HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2001/08/22
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, August 22, 2001
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
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: PCA-02-01 (City of Chula Vista) - Consideration of a proposed
amendment to Section 19.60.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code clarifying the eligible projects and uses that would be
allowed on subdivision directional signs and community
directional kiosk signs.
Staff recommends that public hearing be opened and continued to the September 12, 2001
Planning Commission meeting.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-01-69; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and
maintain a wireless communications facility consisting of a 40-
foot high monopalm supporting nine panel antennas; and an
associated equipment building at the Hilltop Baptist Church,
740 Hilltop Drive. Applicant: Spring PCS
Staff recommends that the public hearing be opened and continued to the August 29, 2001
Planning Commission meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing: PCM-02-03; Consideration of amendment to the
Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the
City of Chula Vista and The EastLake Company, LLC. for
EasLake III (Trails, Woods, Vistas, Business Center II, Olympic
Training Center and "Land Swap" parcels)-The EastLake
Company.
Staff recommends public hearing be opened and continued to the August 29, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting.
___________~.L_ _~_'"'_~_... _____I_,a.!___ ._.:~';".;..;.
Planning Commission
4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
5.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6.
PUBLIC HEARING:
7.
PUBLIC HEARING
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
- 2-
August 22, 2001
GPA-01-04 - Proposal to change the General Plan designation
of 25/33 Naples Street from Retail Commercial to Residential
Medium; PCZ-01-02 - Proposal to rezone 25/33 Naples Stret
from CoN (Neighborhoold Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment
Residential); and PCS-01-10 - Country Club Villas tentative
Subdivison Map to develop 22 single family detached
condominium units at 25/33 Naples Street. Applicant: Elmcon
Ltd.
Project Manager: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
PCM-01-11 j Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and to modify the Otay Ranch
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning
District boundaries within Village Five. Applicant: The McMillin
Company.
Project Manager: Martin Milier, Associate Planner
PCM-01-17; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and to modify the Otay Ranch
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations within
Village Five. Applicant: The Otay Ranch Company.
Project Manager: Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC-01-58, proposal
to develop a 556-sq. ft. accessory 2nd unit behind the existing
single-family home, in compliance with state government
code regulations 65852.2(b - 1:A - I) for cities without
adopted accessory 2nd unit ordinances.
Project Manager: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Appointment of new Planning Commission representative to GMOC.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
c-
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-Ol-11; Request to amend the Otay
Ranch Sectiona1 Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and to modify the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regu1ations within Village
Five.
Applicant - The McMillin Companies
The McMillin Companies has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan for Village Five to
change the viHage core concept from "Town Square" to "Main Street", consolidate the town square
park with the existing mixed-use site, rezone it from as/PI to C/RM2, and re-allocate 54 unused
dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to create a new
mixed use site. The amendment would allow approval of a proposed mixed-use project with 10,000
square feet of ground floor commercial and 72 residential units on the C-3/R-45 mixed-use site in
Village Five.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and detennined that the
Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor
would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects.previously
identified in FEIR 95-0 I. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the
conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental ErR, as identified by Sections
15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 has been prepared in accordance
with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution No PCM 0 I-II recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to
the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, adopt the Addendum to EIR 95-01, and recommending that
the City Council adopt an Ordinance to modify the SPA One Planned Community District
Regulations within Village Five.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
In 1993, the City Council approved the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, which authorized
1,263 single-family units and 1,615 multi-family units for a total of 2,878 dwelling units in
Village Five. In June of 1996, the City Council approved the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan for
Villages One and Five based on a plan submitted by Village Development (currently the Otay
\
PCM-OI-ll
Page No.2 of 6
Ranch Company). Subsequent to the approval of the SPA Plan, the McMillin Companies became
the owner of Neighborhoods R-ll and R- I2E in Village One and the western portion of Village
Five including the Village Core. In 1998, McMillin proposed to reduce the overall multi-family
dwelling units in the Village Five core by 397 units. The 1998 amendment planned for 2.9 acres
of commercial land use and 18 dwelling units around an .8-acre "Town Square" park in a mixed-
use project in the Village Five core. A mixed-use project was subsequently approved as part of the
Teresina Apartment project in Neighborhoods R-43 and R-44 in C-3/R-45. The Teresina
developers have chosen not to develop the C-3/R-45 mixed-use portion of the project. The
McMillin Companies now propose to amend the SPA One Plan to add 54 units back into the
Village Five core and develop a mixed-use project with approximately 10,000 square feet of
ground floor commercial and 72 dwelling units in C-3/R-45. The ground floor commercial will be
on East Palomar Street with 49 second and third story residential units. The remaining 23
residential units are proposed in a three story building on Santa Cora A venue.
1. Site Characteristics
The proposed amendment site is graded and fronts on East Palomar Street as is the entire Village
Five core. East Palomar Street, the village entry street and Santa Cora, the core promenade street,
are constructed around the amendment area. The proposed amendment site is basically the last
undeveloped site left in the Village Five core. The only remaining vacant site in the core is the
CPF-4 parcel north of the proposed mixed-use site. Staff is currently working with a church on
their Design Review application for this site.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The Gtay Ranch General Development Plan has designated the land within the Gtay Valley Parcel
for urban villages that are transit -oriented with higher densities and mixed-uses in village cores.
The GDP policies require each village to have a theme or identity based on either "Main Street"
or "Town Square" village form. The GDP authorized 2,878 dwelling units in Village Five with
1,615 multi-family units located in the Village Five core. The Village Five core was also to
include ~
Mixed uses
Public and community purpose facilities
Light rail transit stop
An elementary school
A Town Square/Village Green/Main Street
Affordable Housing
Neighborhood Parks
H:\PLANNINGIOtay _ RanchIMcMillinlMcM V5 SPA Amend PC STFRPT.doc
.:2..
PCM-Ol-II
Page No.3 of 6
The SPA One Plan and Village Design Plan were approved with the "Town Square" concept. Of
the 1,615 multi-family units originally approved in the GDP, the current plan only provides for
1,129 units with 489 unallocated.
ZoninJ?
Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities such
as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned Community
District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan. Village Five is designed as
an "urban village" (containing mixed uses and a village core). The SPA One Plan Zoning
Districts Map for Village Five designates the core:
Single-Family 4 (SF4)
Residential Multi-Family I (RMl)
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RM2)
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
Open SpacelParks (OSIP-I).
Commercial (C)
The existing town square park and mixed-use site are currently designated OS/P-l and C/RM2.
3. Current Land Use
As previously indicated, the Village Five core is basically built-out under the current SPA Plan,
except for the Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site and this mixed use site. The elementary
school is under construction and due to open this fall. Cottonwood Park, the first neighborhood
park, is completing the one-year maintenance period and should be open by the end of summer or
begining of fall. The condominium projects in Neighborhoods R-40 and R-46 are constructed. The
Teresina Apartments in Neighborhoods R-43 and R-44 were one of the first projects completed in
the Village Five core.
4. Proposed Plan
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment
The McMillin Companies has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to change the Village
Five Core concept from "Town Square" to "Main Street", consolidate the town square park P-8 area
with the existing mixed-use C- 3/R -45 site and re-allocate 54 unused dwelling units authorized by the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan to create a new mixed use site with approximately 10,000
square feet of commercial space and a total of 72 dwelling units in a "Main Street" theme.
McMi1lin found that the ground floor commercial uses in the existing "Town Square" concept would
not be visible from East Palomar Street due to the location and grade change between the town
H:\PLANNINGlOtaL RanchIMcMillin\McM V5 SPA Amend PC STFRPT.doc
..3
PCM-OI-11
Page No.4 of 6
square park and the existing mixed-use site. In addition, Parks and Recreation Department staff
raised concerns about the effectiveness of the approved town square as a gathering place and
maintenance costs for this small park. McMillin proposes that the village core concept for Village
Five be changed from Town Square to Main Street in order to move the commercial frontage on
East Palomar Street. The commercial frontage will take advantage of the 15-foot wide Village
Pathway that connects Village Five with Villages One and Six. In addition to the Pathway, the paved
6- foot wide tree well area will create a strong pedestrian-orientation to the village core.
City staff has worked with the McMillin Companies to design an acceptable Main Street project. The
.8-acre park will be consolidated into the existing mixed-use site to create a new 3.8-acre site that
will allow buildings to front on East Palomar Street. Pedestrian plazas will be created where the
Paseo crosses through the mixed uses project and along the frontage on East Palomar Street.
Because the Main Street proposal calls for diagonal parking in front ofthe mixed-use area along the
East Palomar frontage, the bus stop will be relocated further to the east in front of the Teresina
Apartments. These on-street diagonal parking spaces are considered crucial to the success of the
proposed ground floor commercial spaces that will now front directly onto East Palomar. The
remaining parking requirement for the commercial uses will be provided by a parking lot in back of
the commercial uses. McMillin proposes a 3.8 acre mixed-use site with 10,000 square feet of ground
floor commercial along Palomar Street.
In addition, McMillin believes that the number of dwellings currently approved for the Village Five
core (18 dwelling units) is not sufficient to make the project financially successful. Financing mixed-
use projects is very difficult because financial institutions segregate funding by land use. The mixed-
use project was originally approved as a commercial project with a residential component. The
amendment switches the priority of the land uses and proposes a residential project with a
commercial component. With 72, units McMillin believes there are sufficient units for the project to
stand on its own for financing as a residential project. McMillin indicates their market analysis
concludes that there is not a sufficient number of units in Village Five to support 30,000 square feet
but will support the proposed 10,000 square feet of commercial.
The 54 additional units are well within the GDP authorized units for the Village Five core. The GDP
originally allowed 1,615 multi-family units be built in the village core. The GDP called for an
average density of 18 dwelling units per acre on the 90 acres of Medium High density in the Village
Five core. This density was required to support the light rail transit that will serve Village Five and
was required based on concerns raised by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
during the GDP approval process. After McMillin acquired their current ownership in the Otay
Ranch, they approached the MTDB staff with their proposed reduction in density but with the
commitment to build the 440 unit Teresina Apartments. MTDB found that the 440 units at 29
dwelling units per acre in the apartment project could support the future trolley station. McMillin is
now requesting that 54 of the unused balance authorized by the GDP be allocated to the mixed-use
site C-3/R-45. This increase comes from 10 units that were not used in the R-44 portion ofTeresina,
H:\PLANNINGIOtay_RanchIMcMillinlMcM V5 SPA Amend PC STFRPT.doc
l1
PCM-OI-II
Page No.5 of 6
three units from the R-40 condominium project and 41 from the GDP-approved allocation. The
number of units proposed for the mixed-use site is consistent with the GDP policies for Village Five.
SPA One Villaf!e Desif!n Plan / Precise Master Plan
The amendment to the SPA Plan to delete the Town Square and consolidated the area into a larger
mixed use site will also require an amendment to the SPA One Village Design Plan (VDP). The
VDP currently describes in greater detail how the Town Square concept is to be implemented. The
proposed amendment to the Main Street concept requires this concept to be described in the VDP.
The conditions of approval require the clean-up ofthe VDP within 30 days of City Council approval
of the SPA amendment.
Subsequent to the City Council approval of the SPA Plan amendment, the Precise Plan for the
Village Five core will be taken to the Design Review Committee for their review and approval along
with the mixed-use project application.
SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
In addition to the VDP, the deletion of the Town Square park requires the SPA One Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan be amended to reflect the consolidation ofthe .8 acre park
area with the mixed use site. With the proposed increase in density and the reduction in parkland, the
park agreement between the Otay Ranch Company, the McMillin Companies and the City will also
need to be amended. McMillin will be required to increase the community park contribution to
ensure the 3 acres per 1,000 population is maintained for their portion of SPA One.
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Planned Community District Ref!;Ulations
The PC District regulations amendment deletes the OS/P-l zone on the existing Town Square and
rezones the 0.8 acres to C/RM2 to allow the new mixed-use project on 3.8 acres in the Village
Five core. Amendments to the zoning district map within the PC District Regulations are proposed
to reflect the SPA Plan amendments and allow the mixed uses project.
5. Analysis
The change in village concept is allowed by the GDP policies for Village Five. The GDP indicates
that either Town Square or Main Street concept is allowed for Village Five. After further analysis,
staff has detennined that to be successful the Town Square concept needs to be provided on a flat
site with streets on all sides. The shift to the Main Street concept is a better design for Village Five
due to the slope of the village core and traffic on East Palomar Street.
It is staff's opinion that the 72 residential units in second and third stories over the ground floor
commercial will create the pedestrian oriented environment envisioned by the GDP village policies.
With the commercial uses ftonting on East Palomar Street with the Village Pathway and the 42
H:\PLANNINGIOtay_RanchIMcMillinIMcM V5 SPA Amend PC STFRPT.doc
.5
---_.._._----~. - -'---'--" .-.--_..
PCM-OI-ll
Page No.6 of 6
dwelling units above the commercial spaces, there will be a human presence in the core on a 24-hour
basis. The residential units will provide the "eyes on the street" helping to create a safer
environment.
The 10,000 square feet of commercial will provide for a continuous storefront along the Village
Pathway. When combined with pedestrian plazas and the residential units above, the proposed
commercial storefronts will allow for the creation of a true mixed-use pedestrian oriented village
core envisioned by the GDP village concept.
A community forum was held on August 9, 2001 on both McMillin and the Otay Ranch Company
SPA amendments. Notices ofthe forum were sent to approximately 400 residents of Village Five. At
the forum, attended by 30 residents, concerns were expressed on the elimination of the town square,
the increase in the number of units in the mixed-use project and traffic along Santa Core north and
south of East Palomar Street. The town square and residential units in the mixed-use project are
discussed in this report. Planning and Engineering Divisions will review the parking situation along
Santa Cora and work to resolve residents concerns.
CONCLUSION:
The Otay Ranch GDP policies for Village Five indicate the Village Five core will contain either a
Town Square, Village Green or Main Street development concept. The proposal by McMillin to
change from a Town Square to Main Street concept is consistent with the GDP policies. The increase
in units in the mixed-use project is within the number of multi-family units authorized by the GDP.
