the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of fish and Game or comply with the approved City of Chula
(/
Page 2 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan or other equivalent take permit/authorization applicable to the
Project.
13. Developer(s) acknowledge that transfer of dwelling units from one neighborhood to
another within the Village Six SPA limits may be processed administratively if:
a. The proposed unit count for all parcels remains within the density range(s)
indicated in the General Development Plan for the land use category in which
the subject neighborhoods fall;
b. The proposed product types are consistent with those listed for each parcel on
the Site Utilization Plan; and
c. The GDP or SPA total number of dwelling units is not exceeded, whichever is
more restrictive.
Modifications which are not consistent with all these criteria shall require a formal SPA
Plan amendment. Should such a transfer be approved, applicable statistics and maps in
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Six SPA Plan shall be revised as
an administrative matter without the necessity of a formal plan amendment.
14. Developer(s) acknowledge that approval of the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan does
not constitute approval of the final lot configurations, grading, or street designs shown
within the SPA plan. Modifications must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
and Director of Planning and Building, the Planning Commission or the City Council
during the tentative subdivision map process. The ultimate total number of dwelling
units for Village Six, resulting from more specific Tentative Map and Final Map planning
and analysis, and/or the Site Plan/Design Review process, may cause a redistribution or a
reduction in the number of total units as described in the Village Six SPA Plan and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan.
15. The Developer(s) shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village Six Core
Area, prior to or concurrent with submitting any development proposals for commercial,
multi-family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the Village Six Core as
described in the Village Six SPA Plan, except as related to neighborhood R-IO which will
be addressed in the Village Design Plan.
16. Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the Village Six SPA
Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the Otay Ranch Street Sections contained
in the document entitled Design Standards and the Subdivision Manual both as amended
from time to time, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed variations from the City
Design Standards, which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be subject to approval
by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map.
17. As directed by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, the
Developer(s) shall construct a pedestrian bridge connecting Village Six to Village Five in
I~
Page 3 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
the vicinity of East Palomar Street crossing over Olympic Parkway at a location directed
by the Directors of Planning and Building, and Public Works. The timing of the
construction of said bridge shall coincide with the improvement of East Palomar Street
between Olympic Parkway and the Village 6 Core. In addition, Developer(s) shall:
a. Prior to approval of the first final map that triggers the construction
of improvements of East Palomar Street, enter into an agreement to
construct said bridge;
b. Further agree to fund half of the cost of constructing the pedestrian
bridge and shall cooperate with the City in order to establish,
concurrently with the approval of the first final "B" map within
Village 6, a development impact fee, or other funding mechanism
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to fund Developer(s') fair
share of said bridge. The Developer shall not object to being
included in said Development Impact Fee program. The
Developer(s) shall be solely responsible for the construction of
said bridge.
c. All elements of bridge design, including style, color, lighting, etc.,
shall be included in all cost calculations, said bridge design being
the same as the bridge connecting Village One to Village Five over
La Media Road.
18. Developer shall agree to fund half of the cost of constructing a pedestrian bridge
connecting Village 6 with Village 2 over La Media Rd. in the vicinity of Santa Venetia
Street and shall cooperate with the City in order to establish, concurrently with the
approval of the first final "B" map within Village 6, a development impact fee, or other
funding mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to fund Developer(s') fair
share of said bridge. The Developer shall not object to being included in said
Development Impact Fee program. The timing of the construction of said bridge shall be
determined by the City and shall be a condition of approval of the first tentative map in
Village 2.
19. Prior to the approval of the first final map, Developer( s) shall provide at Developer( s)
own expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer a Pedestrian Bridge
Development Impact Fee Report, that: I) determines the construction cost estimate for
the bridges; 2) establishes the DIF area of benefit; and 3) establishes the DIF amount. At
the sole discretion of the City, the Developer(s) may submit for approval by the City
Engineer an update to the existing SPA One Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee
Report dated November 6, 1998 that adds the Village 6 project to the area of benefit and
adjusts the fee as necessary and takes account of bridge design, including style, color,
lighting, etc., in all cost calculations, said bridge design being the same as the bridge
connecting Village One to Village Five over La Media Road
/3
Page 4 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
20. Development of the Project 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 (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff
and storm water discharge, the Clean Water Act, and any regulations adopted by the City
of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the
Developers shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to
obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The
SWPPP shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, and 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 Developers shall comply with all the provisions of the NPDES and the
Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including
but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping
improvements, and construction of dwelling units. Developers shall design the Project's
storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to
minimize non-point source pollution, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
21. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading
permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, each Developer shall, separately and
individually, enter into agreements, which shall run with each Developers' land, with the
City of Chula Vista, wherein the Developer(s) agree to the following:
a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Storm Water Permit
(Order No. 2001-01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, including revision of plans as necessary.
b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against all fines, costs, and expenses arising out of non-
compliance with the requirements of the NPDES regulations, in connection
with the execution of any construction and/or grading work for each
Developers' respective portion of the Project, whether the non-compliance
results from any action by the Developers, any agent or employee,
subcontractors, or others. The Developers' indemnification shall include any
and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City.
c. That the City Engineer may require incorporation of Standard Urban Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements during the implementation period
preceding the adoption of the local SUSMP by the City, for all priority
projects or phases of priority projects undergoing approval process, in
accordance with Order No. 2001-0], NPDES No. CASO]08758 Municipa]
Permit as determined by the City Engineer.