Other GDP requirements such as the Village Pathway and the Village Five paseo are maintained in
the SPA Plan. McMillin is proposing a superior mixed-use project that is consistent with the Otay
Ranch GDP policies and the SPA One Plan for Village Five.
Attachments
L Locator Map
2. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan, and SPA One Zoning DislTict Map and proposed amendments
to the Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan.
3. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-11)
4. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Draft City Council Resolution No._
5. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Draft City Council Ordinance No._
6. Disclosure Statement
H:IPLANNINGIOtay _RanchIMcMillinlMcM V5 SPA Amend PC STFRPT.doc
10
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-01-11
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, ADOPT THE
ADDENDUM TO FEIR 95-01, AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO
MODIFY THE SPA ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS WITHIN VILLAGE FIVE
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02, and is commonly known
as The Otay Ranch Village Five Core ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application requesting amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan; the SPA One Village Design Plan; the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Master Plan; and the Village Five Core Master Precise Plan was filed with the Planning
and Building Department on December 20, 2000 by McMillin Otay Ranch, L.L.C.
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of the attached amendments to the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA One) Plan; the SPA One Village Design Plan; the SPA
One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; and the Village Five Core Master
Precise Plan in order to revise the Village Five Core (Parcels R-45/C-3/P-8) to change trom a
"Town Square" to a "Main Street" concept and to implement a mixed-use development
("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the Village Five Core is located within SPA One, said Village Five area
being located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, west of planned State Route 125, north of
Olympic Parkway and east of La Media Road; and
WHEREAS, a public forum was held on August 9, 2001 at Heritage Elementary School
in SPA One in order to apprise the public of the Project and gamer infonnation from area
residents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on
the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
August 22, 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under the E1R-95-01, and has been evaluated as 1S-OI-035 to
detennine if any significant differences exist; and
A~~\- 3
/
Resolution No. PCM-OI-II
Page NO.2 of2
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any
impacts associated with the Project have been previously identified in EIR 95-01, and has,
therefore, prepared an addendum to that document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council
Resolution adopting the Addendum to EIR 95-01 approving the amendments to the Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan, the SPA One Village Design Plan; the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space
and Trails Master Plan; and the Village Five Core Master Precise Plan; and the attached
Ordinance rezoning Park p-g from OSIP1 to C/RM2.
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 day of ,2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Kevin O'Neil, Chairperson
H:\PLANNING\Otay_Ranch\McMi!lin\V5 SPA Amend PC Reso.doc
~
DRAFT
EXHIBIT "C"
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of
Chula Vista General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Ordinance,
Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch- Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Overall Design
Plan; Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan and supporting
documents including: SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan; SPA One Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan;
Village Five Core Master Precise Plan; and the Non-Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan all as may be amended from time to time, unless specifically
modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City
Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate
department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material
modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
2. Development shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit 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 Developer shall file a Notice ofIntent 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 include both
construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control
measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control
measures. The developer shall comply with all the 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. The
Developer shall design the Project storm drains and other drainage facilities to
include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution,
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE SPA PLAN
Conditions of Approval 2
3. Prior to the approval of the first final map, or issuance of the first grading permit for
the Project, whichever occurs earlier, enter into an agreement with the City of Chula
Vista, wherein the Developer agrees 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, trom 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 the Project,
whether the non-compliance results trom any action by the Developer, any
agent or employee, subcontractors, or others. The Developer's
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. 2001-01, NPDES No.
CASOlO8758 Municipal Permit, as determined by the City Engineer.
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 of NPDES 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.
The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the
Project
4. The project shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance
(PLDO). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three
(3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local
parks are comprised of community parks and neighborhood parks.
5. The Applicant shall agree and acknowledge in writing, prior to the first map for
the Project, that approval of the Project creates an additional parkland obligation
of 1.26 acres ("Additional Parkland Obligation").
I\)
OTA Y RANCH VILLAGE FIVE SPA PLAN
Conditions of Approval 3
6. The Applicant's "Additional Parkland Obligation" shall be satisfied through the
dedication of community parkland and the payment of community park
improvement fees.
7. Prior to the issuance of the first building pennit for the Project, the Applicant
shall submit a community park delivery schedule, subject to approval of the
Director of Parks and Recreation, that demonstrates delivery of the community
park within a time frame deemed acceptable by the Director of Parks and
Recreation.
8. The location of the Additional Parkland Obligation shall be within a service
radius of SPA One as defined in the GDP, and deemed acceptable by the Director
of Parks and Recreation. The Additional Parkland Obligation may ultimately be
aggregated with other parkland, subject to approval by the Director of Parks and
Recreation. The Applicant, upon request of the Director of Parks and Recreation,
shall amend the Otay Ranch GDP to reflect the location of the community park
and such amendment shall be at the expense of the applicant.
9. The Applicant shall acknowledge and agree in writing, to the Director of Parks
and Recreation, prior to the first map for the project, to provide the Additional
Parkland Obligation (APO) to the City in a location acceptable to the Director of
Parks and Recreation. In applicant's writing, applicant shall acknowledge that
notwithstanding the cost or value of the APO, such APO shall be deemed to
satisfy applicant's land acquisition component of it's PAD fee obligation
(approximately $217,000 per acre). The Applicant shall not be entitled to receive
additional parkland acreage credit in the event that the market value or cost of
APO exceeds the PAD Master Fee Schedule defined fees.
10. Within 30 days of approval of the Project the Applicant shall submit an
Amendment to the Otay Ranch Park Agreement ("Agreement") to the Director of
Parks and Recreation to incorporate these SPA One conditions. The Applicant
shall fully cooperate with the City in the Amendment to the Agreement to reflect
all applicable current parkland and park improvement obligations.
II. Within thirty days of City Council approval of this amendment, the Applicant
shall take all necessary steps to revise the affected planning documents to reflect
the approved amendments and submit said revised planning documents to the City
of Chula Vista, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
Should this condition fail to occur, City processing of all applications related to
this approval shall be suspended until such time as revised planning documents
have been submitted to the City and accepted by the Director of Planning and
Building.
\ l
OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE FIVE SPA PLAN
Conditions of Approval 4
12. A Hydrology/Water Quality study shall be submitted with the first submittal of
grading/improvement plans to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of any grading permit.
13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance
with California Handicapped Accessibility Requirements and energy conservation
requirements.
\~
ADDENDUM TO OTA Y RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I AND ANNEXATION
FINAL SECOND -TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-
EIR-95-01
PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch SPA I Village 5 Mixed Use Core Amendment (Parcels
R-45/C-3, & P-8); and Village 5 - Red Phase Amendment (Parccls
R-30 and R-39).
PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Ranch, SPA I, Village 5 Core. Southeast comer of Palomar
Street and the west leg of Santa Cora Avenue;
Otay Ranch, SPA I, Village 5 - Red Phase. Southeast comer of
East Palomar and Santa Rosa Drive.
PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC;
The Otay Project, LP
CASE NO.:
1S-01-35 and IS-01-43
DATE:
July 20, 2001
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Addendum is to discuss minor changes in the arrangement of multi-
fami1y residential densities within the Village Five Core of the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning .A.rea One Plan CSP A One Plan").
As the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act
CCEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, Ii 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City")
prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Final Second Tier E1R 95-01) of the
SPA One Plan. Final EIR 95-01 ("Final E1R") contains a comprehensive disclosure and
analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the
SPA One project, including Villages One and Five of Otay Ranch. The Final E1R was
certified and the SPA One Plan was approved by the City Council in 1996.
The Final EIR considered the environmental impacts associated with development of a
total of 2,878 dwelling units in Village 5 of SPA One. Subsequent SPA One Plan
amendments and actual residential development did not utilize (develop) 532 residential
dwelling units approved under the original SPA One Plan. The proposed amendments
would reallocate 476 of those unutilized dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-45/C-3 (54
units), and R-30 and R-39 (422 units). The total unit count would not exceed the number
of units analyzed in the Final EIR. The net effect of the proposed amendments to the
SPA One Plan would be a minor shift in the arrangement and distribution of multi-family
units within Village Five. Table I, Olav Ranch Village Five Land Use Comparison
\3
provides a summary of the proposed changes to unit types and locations within Village
Five. The changes proposed with this amendment are identified with shading.
II. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA guidelines discuss a lead agency's
responsibilities in handling new infonnation that was not included in a project's final
environmental impact report (ErR). Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides~
(a) When an ErR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent ElR shall be prepared for that project unless the City detennines, on
the basis of substantial evidence in the light ofthe whole record, one or more of
the following:
I. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the ErR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. New infonnation of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time the EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration
adopted shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the [Final] EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final]
ElR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent ElR,
but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the City could choose instead to
issue a supplement to the Final ElR. (CEQA Guidelines, 915163, subd. (a).)
Page 2
\Lt
TABLE ]-OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE LAND USE COMPARISON
Neighborhood GDP Original SPA SPA Substantial Sub Cont. vs. Final Proposed
10/28/1993 06/04/1996 2/16/99 Conformance 2/16/99 SPA Maps' SPA Amend'
R-22 108 MF N/A N/A 86 86
R-23 104 87 N/A N/A 87 87
R-24 104 138 N/A N/A 138 138
R-25 73 73 56 -17 56 56
R-26 78 78 63 -15 63 63
R-27 58 58 69 11 69 69
R-28 82 82 73 -9 73 73
R-30 145 145 93 -52 MF MF
R-31 83 83 85 2 85 85
R-32 113 113 118 5 118 118
R-33 55 55 42 -13 42 42
R-34 40 40 35 -5 35 35
R-35 40 40 36 -4 36 36
R-36 69 69 62 -7 62 62
R-37 66 66 60 -6 60 60
R-38 ! 45 45 43 -2 43 43
R-41 I MF 90 N/A N/A 90 90
R-42 MF MF N/A N/A 74 74
Subtotal SF 1,263 1,263 1,262 835 -112 1,217 1,217
R-22 SF 86 N/A
R-29 90 90 83 83 83
R-30a' SF SF 247
R-30b' SF SF 326
R-39' 175 182 180 122
R-40 I 204 201 N/A 198 198
R-41 127 SF N/A SF SF
R-42' 241 74 N/A SF SF
R_435 175 240 N/A 240 240
R-445 261 210 N/A 200 200
R-45 (Mixed Use)" 0 165 18 N/A 72
R_465 177 117 N/A 117 117
Subtotal MF 1.615 1,615 1,218 263 838 1,605
Total Residential 2,878 2,878 2,480 1,098 2,055 2,822
Notes:
Final Map information provided by City of Chula Vista.
2 Nei9hborhoods R-30a, R-30b and R-39 are the subject of the revised Village 5 Tentative Map.
3 Proposed SPA Amendment reflects substantial conformity, final maps,
and moving R-22 and R-42 units from MF to SF to correct typo in 2/16/99 document.
4 2/16/99 SPA reflects 1998 McMillin Amendment.
5 Proposed SPA Amendment includes McMillin Village Core Amendment (2001).
Page 3
\5
Thus, the City must consider under the standards articulated above whether there will be
previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously disclosed impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, 9915162,15163 subd. (a).)
As the discussion below demonstrates, the proposed SPA One Plan amendments will
result in no new impacts, or no more severe impacts, than any that were disclosed in the
Final EIR. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to prepare an Addendum pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines, 9 15164. That section states that an addendum should include a "brief
explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to 9 15162," and
that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, 9
15164, subd. (e).). The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may
simply be attached to the Final EIR. (Ibid; CEQA Guidelines, 915164, subd. (c)).
In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the
following Addendum to Final EIR-95-01.
III. PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)
area located east of Interstate 805 (1-805) in the City of Chula Vista. More specifically,
the proposed amendment areas are within the SPA One Plan area which is comprised of
Villages One, One West and Five. The proposed amendment areas are both located
within the Village Five Core (see Figure I). Village Five is comprised of approximately
493 acres located in the northern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch
GDP.
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) designates Village Five as an urban
village to be served by a light rail transit system. The Otay Ranch GDP permits a total of
2,878 dwelling units, including both single and multi-family units. As an urban village,
the Otay Ranch GDP provides for an approximately 115 acre village core including
commercial uses, an elementary school site, neighborhood parks, Community Purpose
Facilities land uses, and medium high density housing.
Existing major roadways within Village Five include Telegraph Canyon RoadlOtay
Lakes Road which forms the northern boundary, La Media Road which forms the western
boundary, the future extension of Olympic Parkway which forms the southern boundary,
and future SR-125 which forms the eastern boundary. East Palomar Street bisects the
Village Five area, connecting Olympic Parbvay with La Media Road. East-west access
to the project is provided along Telegraph Canyon RoadlOtay Lakes Road. 1-805,
located to the west of the project site, currently provides regional north-south freeway
access. Local interchanges in the project vicinity are at Olympic Parkway, Telegraph
Canyon Road, and East H Street.
The Village Five project area has been mass graded in accordance with the approved SPA
One Plan, associated Tentative Maps, and the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance.
Page 4
110
Development has occurred or is in process in the adjacent neighborhoods. In addition,
the required infrastructure, including major backbone streets, are in place.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core site is located at the southeast comer of Palomar Street
and the west leg of Santa Cora Avenue in Village Five. The project site consists of two
legal parcels, Parcels R-45/C-3, and P-8. Parcel P-8 is a 0.90-acre parcel and R-45/C-3 is
a 2.9-acre parcel for a total of3.8 acres. The vacant site is relatively flat and has been
previously graded. Existing surrounding land uses include multi-family to the south,
east and west. Vacant land designated for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) and a
Community Park are located to the north across East Palomar Street.
Neif:hbor/wods R-30 and R-39
Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 comprise 44.5 acres and are located in the southeastern
portion of Village Five, north of Olympic Parkway and immediately southeast of the
intersection of Santa Rosa Drive and San Sebastian Avenue. Neighborhood R-31 and the
Otay Water District Parcel, which is not a part of the Otay Ranch GDP, are located
immediately to the north of the site. Neighborhood R-29 and the CPF 5 site are located
immediately to the west. Open space lots, within the Poggi Canyon Creek drainage, fonn
the southern boundary adjacent to the future Olympic Park'Way. Village Six, currently
undeveloped, is located further to the south across the (future) Olympic Parkway. The
community of Eastlake is located to the east.