(~
Page 5 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
d. To not protest the formation of a facilities benefit district or any other funding
mechanism approved by the City to finance the operation, maintenance,
inspection, and monitoring ofNPDES facilities. This agreement to not protest
shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any
assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these improvements
and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot
election.
22. Prior to approval of the first Tentative Map for the Project the Developer(s) shall provide
a Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP) for Village Six, as approved by Otay Water District
(OWD), which will also include an analysis of recycled water for open space slopes.
When said SAMP is approved, the Developer(s) shall provide the water and recycled
water improvements in accordance with the SAMP. The SAMP shall be consistent with
the SPA Plan. If the SAMP is inconsistent with the SPA Plan, upon request of the City
Engineer the Developer(s) shall be responsible for obtaining the approval by OWD of
any amendment to the Village Six SAMP in order for the Village Six SAMP to be
consistent with the approved SPA Plan
23. The Developer( s) shall pay fees or have credits applied in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista ordinance or provide trunk sewer improvements to Poggi Canyon trunk
sewers as indicated in the McMillin-Otay Ranch Village 6 Sewer Study (August 23,
200 I) and Overview of Sewer Service for The Otay Ranch Company Village Six (Village
Six Sewer Reports) (August 2001) or as may be amended from time to time by the
Developers as approved by the Director of Public Works. The Village Six Sewer Reports
shall be consistent with the approved SPA Plan. The Developers shall be responsible for
obtaining the approval of any amendment to the Village Six Sewer Reports in order for
the Village Six Sewer Reports to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan, upon request
of the City Engineer.
24. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) that the City is in the process of developing guidelines
for the preparation of required Water Conservation Plans (WCP), and is conducting a
WCP Pilot Study to evaluate various water conservation measures for new development
beyond those currently mandated, and that the Project area is part of that Study. The
Developer(s) further acknowledge(s) that the WCP Pilot Study will include cost
effectiveness and feasibility analyses of the various measures under consideration, and
will result in recommending which measures are to be included in the Project.
25. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the first Tentative Map for the Project, unless the
Director of Planning and Building allows other timing, the Developer(s) shall have
prepared, submitted and obtained the approval of the Planning Commission and City
Council of a WCP for the Project which incorporates the Pilot Study recommendations.
The Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to implement the final WCP measures as approved by
the City Council, and to comply and remain in compliance with the WCP.
26. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) that the City Council may from time to time modify
water conservation measures related to new development as various technologies and/or
(-:;
Page 6 of]2
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
programs change or become available. The Developer(s) shall be required to modify the
WCP to incorporate those new measures which are in effect at the time, prior to or
concurrent with each Final Map approval within the Project. The new measures shall
apply to development within all future Final Map areas, but shall not be retroactive to
those areas that received Final Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures.
27. Developer(s) shall acknowledge and agree that the City is in the process of preparing and
adopting a Citywide Parks Master Plan, and agree to comply with the provisions of said
plan as adopted and as it affects facilities and other related requirements for the Project's
parks.
28. The Developer(s) acknowledge and agree to comply with the provisions of the City-wide
Greenbelt Trails Master Plan, currently in the process of being prepared by the City, and
to modifY the Project as necessary in order to comply with, and remain in compliance
with, the adopted Greenbelt Trails Master Plan.
29. Developer(s) agrees to immediately relocate, at Developer(s)'s sole expense, the necessary
above and/or underground utilities to accommodate the required street trees within the street
tree planting easement if determined necessary by the Director of Parks and Recreation or
the City Engineer.
30. The Village Six Project shall satisfY the requirements of the City's Park Land Dedication
Ordinance (PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide
three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks
are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks. The Project's Neighborhood
Park portion of the local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of a 7.0
net-acre Neighborhood Park (P-I). The remaining requirement shall be satisfied in a
future Community Park through the payment of park improvement fees and/or dedication
of land in a manner acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation.
31. Developer shall satisfy its community parkland obligation in a manner consistent with
Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17. The community parkland obligation will be
included within a proposed community park to be located within a service radius of
Village Six. The location of the community parkland obligation is subject to the approval
of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.