As stated above, the site has been mass graded. The topography is moderately sloping
from the north to the south and southeast. Elevations range from approximately 575 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northwest comer to approximately 500 feet AMSL
in the southwest comer of the site.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approved Otay Ranch GDP, adopted on October 28, 1993 and the original SPA One
Plan, approved on June 4, 1996, assumed a total of 2,878 units within Village Five. The
proposed amendments would reallocate unutiJized units to the R-45/C-3 and R-30 and R-
39 neighborhoods for a total of 2,822 units within Village Five. Therefore, the proposed
SP A One Plan amendments would be consistent with the overall densities authorized in
the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One Plan. Redistributing the units and locating higher
densities in closer proximity to the viJlage core enhances the viability of the village core
and meets the GDP goals and objectives related to pedestrian oriented urban villages
served by light rail transit.
As described above, Village Five has been mass graded with many areas within the
Village already developed, or currently developing. Concurrent with the mass grading of
the Village Five area, the majority of the project mitigation measures outlined in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been implemented. For
example, mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources, including the
Page 5
II
conveyance of open space to the Preserve, as required by the Otay Ranch Resource
Management Plan (RMP), have already occurred. Therefore, those mitigation measures
would not be applicable to this project.
The fol1owing is a brief description of each proposed amendment.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The adopted Vil1age 5 Core Master Precise Plan envisioned a mixed use residential and
commercial project oriented towards a town square public park. The project proposes to
modify the mix of commercial and residential elements, and utilize a "Main Street"
concept with the mixed-use commercial residential building oriented towards East
Palomar Street. The proposed modifications would create a more pedestrian fTiendly
transit oriented environment with urban plazas, outdoor seating, and pedestrian linkages
to the planned trail system.
The proposed modifications require amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA I, Village 5
Core Master Precise Plan; Vil1age Design Plan; and Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Master Plan to~
I. Increase the residential density trom 18 multi-family dwelling units to 72 multi-
family dwelling units, designed as a mixed use development with commercial on
the ground floor and some of the residential units above.
2. Decrease the commercial land use trom approximately 30,000 to 10,000 square
feet.
3. Incorporate an urban plaza design in lieu of a 0.90 acre town square park.
4. Relocate the transit stop approximately I 50-feet west of the intersection of East
Palomar Street and the east leg of Santa Cora A venue.
Nei{:hborlzoods R-30 and R-39
The proposed project is an amendment to the SPA One Plan, SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan, SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Village
Five Design Plan, and Tentative Map (TM) 96-04 for the reallocation of a total of 422
multi-family dwel1ing units to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39. These units were
approved under the original SPA One Plan but were not utilized by other developing
neighborhoods. Specifical1y, the proposed amendment to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39
would result in the following:
I. Neighborhood R-30 was previously planned as a smal1 lot single-family project
with 93 dwelling units. This amendment would create two multi-family
neighborhoods (R-30a and R-30b) with 247 multi-family units and 326 multi-
family units, respectively.
Page 6
\'{
2. Neighborhood R-39 was previously planned as a multi-family neighborhood with
180 dwelling units. This amendment creates a neighborhood with 122 multi-
family detached units served by alleys.
3. The P-II private park site, currently within Neighborhood R-30, would be
relocated to a more central location situated to the north of the intersection of
Santa Paula Road and Santa Rosa Drive.
In addition, the project would result in minor modifications to the previously graded site
to accommodate the revised housing types. The units would be accessed from two points
along Santa Rosa Drive.
V. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS
The proposed reallocation of multi-family units would maintain the overall densities
identified in the adopted GDP and SPA One Plan. Specifically, the GDP policies and
SPA One Plan concentrate the higher density residential densities within one-quarter mile
of the Village Core and transit stop. The proposed project would also redesignate Parcel
P-8 from a Park land use to Mixed Use. The proposed project would be required to
provide the parkland obligation in another location within Otay Ranch. Therefore, the
proposed an1endments to the SPA One Plan are considered compatible with applicable
zoning and the adopted GDP in the City ofChula Vista.
VI. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL EIR
An Initial Study conducted by the City ofChula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist fonn) detennined that the proposed project would not result in
any additional significant environmental effects than those previously covered under
Final EIR-95-01.
Land Use
The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not involve additional land uses not
previously analyzed in ErR 95-01. The total residential dwelling unit count proposed
under the SPA Plan Amendments is 2,822 dwelling units which is less than the 2,878
dwelling units analyzed in the original SPA Plan and Final EIR. The redistribution of
dwelling units would not change the analysis and conclusions presented in ErR 95-01.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The proposed SPA amendments and development of Parcel P-8 and R-45/C-3 as a
mixed-use site would result in a reallocation of 54 residential units and the reduction in
approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial uses. The total unit increase would be
within the maximum number of units planned for Village Five, and would be located
within areas planned for higher density within the village core.
Page 7
Ic:r
Nei5!,hborhoods R-30 and R-39
In addition to the previously planned 93 units for Neighborhood R-30 and 180 units for
Neighborhood R-39, the proposed SPA One Plan amendment would reallocate 422
dwelling units that have not been utilized within SPA One to these neighborhoods. The
project proposes a multi-family attached unit in Neighborhood R-30 and multi-family
detached unit served by alleys in Neighborhood R-39.
In summary, as shown on Table I, Dtay Ranch Village Five Land Use Comparison,
the total dwelling unit count proposed under the proposed SPA One Plan amendments is
less than the original SPA analyzed in the Final EIR (2,878 units). Single-family
residential units would total 1,217 under the amended SPA, as compared to 1,263 units
proposed and analyzed under the original SPA Plan analyzed in the Final EIR. Multi-
family dwelling units would total 1,605 total units, as compared to the 1,615 dwelling
units proposed and analyzed under the original SPA Plan analyzed in the Final EIR The
proposed reallocation of multi-family units would be in planning areas that would
maintain consistency with the adopted GDP and SPA One Plan. Specifically, the GDP
policies and SPA One Plan concentrate the higher density residential densities within
one-quarter mile of the Village Core and transit stop. The proposed increased densities
within R-30a and 30b would provide for higher densities by proposing multi-family uses
within the one- quarter mile radius instead of single family uses as identified in the
adopted plan. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the SPA would not conflict
with surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses
would be similar to the adopted plan.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Traffic assessments were conducted for the proposed amendments to Neighborhoods R-
45/C-3 and R-30 and R-39. Both of the reports concluded that the overall level of
service, as previously analyzed in the EIR 95-01, would not be changed by the proposed
amendments. The SPA One Plan amendments would not cause any additional impacts to
traffic, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95-01.
The intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Telegraph Canyon Road would be impacted either
with or without the proposed amendment, as previously concluded in EIR 95-01. It
should be noted that the major ("backbone") transportation improvements, previously
identified in the Final EIR 95-01 MMRP have been or are currently under construction in
the project \'icinity.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
A trip generation comparison was prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc. on May 4,2001
to analyze potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed amendment. The trip
generation comparison showed that the proposed amendment to the SPA One Plan
(addition of 54 residential units and reduction in commercial square footage) would result
in 1,656 fewer daily trips, with 69 fewer AM peak hour trips and 105 fewer PM peak
hour trips.
Page 8
:xJ
Nei?;hborhoods R-30 and R-39
A Traffic Assessment was prepared by URS/BRW on July 20, 2001 to assess the
potential impact to traffic and circulation associated with redistributing residential
densities within Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 of Village Five. Overall, the SPA One
Plan amendment to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 would generate 2,710 daily trips with
an increase of 217 AM peak hour and 272 PM peak hour trips. The report assessed
roadways and intersections in the vicinity to determine if the increased traffic levels
would result in substantial increased delays or reduced levels of service.
The URS/BRW report concludes that the critical intersections for project access,
including La Media Road/East Palomar Street intersection and Village 5 NS (Santa
Paula)lOtay Lakes Road intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service. Additionally, intersections associated with access to the site were evaluated. In
particular, San Sebastian Avenue/Santa Rosa Drive, East Palomar Street/Santa Rosa
Drive and Geyserville Street/Santa Rosa Drive were evaluated and were found to operate
at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the SPA One Plan
amendment would not cause additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation
system, including site access points.
Water Quality and Drainage
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The extent of the development area proposed under the amendment would be the same as
previously assessed under ErR 95-0 I. Because the effects of storm water run-off are
based on development area (impervious surface) rather than number of units, the increase
in dwelling units and decrease in commercial square footage on R-45/C-3 would not
change the amount of storm water previously anticipated for the site.
In addition, based on a Drainage Study prepared by Rick Engineering Company dated,
April 200 I, the proposed changes in land use for Parcel P-8 ITom park use to residential
uses will result in an increase of 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, the existing 12
inch PVC storm drain has the capacity to cany the additional flow. The City's
Engineering Division has reviewed the aforementioned Drainage Study and concurs with
the findings and conclusions. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in any
additional impacts to drainage beyond those previously identified in EIR 95-01.
Nei?;hborhoods R-30 and R-39
Based on a Drainage Assessment, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated May 24,
2001, the proposed increase in density would result in a negligible change in the drainage
volume and would not have any adverse impacts to Poggi Canyon Creek. The
conclusions of the previous analysis conducted in the "Master Drainage Study for Poggi
Canyon Creek" would remain. The City's Engineering Division has reviewed the report
and concurred with the findings and conclusions.
Page 9
2.\
The total amount of urban area would not be changed, and the amount of impervious
surfaces represented by the proposed amended plan would not substantial1y change ITom
that analyzed in the Final EIR. Water quality issues would also be similar, due to the
similar character and quantity of proposed land uses.
Concurrent with the mass grading in Village Five, the project has complied with the
MMRP mitigation measures regarding payment of "fair share" fees as required by the
SPA One Plan and adherence to National Pol1utant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements.
Public Services and Facilities
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
Water and Sewer: Based on a Water and Sewer Service analysis by Powell/PBSJ, dated
May 2001, the regional transmission mains planned and approved within Vil1age Five are
sized to accommodate peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow rates to the revised
Vil1age Five Core Area (R-45/C-3). Therefore, the increase in residential density and
decrease in commercial square footage would not affect the analysis previously provided
in EIR 95-0 I.
Parks: The proposed amendment would result in 54 additional residential units and the
elimination of a 0.9 acre park site (P-8). The project would be required to provide
additional park acreage within Otay Ranch to compensate for the elimination of the P-8
park site as wel1 as the increased residential units. At this time, the additional park
acreage is anticipated to occur within the Eastern Urban Center (EUe) of Otay Ranch. In
addition, as required by Municipal Code Section 17.1 (Parkland Ordinance), park
development fees would be increased to reflect the increase in multi-family units.
Neizhborhoods R-30 and R-39
Water and Sewer: Based on letter report ITom Dexter Wilson Engineering Inc., dated
May 18, 2001, the regional water facilities being constructed within Vil1age Five are
sufficient to provide domestic and fire protection services to the revised development
areas. Currently, sixteen-inch potable water lines are planned in Olympic Parkway, East
Palomar Street, and Santa Rosa Drive and recycled water lines are proposed in East
Palomar Street and Santa Rosa Drive.
In addition, the proposed SPA One Plan amendment wil1 not affect the planned sewer
line design for the Vil1age 5 area. Based on a letter report from Dexter Wilson
Engineering, Inc., dated May IS, 2001, the S-inch gravity sewer line in East Palomar
Street has capacity to accommodate the proposed planning change. The design capacity
of the S-inch line is 600 EDUs and the proposed change would generate 555 EDUs.
Page 10
::2?
.
-------- ..----.. .+._-,~,.-_._..,...._.._.. ----~_.__._-
Parks: The additional 422 multi-family units to be reallocated to Neighborhoods R-30
and R-39 results in a demand for approximately 2.6 acres of local parks (neighborhood
and community parks) beyond that provided in the Otay Ranch Park Agreement. The
project would be required to provide additional park acreage within Olay Ranch to
compensate for the increased residential units. At this time, the additional park acreage is
anticipated to occur within Village Two of Otay Ranch. In addition, as required by
Municipal Code Section 17.] (Parkland Ordinance), park development fees will be
increased to reflect the increase in multi-family units.
VII. CONCLUSION
The analysis and conclusions presented in the Final EIR are not changed by the proposed
revisions, and preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not warranted.
Pursuant to Section 15] 64 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in
only minor technical changes or additions to the project, and that none of the conditions
for preparing a subsequent or supplemental ErR , as identified by Sections 15162 and
15163 exist. Therefore, the preparation of this Addendum is appropriate to make the
Final E1R 95-01 adequate under CEQA.
~ . //'/)
~/:///f.w r~'
M 'lyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
~h/ol
Date /
REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-01), April 1996
Water and Sewer Service, Powell/PBSJ, May 2001
Traffic Analysis. Darnell and Associates, May 4, 2001
Drainage Study. Rick Engineering Company, April 2001
Water and Sewer Analysis, Dexter Wilson Engineering, May 18,2001
Traffic Analysis. URS/BRW. July 20, 2001
Drainage Assessment. Hunsaker and Associates, May 24, 2001
Page 11
.23
-- -~._._....._..-
_.__._--_..~_.~._..~--,_.._.._--,---
Case No.IS-01-35;and IS-01-43
ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC; and
Otay Ranch Project, LP
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2727 Hoover A venue
National City, CA 91950
350 W. Ash Street, Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Village Five Amendments
S. Date of Checklist: July 20, 2001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaU"
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Les.~ than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
!;J
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
o
o
o
!;J
o
o
o
!;J
o
o
o
!;J
Comments: The proposed amendments would be consistent with the overall densities approved
in the SPA One Plan, and the GDP and SPA Plan policies as evaluated under Final EIR 95-01.