32. The Developer(s) shall install Chula Vista transit facilities, which may include but not be
limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvement plans approved
by the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development,
the Developer( s) shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The
Developer(s), separately and individually, shall enter into (an) agreement(s) with the City
prior to approval of each Developers' first map regarding Developer(s') funding of these
facilities. Said transit stops shall be designed in the manner consistent with the transit
stop details as described in the SPA Plan and Village Design Plan, and as approved by
the City's Transit Coordinator and Director of Planning and Building.
(Ie
Page 7 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
33. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the light rail transit system,
the Developer(s) shall complete the following: 1) dedicate to the City the Light Rail
Transit (LRT) right-of-way on the final map containing said right-of-way, as indicated on
the approved tentative map; 2) rough grade said LRT alignment; and 3) enter into an
agreement with the City which states that the Developer(s) will not protest the formation
of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the LR T.
34. The Developer(s) shall each enter into an agreement with the City ofChula Vista, prior to
approval of each Developers' first final map, regarding the provision of affordable
housing. Said agreements shall be a condition of approval of each Developers' first
tentative map. Such agreements shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing
Element, the Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the Village Six Affordable
Housing Plan.
35. No final "B" maps may be recorded within Village Six until such time that one or more
annexable Mello-Roos District(s), or other financing mechanism approved by the
elementary and high school districts to provide for the construction of needed elementary,
middle and high schools, is/are established.
36. If required by the City, the Developer(s), separately and individually, shall enter into
agreements with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of each Developers' first final
"B" map within Village Six, in order to participate, on a fair share basis, in any
deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the
Congestion Management Program (CMP).
37. If required by the County of San Diego, the Developer(s) shall equitably participate in
any future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact
such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Developer(s) shall
enter into an agreement, prior to approval of the first final map, with the City which states
that the Developer(s) will not protest the formation of any potential future regional
benefit assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities.
38. The Developer(s) shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program.
39. The Developer(s) shall deliver to the Chula Vista Elementary School District the graded
elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access
road acceptable to the District, located within Village Six, prior to issuance of the I, I 20th
(approximately 375 students) residential building permit, irrespective of the colored
phase to which said I, I 20th residential building permit is issued. The all weather access
road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to
modification by the School District as based on District facility needs.
40. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP), the Developer(s) shall fund the preparation of an
annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual
monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and
(1
Page 8 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence
following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be
completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall
adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP.
41. The Developer(s) shall include its/their pro-rata share for maintenance of Poggi Canyon
channel in an open space district formed for Village Six.
42. 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 of Chula Vista. The project manager shall
establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard
of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted
SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and
experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture.
43. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch
GDP, the Developer(s) shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying
targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps),
proj ected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted
threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities.
44. The Developer(s) acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based
on a village concept that provides for the construction of multi-family homes and
commercial uses along with single-family residential homes within Village Six. The
Developer(s) understands that it is the City's intent to require the Developer(s) to focus
development on the village core in order to increase the viability of the core and to fulfill
the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
45. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director
of Planning and Building and the City Engineer.
46. The Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for Village Six or revisions thereto shall be
adhered to for the Village Six SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in
accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City
of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of
assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the
Project area. Throughout the build-out of Village Six, actual development may differ
from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFFP nor any other Village Six
documents grant the Developer(s) an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or
limit Village Six's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP.
Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual
development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and
market conditions, shall govern Village Six 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 transportation phasing plan
1<1
Page 9 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
for the City of Chula Vista 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
47. The Developer(s) shall enter into supplemental agreement(s) with the City, prior to
approval of each final map for any phase or unit, whereby:
a. The Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any
units in Village Six if anyone of the following occur:
(I) When regional development threshold limits set by the an adopted
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.
(2) Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services
either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply
with the then effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth
Management Program and any amendments thereto.
(3) The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities
Finance Plan (PFFP), or as amended or otherwise conditioned, have
not been completed or constructed to the City's satisfaction. The
Developer(s) may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of
development and the construction of improvements affected. In such
case, the PFFP may be amended after review and approval by the
City's Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works
Director. The Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold
building permits for any of the phases of development identified in
the PFFP for Otay Ranch Village Six SPA if the required public
facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual
Monitoring Program, have not been completed. Public utilities shall
include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water.
b. The Developer(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and
its agents, officers and employees, pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State
Map Act, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its agents,
officers or employees:
(I) 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 the
Project, and;
11
Page 10 of 12
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
(2) As to each Developers' respective subsequent development of their
portions of the Project, provided the City promptly notifies the
Developer(s) of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further
condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
48. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) its/their understanding that the City is in the process of
amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order to establish updated
development phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with threshold
standards. In order for the Otay Ranch Village Six Project to be consistent with the City's
growth management provisions, the Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to comply with the
Growth Management Program and Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time, in
order for the City to approve this Project. Said provisions shall also be included as a
condition of approval of all Tentative Maps within Village Six.