See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
Page 12
~Lf
Potentiilll}'
Potentiall}' S~nif"w.:aDt Less than
Significant Unless Sianificant No
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would lhe Impact Mitigated Impact Imtmct
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 I8l
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 I8l
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 I8l
housing?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not exceed the total multi-family and single
family unit counts compared to the land use assumptions contained in the Final EIR 95-01
analysis of population and housing. Since the proposed amendments represent similar numbers
and types of residential uses, the amendments are anticipated to result in virtually identical
impacts to population and housing as was analyzed for the original SPA Plan in the Final EIR 95-
01.
Potentiall}'
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would lhe proposal resull in or Potentiail)' Significant Less than
Significant Un.less Significant No
expose people 10 pOlenlial impacls involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) U nst3ble earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 I8l
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 I8l
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 I8l
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 I8l
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 I8l
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 I8l
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 I8l
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
The Final EIR 95-01 detennined that no significant impacts associated with ground
Page 13
:2.5
surface rupture (faulting) or liquefaction would occur on the project site. The Final EIR identified
specific mitigation measures for ground shaking, soils, and slope stability that reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures required the submittal of site
specific geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant. Concurrent with the
mass grading of the site, these mitigation measures have been complied with. As the area of
potential effect for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment will not change, and with compliance
with the Final EIR mitigation measures, the proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
potentiallJ
Potentia.ll~' Significant Less than
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant UnI", Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 181
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 181
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters"
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not change the extent of development area
(impervious surface) evaluated under the previous water quality and drainage analysis conducted
for the Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
Page 14
~(p
Potentu.lI~'
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: PotentiaU~ Si~nificant LeS5 than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) V iolate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 0
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 0
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 0
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 0
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: As discussed in Section VI. of the Addendum, the proposed amendments would not
result in traffic volumes beyond those previously analyzed in the Final EIR. The traffic analysis
reports concluded that the levels of service at nearby intersections would remain the same, and
access points to the projects would operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, air quality impacts and
mitigation measures would be similar to those previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-0 I.
PotentiaUJ
PotentiallJ Significant Less than
Significant Unless SigPificant No
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 0
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 0
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 0
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 0
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 0
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 0
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 0
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Page 15
d../
Comments: The proposed amendments would result in similar traffic impacts as were evaluated in
Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
Potentially
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would [he Potentiall)' Significant Less tban
Significant Unless Significant '"
proposal result in impacts to: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 0
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 0
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 0
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habit3t (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 0
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 0
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 0
efforts?
Comments: The Final EIR 95-01 identified impacts to biological resources that required
mitigation to reduce impacts to a level less than significant. Since that time, the proposed project
site has been mass graded in accordance with the SPA One Plan, Tentative Map and the City's
grading ordinance and no vegetation remains onsite. With the proposed amendment to the SPA
One Plan, the area of development will not be altered trom the previous biological resource
assessment boundary; therefore, the proposed revisions will not result in significant impacts to
biological resources. Conveyance of land into the Preserve for development in SPA One has
already occurred, and the proposed amendment will not require additional conveyance ofland by
the project appJicant(s).
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Significant Unless Significant N"
Would [he proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 0
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 0
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 0
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: There were no impacts identified in Final EIR 95-0 I associated with energy and mineral
resources. The proposed amendments would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR 95-01.
Page 16
~
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Potent.i.all}'
PotentiallJ SignifICant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 C3I
0 0 0 C3I
0 0 0 C3I
0 0 0 C3I
0 0 0 C3I
Comments: The proposed amendments to the SPA Plan would not result in a change in the type
or character of land uses that would cause any hazards to hW11an health or safety or to the
environment. The proposed changes to the plan include reallocation of residential densities,
which would not result in any impacts related to hazards or hazardous conditions, as previously
concluded under Final ErR 95-01.
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentiall)' Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated 1m""" Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 C3I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 C3I
Comments: Due to the same development area for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment,
construction noise impacts will not change with the proposed amendment. Mass grading of the
site has occurred and the project has complied with the construction noise mitigation measure as
outlined in the Final ErR 95-01. As with the approved SPA One Plan, additional pad grading will
be required and the project applicant shall adhere to the MMRP construction noise mitigation for
any additional grading activities required. The proposed plan changes were analyzed for potential
increases in traffic on surrounding roadways. The conclusions of the traffic studies indicate that
localized increases in traffic resulting from the reallocation of residential densities would not be
sufficient to result in any substantial increases in traffic volumes. As a result, no new impacts to
noise are anticipated to occur with the proposed SPA amendments, and no new mitigation
measures would be required. As previously required, noise barriers would still need to be
provided for units adjacent to roadways with noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL.
Page] 7
~"1
PotentiaU}'
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would The proposal have Potentially Significant Less than
Sigllificallt Unless Significant No
an effecT upon, or resulT in a need for new or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
alTered governmenl services in any of The following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181
c) Schools? 0 0 0 181
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 Ii;J
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 Ii;J
Comments:
Schools. Implementation ofthe proposed amendments would result in a slight decrease (! 699 vs.
1665) in the overall number of students generated by Village when compared to the previous
analysis. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the previous
EIR, no significant impact to school services will occur with implementation of the proposed SPA
One Plan amendment. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than
were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
Law Enforcement/Fire/EMS. The Final EIR 95-01 identifies the need for police and fire service
in the project area with future development of the SPA One Plan area. The project is within the
boundaries ofthe public facilities Development Impact Fee program, and therefore will be subject
to the payment of the police and fire/EMS fee rates in effect at the time building permits are
issued. Therefore, no new impacts to law enforcement, fire, or EMS will occur with
implementation of the SPA One Plan amendment.
Library. The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not change the impact analysis performed
in the Final EIR. The demand for the 4,876 square feet oflibrary space generated by Village Five
will be satisfied by the 36,758 square foot library planned in the Eastern Urban Center; therefore,
no significant impacts to library services will occur with implementation of the proposed SPA
One Plan amendment. In addition, the payment of Development Impact Fees for library services
at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued will further assist in development of
adequate library facilities in the project area. The proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
Integrated Waste Management. The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not change the
impact analysis prepared for the Final EIR 95-01. The Final EIR states that development ofSP A
One will result in a significant increase in solid waste generation; however, with implementation
of proposed mitigation measures these impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. An
Integrated Waste Management Plan has been prepared for the Otay Ranch GDP area. The plan
has identified the need for solid waste and recycling facilities in the Otay Ranch including
neighborhood recycling dropofffacilities, a materials recovery facility, compo sting facility, and a
facility to collects household hazardous waste. The proposed amendments would not result in any
Page 18
..3:)
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Final ErR 95-01.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's 77zresllOld Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
PotentiaU,.
Potentially Significant Les!ithan
Significant u."" SignifICant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 ~
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated lm..ct Impact
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 ~
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 determined that this threshold standard will be met
because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and
EMS Master Plan.
Comments: The Final ErR 95-01 identified impacts associated with the overall SPA One development
and required mitigation through the payment of Public Facilities fees to reduce impacts to a level less than
significant. The proposed amendments would be within the total unit count previously analyzed, and
therefore would not affect the previous conclusions of Final ErR 95-01.
Potentially
PotentiaU,' Significant Less than
Significant Unl~ Significant No
Impact Mitigated lm..ct Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 ~
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Final ErR 95-01 identified impacts associated with the overall SPA One development
and required mitigation through the payment of Public Facilities fees to reduce impacts to a level less than
significant. The proposed amendments would be within the total unit count previously analyzed, and
therefore would not affect the previous conclusions of Final ErR 95-01.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less tban
Significant Unless Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 0 ~
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
Page 19
.31
1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach
LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
Comments: As previously discussed, the proposed amendments would not result in an increase of
traffic volumes and would maintain the levels of service as previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-0 I.
PotentiaD)'
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Un....
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
I1<l
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendments would result in modifications to the previously planned parks
within Village Five: however, the project would be required to compensate for any changes to the park
acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees in effect
at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the project would comply with the Parks and
Recreation Threshold.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 I1<l
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase to the development area
(impervious surface) previously evaluated under the Final EIR 95-01, and therefore the necessary drainage
improvements previously required would be maintained.
Potentially
Potentially Significant LeS!;than
Significant UDI~ Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Sewer 0 0 0 I1<l
The Threshold St3ndards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase to sewage flows previously
evaluated under the Final EIR 95-0 I, and therefore the necessary improvements previously required
would be maintained.
Page 20
._3~
PotentiallJ
Potentially Significant Less than
Signmcant U""" Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water 0 0 0 181
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase in water transmission, treatment or
storage facilities as previously evaluated under the Final ErR 95-0 I, and therefore the necessary
improvements previously required would be maintained.
PotentiallJ
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 181
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in the need for additional facilities or
improvements beyond that previously analyzed in Final ErR 95-0 I. See further discussion in Section
VI. of Addendum.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181
Page 2 J
33
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
till
Comments: The proposed amendment areas have been previously mass graded and no
additional encroachment into steep slope areas would result !Tom implementation of the
amendments. In addition, the proposed amendments would not require any substantial changes to
the grading plans for Village Five. Views ofthe project area would not be substantially changed
with the proposed amendments, since the visual character of the proposed uses in the locations
identified would not be substantially different !Tom those that would result under the adopted
SPA One Plan and Final EIR 95-01. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional
impacts than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
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
Potentiallf Significant ussth.an
Significant Unless Sij:nificant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 till
o
o
till
o
o
o
till
o
o
o
till
o
o
o
till
o
Comments: The proposed SPA One Plan amendments will not increase the development area
!Tom that which was previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01. All of the archaeological and
historical investigations for the Final EIR were completed in accordance with the guidelines ofthe
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego (Guidelines for the Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act 1991). The cultural resource studies and further testing of
sites detennined that there would be one direct impact to one site of moderate significance that
was considered a significant impact. This identified site is not within the boundaries of the
proposed amendment areas. Further, through the implementation of Final EIR MMRP during
mass grading of the site, these impacts have been mitigated through an onsite monitor during
grading activities that have occurred. As the proposed amendment does not alter the area of
potential effect and with the cultural resource mitigation measures in the Final EIR already
Page 22
3-t
implemented, the proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were
previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiallJ
Significant
Unl~
Mitigated
Less than
SignlllC8.nt
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will/he
proposal resull in /he allera/ion of or /he
des/rue/ion of paleonlologieal resources?
o
o
o
Ii!
Comments: The Final EIR determined that the project area contains areas of "High Sensitivity"
and "Moderate Sensitivity" for paleontological resources. The Final EIR indicated that
development of the SPA One project would result in massive grading over the entire project site
and that significant impacts would occur to paleontological resources in the areas comprised of
"High" and "Moderate" sensitivity. This grading activity has been completed and the MMRP
measures complied with. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts
than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
PotentiaU)'
XVII. RECREATION. Would /he proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 Ii!
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 Ii!
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 Ii!
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed amendment would result in a minor modification to the park acreage
location and quantity. The project would be required to provide adequate park acreage, as approved under
the original SPA One Plan and evaluated under Final EIR 95-0 I. See further discussion in Section VI. of
Addendum.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A'vrn. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negarive Declara/ionfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
Ileeded, /his see/ioll should be eomple/ed.
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
o
o
o
Ii!
Page 13
&s
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in significant impacts biological or
archaeological resources.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Un!",
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) 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
II
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in cumulative impacts beyond those previously
analyzed in Final EIR 95-0 I.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly"
o
o
o
II
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed amendments would not result in substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No additional mitigation measures
beyond those previously identified in Final ErR 95-0 1 are required for the proposed amendments to
the SPA One Plan.
Page 24
~
X.X. AGREEMEXT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read.
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and wil1 implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants'
and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
N/A
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
D Land Use and Planning D T ransportation/C irculation D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Paleontological D Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
Page 25
.3J
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, D
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at D
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal st3ndards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects .
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination.
/.1.< r; /y (f~.. . ~,
/;/& IX,,; "I T /.ftX.( I''Y'
Marilyn .F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
eh/ CI
, Date
~~
Page 26
~
I[ \1
, ,(
..1 i~
,~ ,
, I
-'
!
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
."
t
i~\
.
"
Wy
FUTURE
VILLAGE SIX
ROIECT
LOCATION
-
.
FUTURE
VILLAGE TWO
I
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT MCMILLIN COMMUNITIES INC. & PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: OTAY PROJECTS, LP. INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale IS-01-035(C)
.31
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY
RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN FOR
VILLAGE FIVE
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02, and is commonly known
as The Otay Ranch Village Five Core ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application requesting amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan; the SPA One Village Design Plan; the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Master Plan; and the Village Five Core Master Precise Plan was filed with the Planning
and Building Department on December 20, 2000 by McMillin Otay Ranch, L.L.C. ("Applicant"),
to wit PCM-OI-11; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval of the attached amendments to
the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA One) Plan, the SPA One Village Design Plan; the
SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; and the Village Five Core
Master Precise Plan in order to revise the Village Five Core (Parcels R-45/C-3/P-8) to change
from a "Town Square" to a "Main Street" concept and to implement a mixed-use development
("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the Village Five Core is located within SPA One, said Village Five area
being located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, west of planned State Route 125, north of
Olympic Parkway and east of La Media Road; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice
of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under the EIR-95-01, and has been evaluated as IS-OI-035 to
detennine if any significant differences exist; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
detennined the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not
previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any
environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01; therefore, an Addendum to FEIR 95-
01 is has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and
t:\~~\- Ii
4D
Resolution No.
Page No.2 of6
WHEREAS, a public forum was held on August 9, 2001 at Heritage Elementary School
in SPA One in order to apprise the public of the Project and garner information !Tom area
residents; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6~00
p.m., August 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said public hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of
City Council approve the Project; and,
the Planning Commission recommended that the
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista on the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, the SPA One Village Design Plan,
ana the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, and the Village Five
Core Master Precise Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing held on August 22, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting there
!Tom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along
with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of
the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves Resolution No. amending the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan, the SPA One Village Design Plan, the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails Master Plan, and the Village Five Core Master Precise Plan.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Addendum to ErR 95-01, would have no new effects that were not examined in said
Addendum (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that the Project would not result in any new environmental
impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Proj ect result in a substantial
increase in severity in any environmenta] effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01.
Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions
41
Resolution No.
Page No.3 of6
requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in 15162 and
15163 exist; and; therefore, an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 has been prepared in
accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Therefore, the City Council
approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by the
EIR 95-01.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03,
identified as Exhibit "B" to this resolution reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA
One ErR 97-03.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this
approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings
adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR 90-01, Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 95-01,
and amended Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project
was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the Addendum to EIR 95-01,
which adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA
(Guideline 15168(e)).
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the General
Plan based on the following findings:
A. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA
VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Project, which is intended to change the Village Five Core from a "Town
Square" to "Main Street" concept and to implement a mixed use project, is
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista
General Plan in that goals and policies in both documents allow for and encourage
such development.
B. THE AMENDMENTS WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY,
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE FIVE CORE.
4:2-.
Resolution No.
Page No.4 of6
The Amendments contain provIsIOns and requirements to ensure the orderly,
phased development of the Village Five Core in that all required and necessary
changes have been made to the applicable documents to ensure such orderly,
phased development.
C. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The intent in changing from a "Town Square" to a "Main Street" concept within
the Village Five Core is to provide land uses consistent with and complimentary
to those on adjacent parcels. No adverse affects are anticipated trom this revision,
and residential enjoyment, circulation and environmental quality are anticipated to
be significantly enhanced. Implementing a mixed use project will provide
positive benefits to the Village Five Core, and the proposed plan closely follows
all existing environmental protection guidelines, thereby preventing unacceptable
off-site impacts.
IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "C", attached hereto.
X. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN; THE SPA ONE VILLAGE DESIGN
PLAN; THE SPA ONE PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
MASTER PLAN; AND THE VILLAGE FIVE CORE MASTER PRECISE PLAN
The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Section VI and Section IX listed above and based upon the findings and detenuinations
on the record for this Proj ect.
XI. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or they are, by their tenus, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their tenus, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance
of all future building penuits issued under the authority of the approvals herein granted,
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek
damages for their violation.
XII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
43
~_________ ."_,, __.u__. ..._____..___,."._._.___.___.._._._..~.~.....,_.__ ...__
Resolution No.
Page No.5 of 6
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and
that in the event that anyone or more tenns, provisions, or conditions are detennined 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 fonn by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
4L[
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY
RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS MODIFING THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR VILLAGE FIVE
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 97-02, and is commonly known as
The Otay Ranch Village Five Core ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, an application to amend the applicable sections and exhibits contained in the
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, the SPA One Village Design Plan, the SPA
One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, and the Village Five Core Master
Precise Plan was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department on December
20,2000 by McMillin Otay Ranch, L.L.c. ("Applicant"), to wit PCM-OI-II; and
WHEREAS, Applicant has requested amendments to Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations which requires modifying the SPA One Zoning District Map in
order to reflect neighborhood boundary adjustments to Neighborhoods P-8 and C-3/R-45, located in
the Property and as shown on Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, Applicant has requested that the Zoning District for Park P-8 in the Property be
amended from OS/P1 (Open Space/Park) to C/RM2 (Commercial/Residential Multi-family Two)
and that the adjacent plaza street also be designated C/RM2, as shown on Exhibits "B" ("Project");
and
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One 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 the Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan of the
amended SPA One Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") environmentally evaluated under EIR 95-01 and
previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. 18286; and,
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP was approved by the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista on November 10, 1998 and an amendment to the SPA One Plan was
approved by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No.
19375 (PCM 97-11), which added Village One West to the Otay Ranch SPA One area; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans,
goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the City Council ofthe City of
Chula Vista on October, 23,1993, and as amended on May 14,1996, and November 10, 1998; and,
~~~n+ 5
4:5
Ordinance No.
Page No.2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
detennined the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously
identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental
effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01; therefore, an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 is has been
prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164; and
WHEREAS, a public forum was held on August 9, 2001 at Heritage Elementary School in
SPA One in order to apprise the public of the Project and garner infonnation from area residents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-OI-II) 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 ofthe 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.
August 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, amending Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District boundaries
within the Village Five Core is intended to ensure that the SPA One Plan and related documents are
implemented in accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) in order to
implement the City of Chula Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly
planning and long tenn phased development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions
which will enable the amended Otay Ranch SPA One area to exist in harmony within the
community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, detennine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the amended SPA One Plan held on August 22, 2001 and the minutes and
resolutions 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.
4(p
Ordinance No.
Page No.3 of 5
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the ordinance adopting the modifications to the Zoning
District Map (Exhibit "B") of the SPA One 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.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the EIR 95-01,
would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)];
and
III. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that the Project would not result in any new environmental
impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial
increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01. Only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in 15162 and 15163 exist;
and; therefore, an Addendum to FEIR 95-01 has been prepared in accordance with the State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Therefore, the City Council approves the Project as an
activity that is within the scope ofthe project covered by the EIR 95-01.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has found, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. _, that the
Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03 reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR 97-03.
V. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval
all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR 95-01.
VI. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
41
Ordinance No.
Page No.4 of 5
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was
fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the ErR 95-01 which adequately
describes and analyzes this project for the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168(e)].
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
4~
.~ ~
w..~
".
&e1:
== a
~~
..... Q. ~ I
C')
~ ca
:5 :E
:E ...
0
x "I: ;;
w ... 0
III N
i5 g
~
CI Ii
..
.5 :If
c
0
N
'"
i
~
,i!
"'~
.i!'i
~3
ot.:i
,,~
"~
~<!;
~cl;
-a
:;:-
~
>:
~
.S;
\0 _.....
'(/'0
~ ! f ~ '<!!
W ~ .
~ ~ "'- '"'
'E E ... twz.'=".
! ~a
~ .. .. ~ ..s: ~
~ ... ...
~ .. ;; - ::
(: '! .. :> i-
~ \ E
~ f :If :If .. .
~ ;;; <>
~ 'i 'i i!
E E c =
... ... 3 .. UI
ff ~ ~ ~ E c ~
8 ~ ."
I: I: ,
UI UI II: II: <> <> on
'C
c
CII ~
CI IZ I! -.. ... <J
CII ::1::1 ... <J ID e;
..J II> II> a: a: <J 0
II>
0
e..~n'b'i- " B"
4"1
Appendix B
THE CI OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ST. .=MENT
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.
J.\c.MilhiA ~ ~cL" LL..C-
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.
c.- L M 111<:5
Par n.('\"s
UL
I>>; It cd
(0D%)
Parfh( r sJ11f / itJ/{
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ~
If yes. please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person. including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
K0o\ fv,u..\Mfja.-v-t\\__ &o..VLf C\~-\-i
e-..-o..0 ~k:",y<2.Ml\Q", L-ee. &1~b5
f->ob Pktc..l..<< 1Zcv-. MO(L.y~
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 ~ If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date: )2-/1'3/00
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, jreaternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country. city municipality. district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or comb;not;on oct\,:S a u~ '2()
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: '-I-
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: GPA-OI-04 - Proposal to change the General Plan
designation of25/33 Naples Street from Retail Commercial to Residential
Mediwn; PCZ-OI-02 - Proposal to rezone 25/33 Naples Street from C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential); and PCS-OI-I 0
- Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map, to develop 22 single-
family detached condominium units at 25/33 Naples Street - Applicant~
Elmcon Ltd.
The developer requests approval to amend the General Plan designation of25/33 Naples Street trom
Retail Commercial to Residential Medium, and to rezone 25/33 NaplesStreet from C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential) for the purpose of developing a 22-unit
single-family detached condominium complex, Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map
PCS-O 1-10.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), city staff prepared an Initial
Study (IS-OI-039), and the Environmental Review Coordinator posted notice of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) on July 23,2001.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On July 30, 2001, the Resource
Conservation Commission determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public comment period as noticed by the
Environmental Review Coordinator regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ended on
August 20, 200 I. The final adoption ofthe MND is subject to review at the Planning Commission
public hearing, with final approval by City Council.
On June 4, 2001, a design review application for the proposed 22 single-family detached
condominium development was brought before the Design Review Committee, who continued the
project to June 18 so that some design issues and neighbors' concerns could be addressed. On June
18, 2001, the Design Review Committee approved the site plan and architecture for the project
(DRC-O 1-40).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Resolution GP A-O J -04/PCZ-
01-02 (attached) recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and amend the General Plan designation of25/33 Naples Street from Retail
Commercial to Residential Medium; and to adopt the ordinance to rezone 25/33 Naples Street trom
C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential). Also, that the Planning
Commission approve Resolution PCS-OI-IO recommending that the City Council adopt the
resolution to approve Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-OI-IO.
(
Page ~ Item:
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The 2.2S-acre project site is a flat, rectangular parcel on the north side of Naples Street, west of
Hilltop Drive. Chain link fencing surrounds the asphalt-covered property, which is currently
occupied by a vacant, 7,000-square-foot, fire-damaged commercial building. The site is adjacent to
an active shopping center to the east, the San Diego Country Club to the west, and fully developed
single-family residential neighborhoods to the north, south, east across Hilltop, and southwest.
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
Zoning
Current Land Use
South:
Retail Commercial
Residential, Low-Medium
(3-6 dulgross acre)
Residential, Low-Medium
(3-6 dulgross acre)
Retail Commercial
Residential, Medium-High
(11-18 dulgross acre)
C-N
R-I
Vacant, Fire-Damaged Building
Single Family Residential
Site:
North:
R-I
Single Family Residential
East:
West/NW:
C-N
R-3P14
Commercial Center
San Diego Country Club
3. Proposal
The developer proposes to amend the General Plan designation of25/33 Naples Street from Retail
Commercial to Residential Medium (6-11 dwelling units per gross acre), and to rezone 25/33 Naples
Street from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential) for the purpose of
developing a 22-unit single-family detached condominium complex (Country Club Villas Tentative
Subdivision Map PCS-OI-IO) on the site.
The Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map includes 22 residential lots and one common
area lot ranging from 2,052- to 3,902-square-feet, for an average lot size of2,607-square-feet, and a
density of9.7 dwelling units per gross acre. Common open space, including landscaped areas and a
sand tot-lot, totals 8,S6S-square-feet. Private open space, which includes fenced off side and
backyards on each residential lot, totals 30,924-square-feet.
Two-story, three-bedroom condominium units ranging from 1,478- to I, 764-square-feet, with two-
stall garages, are proposed on individual lots. Originally proposed in two phases of II units each,
the developer has decided not to phase the project. Prior to issuance of any certificates of
occupancy, however, the developer will be required to install all improvements, including streets,
sidewalks, utilities, walls/fencing, landscaping, and common open space amenities.
A 24-foot-wide driveway off Naples Street will lead into a 22-foot-wide private, circular road that
will serve as access to the individual units.
;:z..
Page ~ Item:
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
A six-foot-high, decorative masonry block wall will be erected along the eastern property line,
serving as a zoning and sound wall between the proposed development and the commercial center.
The wall will wrap around to the front and extend the entire length ofthe parcel along Naples Street,
set back fifteen from the front property line. To the west, atthe top of a slope approximately ten feet
higher than the project, there is an existing chain link/security fence separating the site from the San
Diego Country Club.
A retaining wall extending the entire length of the project's western edge will be constructed two
feet from the existing chain link fencing, leaving a planting area for landscaping to masquerade the
fence. Six-foot high cedar fencing will be erected along the northern property line (which is
approximately 12 feet higher than the site), and on rear and side property lines that separate the
individual lots.
The proposal will require demolition of the fire-damaged building, removal ofthe existing asphalt,
and excavation of approximately 2,200 cubic yards, 3,300 cubic yards for embankment, and 1,200
cubic yards of import.
4. Public Input
On June 12, 200 I, Planning staff sponsored a public forum to address concerns expressed by two
adjacent neighbors at the June 4, 2001 DRC meeting. Three residents of Hilltop Court, which is
directly north of the project, attended the forum. The resident at 32 Hilltop Court stated he did not
want to look into the windows of the new two-story homes once the 28-foot-high tilt-up wall (a
remnant of the damaged commercial building) adjoining his property is removed. The resident at 26
Hilltop Court expressed a similar concern. Staff showed the residents elevations of the homes that
are planned for the lots directly adjacent to their yards. The elevations show that only one or two
small windows on the second stories will face their homes, and they seemed satisfied that window
coverings and landscaping installed by future homeowners would address privacy issues.
5. Analysis
General Plan Amendment:
A General Plan Amendment must precede the developer's objective of constructing 22 residential
units at 25/33 Naples Street, specifically the current designation of Retail Commercial must be
changed to Residential Medium (6-11 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre). The Residential Medium
land use designation allows: small, single-family, detached units on smaller lots, zero lot line
homes, patio homes, and attached units, such as duplexes and town homes. The category also
includes mobile home parks.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would reduce 4.19 contiguous acres of Retail Commercial
to 1.93 on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The proposed increased residential densities in this
primarily residential neighborhood are anticipated to be compatible, based upon their orientation and
3
Page 4 Item:
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
location. A reduction in available retail acreage in the neighborhood would not result in a conflict
with the goals and policies of the General Plan. In fact, there are several Objectives under Goal 3.
Housing and Community Character of the General Plan that the proposed project would help meet.
They include:
Objective 10. Encourage the development of a diversity of housing types and prices.
Objective II. Assure that new development meets or exceeds a standard of high quality planning
and design.
Objective 12. Provide for the development of multiple-family housing in appropriate areas
convenient to public services, facilities and circulation.
The Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department reviewed the
proposal and concluded that the reduced commercial acreage would still support a viable
neighborhood commercial center.
The project site, which, before being destroyed by fire, was fonnerly occupied by a grocery store and
a health club, has been vacant for several years, and there has been little interest in redeveloping the
lot commercially. The Planning Commission approved two different conditional use pennits for the
site; however, neither ever commenced. In 1992, the Planning Commission approved the
restoration/reconstruction of the fire-damaged portion of the building affected by the CUP to
establish a place of religious assembly (PCC-93-8). And in 1995, the Planning Commission
approved a CUP to establish a Moose lodge on the site (PCC-95-26).