49. Prior to applying for any permit pursuant to the adopted Village Six SPA Plan, Applicant
shall submit the entire adopted document in an electronic file format acceptable to the
Director of Management and Information Services. Said file shall be in the format of
Microsoft Word 2000, or current version acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, at the
time of the adoption of the Village Six SPA Plan. Any exhibits as part of said SPA Plan
(Maps, Plans, etc.), which are not in Microsoft Word format, shall be submitted in a
format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, Director of Management and Information
Services.
50. Within 30 days of the City Council's action on the SPA Plan documents, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, forty-five (45) sets of all final
SPA documents, each set in a three-ring plastic binder and in a format as prescribed by
City staff. The final SPA documents shall include the following amendments:
a. All references in the SPA documents to Parcels shall be renamed
Neighborhoods.
b. Planned Community District Regulations - Permitted Use Matrix shall be
amended to require approval of the Private High School in SPA
Neighborhood R-I1 in the SF3 District by Conditional Use Permit approved
by the Planning Commission.
d-D
Page] ] of]2
Village Six SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MCMILLIN OTAY L.P.
AND OT A Y RANCH, L.P. RELATED TO VILLAGE SIX SPA APPROVAL
The Property Owner and the Developer(s) shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Developer(s) have each
read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. , and will
implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of
Resolution No. shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Developer(s), and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded
document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property
Owner/Developer(s)'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 Property Owner
Date
Attachment( s)
H:\Planning\OtaLRanch\Village_6\Exhibit A - SPA Conditions of Approval.doc
C).-(
Page 120f12
ATTACHMENT 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR
OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE SIX.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 02-03, and is commonly known as
Otay Ranch, Village Six ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application for adoption ofthe Otay Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan, was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on October 13,1998
by The McMillin Companies ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Company, beingjoint owners of Village Six with the McMillin
Companies, is a participant in the development and implementation of the Village Six SPA Plan
Planned Community District Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Planned
Community District Regulations ("Project") are intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch Village Six
SPA Plan is prepared in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to
implement the City of Chula Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly
planning and long term phased development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions
which will enable the amended Otay Ranch, Village Six area to exist in harmony within the
community; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations are
established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC)
Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Land Use Plan of
the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Planned Community District Regulations
establish zoning regulations for the Single-Family Three (SF-3), Single-Family Four (SF-4),
Residential Multi-Family One (RM-I), Residential Multi-Family Two(RM-l), Community Purpose
Facility (CPF), Mixed Use (MU), Parks (P-I) and Open Space (OS) Zoning Districts located in Otay
Ranch Village Six; and,
WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore, a
Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-01) has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village Six Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-99-05) and notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
d-d-
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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.,
January 9, 2002 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council and said hearing
was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ofthe 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 January 9, 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. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-Tier
Final ErR 98-0 I, and Addendum thereto, would have no new effects that were not examined
in said Final ErR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance to the Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Planned
Community District Regulations, finding that they are 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.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
H:\PLANNING\Otay_Ranch\Village _6\V6 PLND COMM DlST REG CC ORDINANCE.doc
d-?>
1HE crr )F CHULA VJSTA DISCLOSURE STA--MENT ATTACHMENT 6
You are required to file a S.atemcnl oC Disclosure oC certain ownership or financial intcrcsts, payments, or campaign
contrihulions, on all matters which will require discrctionary action on the pan uf the City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other omcial bodies. The Collowing inCormation must be discloscd:
\. List the names oC all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the suhject or the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, suhcontractor. material supplier.
Mc.Mi \\ I'~ 6~_~d-\ l-LC
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, lisl the names of all individuals owning
marc than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership inter",,, in the partnership.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non. profit organiUltion or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organiUltion or as trustee or benJ:ficiary or .rustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No-X If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Plcase identify each and every person, including any agents, employees. consultants. or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you qcCore the City in this matter.
----K~ 6iLltMg(Yv~
CXC\. ~ 'Fu.J::.V\, ~a.W\0-.
~o 0 fk.\-&h~
Gv..1'~ c\i,..h
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No-y" If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
0<0..\,
contractor/applicant
. . . (NOTE: Attach additionaJ pages as
Datc:
\Ol~q~
d-~
. Pa-:rOfl is dt:fiflcd as: "Any illllil'idJ.Ja/, (inn. co-panl1aship, joint VCll1m:, a.r.JociQc;('IIL. J?Cial club, frolmUlI orgQ./ti.zlJt/CJ!1, corpOrcUiOll. cstate, l1"Wt, "alva, ~1dical<;
tJW wul allY aUla COW11)', dry WW COulltry. city municipality, district, or VUH:r political subdb'i.sjoll, Qf any ocho' group or cambulLlljall acting a! a w1i1. ..