Since the destruction of the fire, the site has also been a target of vandalism. City Code
Enforcement has issued several citations for graffiti, and for sanitation violations and safety hazards,
due to illegal dumping of trash and debris on the site.
Rezone:
Rezoning 25/33 Naples Street is also a prerequisite to developing 22 residential units on that site.
The proposal is to rezone the parcel from CoN (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment
Residential). The rezone would reduce 4.19 contiguous acres ofC-N to 1.93 on the city zoning map.
Section 19.34.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code states that CoN zoning shall be applied to
property having a minimum area of three acres and a maximum area of eight acres. Combined, the
2.25-acre project site and the two CoN parcels adjacent to the east (1.45 acres and .48-acre) comply
with the minimum three acres. After rezoning the project site, the remaining two CoN parcels would
not meet the minimum three acres. This is not a unique situation on the Chula Vista zoning map,
however. Twenty-two individual C-N parcels in the city have been identified as being less than three
acres. Their average size is .67 acres.
The Municipal Code states that the purpose of the C-N Zone is to "provide a shopping center for
convenience shopping in a residential neighborhood where analysis of residential population
demonstrates that such facilities are necessary and desirable." The commercial center on the two
<{
Page $ Item:
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
lots (1.93 acres) adjacent to the project site appears to adequately serve the neighborhood with such
facilities. There are twelve various businesses in the center, including coin laundry, dry cleaning,
beauty salon, barber shop, liquor sales, and a convenience market with gas sales, amongst others.
The purpose of the R-3 Zone is to: Provide appropriate locations where apartment house
neighborhood~ of varying degrees of density may he estahlished, maintained, and protected The
regulations of this district are designed to promote and encourage an intensively developed
residential environment, with appropriate environmental amenities such as open areas, landscaping
and ofrstreet parking. The regulations permit, in accordance with the respective density districts,
multiple dwellings rangingfrom garden apartments to multi-story apartment houses, and necessary
puhlic services and activities subject to proper controls.
The proposed project complies with R-3 lot size (7,000-square-feet) and setback requirements. It
also complies with the minimum area per dwelling of 1,350-square-feet. Regarding off-street
parking, the proposed project meets and exceeds the requirement of two spaces per unit, by
providing two-stall garages for each unit and 14 open guest parking spaces. It also provides nearly
four times (39,489-square-feet total) the amount of required open space (lO,S60-square-feet based on
480-square-feet per dwelling unit) the R-3 Zone would require.
Tentative Subdivision Map:
The project was designed around a IS-foot-wide drainage easement that begins in the proposed
common open space lot on the east side of the parcel, and follows the proposed road down to a
landscaped area in the southwest corner of the property. None of the proposed structures will
encroach on the easement.
The Subdivision Manual requires the road to be 24-feet-wide. However, the developer applied for
and received a waiver from the Engineering Department for the two-foot deficit. The slightly
narrower street will leave room for a four-foot-wide sidewalk (ADA minimum) around the inner
island of homes. The sidewalk will serve as a pedestrian link to the common open space area.
The R-3 standards do not specify minimum lot size or setbacks for each condominium unit.
However, a minimum of ten feet is proposed between each unit.
The developer will be required to improve the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the portion of
Naples Street in front of the project site. Striping on Naples Street will also be required to create
turning pockets for the project entrance.
The site plan and architecture for the proposed units were approved by the Design Review
Committee on June 18,2001.
)
Page 4 Item:
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
6. Conclusion
Staffbelieves that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Tentative Subdivision Map
for Country Club Villas at 25/33 Naples Street are appropriate, and that the project, when
constructed, will result in positive changes to the area, based on: the goals of the General Plan; the
requirements of the R-3 Zone; the required subdivision map findings; and subject to the conditions
of approval noted in the attached draft City Council resolutions and ordinance.
The development will integrate new homes into a mostly residential neighborhood, and onto a site
that has very little commercial appeal, but is the target ofrepeated vandalism in its current state of
ruin. It will provide needed new single-family housing opportunities for potential homeowners
seeking to live closer to long established shopping areas, schools, parks, libraries, and job centers.
Attachments:
I. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution GP A-O I-04/PCZ-OI-02
3. Planning Commission Resolution PCS-O I-I 0
4. Draft City Council Resolution-General Plan Amendment
5. Draft City Council Ordinance-Rezone
6. Draft City Council-Tentative Subdivision Map
7. Disclosure Statement
8. Mitigated Negative Declaration
~
\/\
\--
'.
\ \
\...-.~\
/\
\
/~~\
\ \.... //\
y~ '
~.. \~
~.
" \
,
....--" ~ I
\\~/i )I
\~\ /
, 'y ~
, \>-
\.../// '\"
\<.\<.<2:-
ef'
///
/
"
\
,
\t:.GO
s~'" 0 "l C\..U~
cou",1~
\
\...
6
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT ELMCON L TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPLICANT: PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT 25 NAPLES ST 7 Request: Site Plan and architectural for 22 single
ADDRESS: family detached condo units W'ith detached garage,
private street. common reo area and 58 parking
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: spaces.
NORTH No Scale PCZ-01-02 Related Cases: DRC 01-40 18-01-39 GPA-01-Q4
c:hectorllocators\pcz0102.cdr 4.24.01
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-OI-04/PCZ-OI-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION OF 25/33 NAPLES STREET FROM RETAIL
COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM; AND TO ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 25/33 NAPLES STREET FROM C-N
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, duly verified applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP A-O 1-
04) and Rezoning (PCZ-OI-02) were submitted to the Planning and Building Department of
the City of Chula Vista on February 5, 2001 by Elmcon Ltd. ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said applications requested to amend the General Plan designation of
25/33 Naples Street from Retail Commercial to Residential Medium; and to rezone 25/33
Naples Street from CoN (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study of
possible environmental impacts associated with this project and, based on the Initial Study
(lS-01-039), prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration to reduce potential significant
effects to a level below significant. The Planning Commission found the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for this project to be adequate; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a
hearing on said General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications, and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
August 22, 2001 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 these applications; and,
WHEREAS, from the facts presented, the Planning Commission hereby
determines that the General Plan Amendment and the Rezone are consistent with the City
of Chula Vista General Plan and the California Government Code, and that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice support the requests.
g
ATTACHMENT 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached City
Council Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-O 1-039) and
approving the General Plan Amendment (GP A-O 1-04); and adopt the attached Ordinance
approving the Rezone (PCZ-O 1-02), in accordance with the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the City Council and the Applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of August, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES~
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN ~
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H :\HOME\PI.ANNING\KI M\PLNGCMSN\OWD.RES
2
9'
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-Ol-to
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE COUNTRY
CLUB VILLAS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, PCS 01-10, A 2.25-ACRE, 23
LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Tentative Subdivision Map was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on May 8, 2001 by Elmcon Ltd. (Developer); and
WHEREAS, said Developer requests permission to subdivide a 2.25-acre parcel into 23 lots for a 22-
unit, single-family detached condominium complex, located at 25/33 Naples Street, within the Apartment
Residential Zone (R-3), and within the General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Medium, consisting
of APN 619-100-2900 and 619-100-3000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of
the proposal on the environment, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Tentative Subdivision
Map and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries
of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August 22,2001, at 4:00
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 City Council approve the Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-OI-lO in
accordance with the tentative subdivision map findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in
the attached City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of August, 2001, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN~
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
10
C:\Mv DOCUMENTS\PLANNING COMMISSION RESOI.UTlONS\PCS-OI-IO COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS.DOC
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS-OI-039 AND APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET.
A. RECITALS
1. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel that 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 25/33 Naples Street ("Project Site");
and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2001, a duly verified application for a General Plan
Amendment (GPA-OI-04) was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Division
by Elmcon Ltd. (Applicant); and
3. Project Description; Application for General Plan Amendment
WHEREAS, Applicant requests that the General Plan designation for the property
at 25/33 Naples Street be amended from Retail Commercial to Residential Medium
prior to requesting rezoning the property from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to
R-3 (Apartment Residential) for the purpose of developing a 22-unit single-family
detached condominium complex on the Project Site; and
4. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the
Project required the preparation of an Initial Study. Such study (IS-OI-039) was
prepared by city staff, and based on such study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared and circulated for public review.
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the Initial
Study was adequate and recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration on July 30, 2001, in compliance with CEQA. The Planning
Commission recommended adoption of the same Mitigated Negative Declaration on
August 22, 2001. ((
ATTACHMENT 4
5. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission scheduled and advertised a public hearing
on the Project for August 22, 2001; and
WHEREAS, at the August 22,2001 meeting, the Planning Commission considered
a motion to support staff's recommendation for the General Plan Amendment, and
voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the General Plan Amendment in accordance with Planning
Commission Resolution GPA-OI-04/PCZ-OI-02; and
6. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the City Council of the City ofChula Vista on ,2001 to receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with
regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the amendment to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project
held on August 22, 2001 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
B. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for this
Project has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
C. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this Project
reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council, and hereby
adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
D. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all
applicable mitigation measures, as set forth in the Environmental Document 15-01-039.
t<<..
Resolution No.
Page #3
E. GRANT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The City Council hereby grants the proposal to amend the General Plan designation of
25/33 Naples Street from Retail Commercial to Residential Medium.
F. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a Notice of
Determination and file the same with the City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California this day of , 2001.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
H:\HOME\PLANNING\KIM\City Council Resolutions\PCC-(}()-58 Cox Sprint, Rohr.doc
/3
-- -----
RETAIL
CEN~
,
-
.- ----:-----~'
.
SAN DIEGO
COUNTRY CLUB
\---- \-
,I \ /\/'
\:' /\ '\"/ -":..---
\ ~ \--
\/' \ \
/i, ~, \---
---- \------- \ , -
_______- ____----- ------ \,------_---------1\ \--- .-/_ \
----/ _--\, \ -- ., y-
/------- --------------- (---------- \'----------;\" ~.~ .------- \ ],--
PROJECT 'I \,/~\ ,//,/.,,-\
~\ I,.,.,e,
LOCATlONI /1 ,/ <./ /\ .
i Y_' ,./ . ' ? 'CI, /
i \.. ,....J _____~\,I,.9/ ,/ .
'r- -'-----
,-,-
/
-_/~,
;....-
L///
I
\
,
----------\
/
./":
./ ,
\//--\;'/
, //
I _______--- \
\' \.,
\/~
, .\
\-// \
, ...--.\
'\'
,/
,,/-\
-----------::--
./"'is's1/ c' \
t-If".?'':>/ ~..,.. \/~~ '
,/ ./"="~ ,ST. PIUs.--\
';-------------- _;./-- ---\S \\--------/---: CA:i:tf"()(IC \ ,________
/ , .//L \/ '.'0 I, /', CHURCH '"
<__/ , __--- _.--1,-_ _----------~~ \~____--~- -'_- /_\~ \/_/______~'" \//
~//- \, _________-~-' 'C /\ / /~7 \ _/~-/.- ~ 0 \" _______________-\ \
/-. ,/~ ,0 1,/' \// '.,z \-/..... '. /' '/J ' ...... I,
/.../. ..io ~"/--------------\~. ' /..-----'\..,/../. ,...."'T? \ -../--\.- , _______--.------'\.
-------- -------------- \ ,,_~'Y: Yj:- \~ \" .-'c/- /-------, '_______---', /
L-------------------- - ---/ j~ -- /-------/ ICon \ /-/" _-----------", '. _-------/-- -A, /- _______________
---------- ....,-------\- ,-------- '. --------------/ \O'~ ~- ---\0 r ':----- /_ \- ;.-/--/ \ I _______________/, _______________-/ ----------\
/------~' \\_j'"'f\./.--n "".....-. /------------" __------/-''(z,. \,.-______--------------..----/ \::;0 \. -/ \,/- ---------- i----.------------------\ ~---- _______---------- /------...-;, I,
----------\ .-------..- ',~... -------------- \ I ;.. ,-/------'- --------- \ ',/--------------- 'I.' ---------:
\ \ \ ---ICon \. ----------- \, /-\0 _____________/-~/ ,.----- ~. - _______________..' '.------- I
\ \ _/--- ~--------- \:;...\ '\- _~-------------- \,;;J \- /, '\-----/ -------" ~.... \ \'-----/-", ,I
\.------------ /- \"" \., --------, ~" \ .--------"~/ - . '. ~.o'("S:\ \ \ ---I \ " -.----------.,
-------- /-------~,~/ -~ \'~-/- --; /- ,/- '~.'\-------------==~\ ~~ \ _______________;- \ "k/--<'-
\-----/ ::-------'----------"" L.. '. ------------------... /--\ ' //- ~'- - ,,/-- c:.,?".?9~---------- 'c" \ " I. /,
.,~- ....-------- ~ (\\ ,.- ______-~------ _~ .-- -/ I C~~/ "\---___/-----'\_____--------,\ \\.---____-1",/'- \,
\ '__/ ---- \ / I ._/--------- ,- v'. s--------- \ .-----J, '------'-
\, --------- --------------; ------------------------'... ,----- - /<- \,.- -----/ ------- '-/ \-------_/ \~, \ ~ .
,C. __/------ './___ ________'. ,./_ \ _______________----'" /__\ \ ,,__ '/ -'
" ///'j../// ,.-...\;, " / . / j ./\ " ~
\-------- _______________\ ______-------~ /______- \. ____________/',. ____________.-r- /______A, _______________ ~
j../', ',./,.-/ // . /"(" J..,.-/ /".//,/" \. _/ /~ '. ~_/
I' . .~.. '.. /". /' ,/. , ,
~~' ~/'\ \" /r' // /-\:/ CASTLE PARK \, , \~
I ~ ',/~---:~ \~://::r'/' //</~,.; ELEMENTARY' ", \. \ 1...,../
\/~ //""-"---::'/I~ j,.-/'/ '. /..',/ / SCHOOL \,.-/\'. '\~I, .
, .~ ..--/-------------- --- '1./_______________--<;/ 1.-/--- -----------. \ ~~ ------I
,_/ /\- -----------/ '\-.---- -~ '
:::~/~~.::.. / \//~. " /-'\ / \: ~. ~\ \\ \\
~ ~ /' 'e'/', j../ ~/,.-'/ , ~ ~D 5..,/ ( \ \,~
./' /- ---------\--------------- \///\// ,---------------}.,-------------/ \-// ------------- /-- O!:~9---\0 \., i ~ <, \,
,
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Count3 Club Villas PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ELMC N LTD. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT 25 Naples Street Request: Proposal for 22 detached condos
ADDRESS:
with 2 car garages.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale GPA - 01 - 04 Related Cases: IS-01-039, PCZ-01-02
h:\home\planninglcarlosllocators\gpa0104.cdr 02.25.01 1"1 t
EXHmIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING 2.25 ACRES AT
25/33 NAPLES STREET FROM C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, the property consists of 2.25 acres located at 25/33 Naples Street (site),
diagrammatically represented in the attached Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for rezoning was filed with the Planning Division of
the Planning and Building Department on February 5, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, the application (PCZ-OI-02) requests approval to rezone 25/33 Naples Street
from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential) for the purpose of
developing a 22-unit single-family detached condominium complex; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Planning and Building Department set the time
and place for a hearing on said rezone application, and notice of said hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in the newspaper of general circulation in the City and its
mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of property at least 10 days
prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
August 22, 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, before the
Planning Commission, and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, from the facts presented, the Planning Commission determined that the
rezoning is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that public necessity,
convenience and good zoning practice support the rezoning to R-3 (Apartment Residential); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had previously found that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (lS-O 1-039) for the project would adequately reduce potential significant effects to a
level below significant, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning
of the project site to R-3 (Apartment Residential); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-O 1-039 and all
of its mitigation measures.
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\CITY COUNCIL RESOLlJTIONS\PCZ.Ol.02 q:OUNTRY CLUB VILLAS.DOC
/)
ATTACHMENT 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista
does hereby find, determine, and ordain as follows~
Section I: The rezoning provided for herein is consistent with the City ofChula Vista General
Plan, and is supported by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good
zoning practice.
Section II~ The City ofChula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone the site from C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) to R-3 (Apartment Residential).
Section IV: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force the 30th day from its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kahaney
City Attorney
CIMY DOCUMENTSICITV COUNCIl. RESOl.UTlONSIPCZ.OI.02 20UNTRY CLUB VILLAS DOC
II,
~N /l~_.~""
\~\ /~::,. /~ ;~/~
~~~~ ~
~~~ /
~r--
-~
I \ '
\ \,
\
\
L---
~
----r ' '.
I ' !
1 '1 '.
I I,
I
\~GO
sJ!-~ t> :'{ C\..U6
COU~i~
~
~-
'tY3
.-\\~\
o '. \
\
~
~
\~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT ELMCON L TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT 25 NAPLES ST Request: Site Plan and architectural for 22 single
ADDRESS: family detached condo units 'W"ith detached garage,
private street, common rec area and 58 parking
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: spaces.
NORTH No Scale PCZ-01-02 Related Cases: DRC-01-40 15-01-39 GPA-n1-04
c:hector\locators\pcz0102.cdr 4.24.01
l7
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON
THE COUNTRY CLUB VILLAS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
(PCS-01-10), A 2.25-ACRE, 23-LOT CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT FOR 22 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED AT 25/33 NAPLES STREET,
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. CVT 01-10.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as Country Club Villas Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-01-10), Chula Vista Tract No. 01-10, which is the subject matter
of this resolution, and is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference; and for the purpose of general description
herein consists of 2.25 acres located at 25/33 Naples Street, within the Apartment
Residential Zone (R-3), and within the General Plan Land Use Designation of
Residential Medium (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre), consisting of APN 619-100-2900
and 619-100-3000 ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2001, Elmcon Ltd. ("Developer") filed a tentative
subdivision map application with the Planning Division of the City of Chula Vista and
requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-01-10) known as Country
Club Villas, Chula Vista Tract No. 01-10, in order to subdivide the project site into a 23-
lot condominium development for 22 single-family detached condominium units
("Project"); and
C. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said
project on August 22, 2001 and voted _ to recommend that the City Council
approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below, in
accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-01-10; and
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-01-039), in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
E. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and
place as advertised on , 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue
(7
ATTACHMENT 6
Resolution No.
Page 2
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to receive the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on August 22, 2001, and the
minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of
this proceeding.
III. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-01-10) for Country Club Villas,
Chula Vista Tract No. 01-10, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the various
elements of the City's General Plan based on the following:
1 . Land Use
The General Plan Land Use Designation is Residential Medium (6 - 11 dwelling units
per gross acre). The proposed 23-lot subdivision is within the allowable density and
permitted number of dwelling units. Therefore, as conditioned, the Project is in
substantial compliance with the City's General Plan.
2. Circulation
The private street required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or paid for by the
developer in accordance with the Conditions of Approval. The private street within the
Project will be designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or
requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
The housing provided within the Project will be market-rate housing. The Project will
provide additional single-family detached condominiums in an established western Chula
Vista neighborhood.
4. Conservation
The Project site is known to have significant environmental impacts, which are
addressed by the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program
is incorporated into the conditions of approval.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The Project will be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to
approval of a final map. The individual lots possess some rear and side yard areas.
(9
Resolution No.
Page 3
6. Seismic Safety
The Project is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the
General Plan for this site. The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred
geologic fault.
7. Safety
The Project is within the General Plan standard for response time of both police and fire
services. The emergency services agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for
conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal meets the
City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
The Project will be required to meet the residential standards of the General Plan's
Noise Element and Municipal Code. The dwelling units will be required to meet the
Uniform Building Code standards with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
9. Scenic Highway
The Project does not abut a scenic route or gateway.
10. Bicycle Routes
The private street within and the public street adjoining the Project do not include a
designated bike route.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are planned or proposed for the Project.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the
region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents
of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allows for the optimum siting of lots
for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities, and that the development of
the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum
utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to
all standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
.;)0
Resolution No.
Page 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the
Project subject to the general and specific conditions set forth below:
IV. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Project is hereby conditioned as follows:
Environmental:
1. Prior to demolition of the existing accessory buildings, the applicant shall contract with
an environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the
presence of asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if
detected. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required permits from
all affected state and local regulatory agencies, including the Air Pollution Control
District, and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to proceed with this process
in the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building permit.
2. To ensure that the noise level will be less than or equal to 45 dBA in CNEL at any
location inside of the rooms of the dwellings, all the windows and exterior doors must be
closed. Due to the restriction of closed windows, forced ventilation is required. This can
be established by the installation of fans or an Air Conditioning System (HVAC). Either
one of these can be provided by the design.
3. The installation of fans or an HVAC system must be constructed to ensure that the ducts
for the outside air supply and the exhaust be placed at two right angles. Two air
exchanges over the course of one hour are required, along with a 20% volume change
per hour, which must be taken from the outdoors, per UBC requirements. The ducts for
the outside air supply and exhaust must be placed on opposite sides of the units facing
Naples Street.
4. All windows, French doors, and exterior hardwood doors on the first and second floors
for the first and second row of units closest to Naples Street shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Acoustical Study prepared by Dr. Penzes and
Associates, dated March 22, 2001. No mitigation is required for the windows, french
doors and exterior hardwood doors of the rest of the dwellings (refer to Exhibit B of
Mitigated Negative Declaration).
5. The external walls of all buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the Acoustical Study prepared by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 2001
(refer to Exhibit B of Mitigated Negative Declaration).
6. A 6-foot-high sound wall shall be erected at the properly line between the east side of
the site and the parking lot of Country Club Shopping Center, to the east of the project
site, as well as along the front (facing Naples Street) of the lot, outside of the 15-foot
setback. The sound wall shall be constructed from concrete blocks or from masonry
(refer to Exhibit B of Mitigated Negative Declaration).
2J-(
Resolution No.
Page 5
EnQineerinQ:
7. Submit and obtain approval of a lot line adjustment plat, prior to submittal of the final
map, between the subject development and the adjacent property to the east, in order to
eliminate the building wall encroachment shown on the Tentative Map.
8. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Sweetwater Authority that the
subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities.
9. Install fire hydrants, as determined by the City Fire Marshall. Said hydrant locations
shall be shown on the improvement plans.
10. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of grading plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer. All grading and pad elevations shall be within two feet of the
grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
11. Grading plans shall address the existing steep slope at the southwest corner of the
development that will include re-grading, if necessary, in order to achieve a maximum
slope gradient of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
12. Existing retaining walls that are proposed to remain shall be addressed by the project
soils engineer to determine adequate structural stability.
13. Grading design shall be in accordance with Grading Ordinance 1797, as amended.
14. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erosion and sedimentation
control plan as part of grading plans.
15. Show the location of cut/filllines based on existing topography on grading plans.
16. Submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut,
or a transition between the two situations, prior to approval of the final map.
17. Submit a detailed geotechnical report prepared and signed and stamped by both a
registered civil engineer and certified engineering geologist, prior to approval of grading
plans and issuance of a grading permit.
18. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private. Connection to the existing storm drain
culvert shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
19. Submit a precise drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit or other development permit.
Design of the drainage facilities shall consider existing onsite and offsite drainage
patterns. The drainage study shall show how downstream properties and storm drain
facilities are impacted. The extent of the study shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
20. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the
c#
Resolution No.
Page 6
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for
urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of
Chula Vista pursuant to the N.PDES. regulations or requirements. Further, the
applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to
obtain coverage under the N.PD.E.S. General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The
SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and
pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction
control measures. The developer shall comply with all the provisions of the N.P.D.E.S.
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. The applicant shall
design the Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City
Engineer. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a new
Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-01). The permit includes regulations
such as implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPS)
and Numeric Sizing Criteria for new residential development. The applicant shall comply
with all relevant City regulations, when they become effective, including but not limited to
incorporation into the design and implementation of the Project temporary and
permanent structural Best Management Practices and non-structural mitigation
measures that would reduce pollution of storm runoff to the maximum extent practicable.
21. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and Clean Water Program. The quantity of runoff from the
development shall be reduced to an amount equal to or less than present 1 aD-year
frequency storm. Retention/detention facilities will be required as approved by the
Director of Public Works to reduce the quantity of runoff to an amount equal to or less
than predevelopment flows. Said retention/detention facilities shall be provided by the
Applicant.
22. The main onsite sewer system within the private streets shall be public. Said sewer
system shall be designed in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual
for public sewer systems. Public sewer design requirements include, but are not limited
to, terminating sewer mains with standard manholes, maintaining a minimum distance of
5 feet from the edge of roadway and placement of manholes away from parking areas.
Public sewer mains shall be 8-inch diameter. Sewer service for lots 7,8, 13-15 and 19,
as shown on the Tentative Map, shall be by a public sewer main along the lot frontage
(Tentative Map does not show a sewer line serving these lots).
23. All sewer laterals shall be privately maintained from the house to the City-maintained
public sewer main.
24. Streets within the development shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical
alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans
for the development. Said streets shall be designed to withstand H-20 wheel loading,
and include reinforcement. Structural calculations shall be submitted with the
improvement plans to support the proposed street structural section. The border
between public street and private street shall be delineated throughout the use of
,;25
Resolution No.
Page 7
distinctive pavement. Private streets shall be designed to accommodate emergency
vehicle access to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
25. Guarantee, prior to approval of the final map, the construction of private street
improvements deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision, in
accordance with City standards.
26. Remove the existing temporary power pole mounted street light at the southwest corner
of the project, and replace with a permanent Chula Vista standard 250-watt street light at
a location approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
27. Install an alley-type entrance with pedestrian ramps at the project entrance, in
accordance with City and Regional standards.
28. Striping on Naples Street shall be required to create turning pockets for the project
entrance, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. Parking along the project
frontage shall no longer be allowed due to the required striping.
29. Remove the existing section of temporary asphalt sidewalk at the westerly end of the
project adjacent to Naples Street and replace with permanent concrete sidewalk.
Remove and replace existing driveways and damaged sections of concrete
improvements and replace with standard concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
30. Grant an access and maintenance easement for the purpose of maintaining the public
sewer system over the entire width of the private streets on the final map.
31. Grant public drainage easements over the existing storm drain facilities on the final map.
Said easements shall be a minimum width of 15 feet.
32. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and
employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including
approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its agents,
officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision, pursuant to Section 66499.37 of
the State Map Act, including adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, provided
the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding, and on the
further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
33. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
34. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted
equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within
the subdivision. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may grant access to
cable companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place conduit within the City's
easement situated within the Project. Developer shall restrict access to the conduit to
only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance
with, all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the
operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to
time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
CJY
Resolution No.
Page 8
35. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (NAD '83).
36. Submit copies of the final map and improvement plan in a digital format, such as (DFX)
graphic file, prior to approval of the Final Map. Provide Computer Aided Design (CAD)
copy of the Final Map, based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations, and submit
the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate
on a 3-1/2-inch HD floppy disk, prior to the approval of the Final Map.
37. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
Plannin!::r
38. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
39. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and shall incorporate all
the conditions of approval and be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building.
40. Prior to any use of the project site or issuance of any building permits, all conditions of
approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
41. Prior to issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the City of
Chula Vista Police Department Crime Prevention Unit and the Planning Division for
review and approval.
42. Prior to issuance of building permits, school fees shall be paid to Chula Vista Elementary
School District and annex to Community Facilities District (CFD) NO.1 O.
43. Ensure with all utilities that the location of all existing utility facilities will be protected in
place prior to commencement of grading. All utilities shall be underground within the
subdivision.
44. All Park and Recreation pad fees shall be paid at the issuance of the final map pursuant
to Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
45. All building plans must comply with 2001 energy requirements, 1998 Uniform Building
Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1998 National Electrical
Code.
46. Future development of the site shall comply with conditions of approval of DRC-01-41 .
47. Prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, all improvements shall be installed,
including, but not limited to: streets, sidewalks, utilities, walls/fencing, landscaping, and
common open space amenities.
d,')
Resolution No.
Page 9
48. Approval of this Tentative Subdivision Map shall not waive compliance with all sections
of Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in
affect at the time of building permit issuance.
49. The subsequent development of a multi-family lot, which does not require the filing of a
final map, shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all of the
conditions of approval of the tentative map, which shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City.
50. Developer agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the
Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the
terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall
provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer
reasonable time to cure said breach.
51. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this tentative map,
(b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or
non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. Applicant/operator
shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of the tentative
map conditions where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this
provision is an express condition of this tentative map and this provision shall be binding
on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
52. Approval of the Country Club Villas Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-01-10) is
contingent upon approval of the Country Club Villas General Plan Amendment (GPA-01-
04) and Rezone (PCZ-01-02).
V EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of
this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No. _'
Signature of Property Owner
Date
,;)~
Resolution No.
Page 10
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation
to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this
Resolution.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
027
~\~\
~ '. ,
~ \~
~-------
"~
. ------~
.~
'~~// \~
~/ 'v- ~'" -s. '~\ ,/',
r \ ._______---- \ iP \. '. \
- n ' ~. ", ,
o ______ " "'~'
\~..~ . ~- ~ \~, \
"'~/.\~. '\ '------------,op ',~' '\
, \...... \ -------- ", \ '" -_/
,~"'.------ '.... ---
'f' \ . ---------' \ .___----
~\% \ ~.. \ \.....~'
\ \.----~'.,. \ ~\
",~' ....' /~ "\~' \ \ \
r:::~r}? \~~~UB.
CEN1ER ~
~ '.
~
---
,/
~
--- .
\-----------------
~~
/
/~ /.-
...........
/
/
."
/,
/ ",
. , ,
\\'" '''..
.'-......
...~
'. \ ...---'" '
\.----- \
, ',-------
, ,~
c# ~....-----;-
~ \ '
, \ t
, \ .
, i
~,. i
,~
" ,\
\ --"
i~\,
,
\~\
7 ~\~
ELEVEN r'"'
~~
~~\. "" \.---~\
/ &y~_\~-==-\~ \e::
/// . //\ \::::=-~\ . //
~' ~------/---------\~\ %,~~~FAMnX/, '.~
~_ ~ ~_______/'-------\ ~" ~ '_______ DWELLING ~\ .~
~___~ ~,~. -,,' SINGLE FAMILY ~/ ~ ~~ '"
, \ ~/o...~ \ ~ DWELLING ..l. ._____~ __
~"" ,/"SINGLEFAMILY..--\\~, / ~\" "', \ \-
/\~~::\'(:::~\~\/-:::::/\ .:~ ..
------\ '~" '~" ~\ ---------, , ~,
----- \~\ -;0 '~.~, '_________ ~ '~\~\
~/~ \,~~ \~-----"'/~ ".. ~
,------
./
~~'
,/
-------------
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT ELM CON LTD PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROJECT 865 AMENA COURT Request: Site Plan and architectural fol'" 22 single
ADDRESS: family detached condo units with detached gal'"age,
private stl'"eet, common .-ec al'"ea and 58 par1<:ing
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: spaces.
NORTH No Scale PCS-01-10 Related Cases; IS-01-39, GPA-01-04, PCZ-01-02
DRC 01-40
<9..J EXHffiIT A
Appendix B
THE CIT't JF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STAl t:MENT
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.
)A-fv'\t;: <:; 5. Fl M.Dr<{; Sic! \NiI__SON
W\ll"~fY\ GIGI3S
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.
,)1> (YI i= 5,5 EL."",,,~
ST'.I WI L-So,J
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No L
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
DON f}AKE..R.. DISC; SIfl.Vf;YINC
RD 1], ,oJ F'1<..Pr-!I,U t.J.. DE,(/ (-,,.)b'j"L
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 K If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
I(:"''? /0'
/
(NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES A
SA ~EC; S-, E /... /V\.() wE"
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaterna/ organization. corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, dr:.' and counrry..'. city municipality. district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as Q unit. .. (2;L.,
A TT ACHMENT 7
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Country Club Villas
PROJECT LOCATION: 25 Naples Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 619-100-29/30
PROJECT APPLICANT: Elmcon LTD.
CASE NO.: IS-01-39
DATE: August 8, 200 I (Re-circulated)
A. Proiect Setting
The 2.25-acre project site is located on the north side of Naples Street west of Hilltop
Drive, west of Interstate 805 (Exhibit A ~ Locator Map). The site is currently occupied
by a vacant, fire-damaged commercial center. This center is adjacent to an active
shopping center to the east and is enclosed with security fencing. The surrounding area is
fully developed with the followingland uses:
North
Northwest
South
East
West
Land Uses
Single-Family Residential
Apartment Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Golf Course/S ingle- Family
Zoning
RI
R3PI4
RI
RI
RI
B. Project Description
The proposed project includes a rezone from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to R3
(Apartment Residential) Zone, a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from
CR (Retail Commercial) to RMH (11-18 du/gross acre), a Tentative Subdivision Map and
Design Review for the condominium development of 23 lots; 22 residential lots
(condominiums) and I common area lot.
The proposed 22-unit condominium project consists of common areas, sand tot-lot,
private drive, 6-foot high private wooden fences separating the individual lots, a two-car
garage for each unit and 14 guest parking spaces totaling 58 parking spaces. The project
is proposed in two phases of 1 I units each. Floor Plan 1, (15 units) will be 1,764 square
feet with a 444 square-foot, two-car garage. Floor Plan 2 (7 units) will be 1,478 square
fcet, with a 430 square-foot, two,car garage. The proposed lot sizes range from 2,052
square foot to 3,902 squarc foot. The internal circulation design and driveway access has
been designed to meet the Chula Vista Fire Department requirement of 24-foot width.
The site is surrounded by existing security fencing and an existing 8-foot high retaining
wall section on the northwest corner. The proposed project includes various types of
interior fencing and 2- to 4,foot high retaining walls, including a 6-foot high decorative
masonry-zoning wall, serving as an acoustical wall, bctween the commercial parcel along
I
?IJ
ATTACHMENTS
the east property line continuing along the front of the project. Development of the site
will require limited grading. All utilities and service systems will be provided to each lot.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
Applications are currently being processed for amendments to the General Plan from CR
(Retail Commercial) to RMH Residential (Medium-Highlll-18 dwelling units per gross
acre) and to rezone from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to the R3 (Apartment
Residential) Zone. A tentative map has been submitted for the 22-unit condominium
development. Upon approval of these amendments, the project proposal will be
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan designation and environmental plans
or policies.
D. Public Comments
On May 7, 200 I Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within 500-
foot radius ofthe proposed project site. The public comment period ended May 21, 2001.
One written comment was received from a property owner. The comment was regarding
traffic circulation.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached
Environmental Checklist fonn) determined that the proposed mitigation measures would
reduce the project impacts to a less than significant level, and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report would not be required. This Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
1. Air Quality & Hazards
Potential Impacts Associated with Asbestos
During Demolition Phase
The proposed project includes the demolition of a fire-damaged commercial
shopping center. The demolition of these buildings may result in the release of
hazardous materials such as asbestos. In order to mitigate potential impacts to a level
below significance the existing structures will be examined for the presence of
asbestos prior to dcmolition. Prior to demolition of the existing buildings, the
applicant shall be required to contract with a certified consultant by the State of
California to conduct asbestos assessments and supervise the removal of asbestos if it
is found on-site. The applicant will adhere to all State and local regulations. The
applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required penn its from all affected
state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and
shall provide proof of having obtained approval to precede with this process to the
Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a bnilding penn it.
2
3/
2. Noise
Potcntial Impacts Associated with Noise
During Construction Phase
The proposed project includes the development of 22 condominium units. According
to the Acoustical Analysis prepared by Dr. Leslie E. Penzes of Dr. Penzes &
Associates, The applicant will be required to mitigate the noise impacts through
design layout, building materials, external walls, window treatments, exterior
hardwood doors, and installation of a masonry sound wall at the property line
between the east side of the site and the parking lot of the adjacent shopping center
and continue westerly along the entire front property line of the project site facing
Naples Street, refer to (Exhibit B).
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental
impacts identified in the Initial Study to a level below significance. The mitigation
measures will be made a condition of approval and shall be incorporated in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment "A").
Air Quality & Hazards
Asbestos Related Impacts
During Demolition Phase
I. Prior to demolition of the existing buildings, the applicant shall contract with an
environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the
presence of asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if
detected. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required penn its
from all affected state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution
Control District and shall provide proof of having obtained approval to precede with
this process to the Planning and Building Department prior to obtaining a building
penn it.
Noise
Noise Related Impacts (Internal and External)
During Construction Phase
I. To ensure that the noise level will be less than or equal to 45 dBA in CNEL at any
location inside of the rooms of the dwellings, all the windows and exterior doors
Illust be closed. Due to the restriction of closed windows, forced ventilation is
required. This shall be established by the installation of fans or an Air Conditioning
System (HV AC).
2. The installation of fans or an HV AC system shall be constructed to ensure that the
ducts for the outside air supply and the exhaust be placed at two right angles. Two
air exchanges over the course of one hour are required along with a 20% volume
3
~~
change per hour, which must be taken from the outdoors per Uniform Building Code
(UBC) requirements. The ducts for the outside air supply and exhaust must be placed
on opposite sides of the units facing the Naples Street.
Windows, French Doors, Exterior Hardwood Doors and Exterior Walls
3. All windows, French doors, and exterior hardwood doors on the first and second
floors for the first and second row of units closest to Naples Street shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the Acoustical Analysis of Country Club Villas
prepared by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 200 I and revised on August
3, 2001. No mitigation is required for the windows, French doors and exterior
hardwood doors of the rest of the dwellings, (refcr to Exhibit B).
4. The external walls of all buildings shall be designed and constructed to reduce
interior noise levels in accordance with the Acoustical Analysis of Country Club
Villas prepared by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 2001 and revised on
August 3, 2001 (refer to Exhibit B).
5. The proposed project shall incorporate required construction components such as
building materials for external walls, window treatments, French doors, exterior
hardwood doors etc.to mitigate the noise impacts as specified in the Acoustical
Analysis of Country Club Villas prepared by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March
22, 200 I and revised on August 3, 2001.
Sound Walls
*6. A 6-foot high sound wall shall be erected at the property line between the east side of
the site and the parking lot of Country Club Shopping Center, to the east of the
project site and continue westerly along the entire front property line of the project
site facing Naples Street, as specified in the Acoustical Analysis prepared by Dr.
Penzes and Associates, dated March 22,2001 and revised August 3,2001. The sound
wall shall be constructed from concrete blocks or from masonry per the Acoustical
Analysis of the Country Club Villas and revised on August 3,2001 (Exhibit B).
*Revised as per the Resource Conservation Commission Meeting on July 30,2001.
I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in this Section (F) of this
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
9:f,z'fW ) tf;,,,, ~
me, Title /
,
Nom, b- \J ~
Dat~/ r;/o (
Jr ~ I
Date
4
33
G. Consultation
1. City of Chula Vista:
Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Environmental Planning
Maria C. Muett, Environmental Planning
Beverly Blessent, Development Planning
Kimberly Vander Bie, Deve]opment Planning
Garry B. Williams, Deve]opment Planning
Frank Rivera, Engineering
Muna Cuthbert, Adv. Plng./Engineering
Majed A]-Ghafry, Traffic Engineering
Ben Herrera, Permits/Engineering
Ralph Leyva, Engineering
Sohaib AI-Agha, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Carolyn Dakan, Building Division
Richard Preuss, Police Crime Prcvention
Ed Thomas, Fire Department
Tim Ripley, Public Works
Applicant's Agent:
Jim Elmore/Stu Wilson
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title] 9, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3. Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the ]nitial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 9]910.
Date:
0/0/ (1 I
I
JV>lanning\l\1ARJAIMISC\is_OI_392neg.doc
5
3'(
\~GO
sp.~ t) ~ c\..u~
COU~1~
~
(:\
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT ELMCON LTD PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 25 NAPLES ST Request: Site Plan and architectural for 22 single
ADDRESS: family detached condo units with detached garage,
private street, common ree area and 58 parking
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: spaces.
NORTH No Scale IS-01-39 Related Casas: DRC 01-40 GP.A-01-04 PCZ 01-02
c:hectorllocatorslis0139.cdr 4.24.01
.EKHIB IT A
=ss-
fl
f ,
! ,
,
J
i
I
I
I
~;
\
\
\
"
>
"
:oj
,
i
./
!1,
i
~r.!;
U~";;'_.~""';'.' ~---17z1' /' \ . \' .
,~< - I Q / \,.\ II
-;-_ ~,., _ r _ '<r .JJ~ ),14... ,\ . ,\ r
,i,: ~\I' '~r '= ~:~ "." :~C"7 r -"~'I- ,~'" '\ ~\J!I
- ~I 0.. (1. W <; \
'. .? b!" .
,1 .' _\\ .\ ;
~ .~
,:::~~~,---- F
'. I,
.~- ill nl
ZIIt g ~
z
~ 1 ~
~ ~ j.
~
B
(I
z
:'\
..
. "
"
-.
:-t-
-.--.------
,11"QZ
I '"
~,
.. \
~~;.
.,.
f' ,
~_._II :-:
.
,
.'
%
.:s
..
'.
M'"
;'i"-
. s
F." '''''_.>_'--'-,~_~
. -.
-.
z
:5
..
t
..
{
~
o.
""Z'
~.
Q
10
" ~
. -D,
,~.
.s
....
~
-
z z
:'\ ~
"- ,
, t
- .
%'
:'\
..
\ i ;'
"---- ";"
1---.. ..
;
-
..
z
::5
..
.' ,
Vd W~v0:60 T00c 90 '6n~
z
j
"-
;:
z
:'\
...
"
~
,
.
1___, J_~-
ri.
~
! .,
t :;<:.~
I';~'
.,'
o . . ~.
.~ ,~
\ rO..
-
.
,"
i,
.~~-
t'>
~
'"
'"
~
E-<
(fJ
(fJ
W
~
c..
<
z
S3~~IJOSS~ aN~ S3ZN3d "~a : WO~j
~', ".... "'"h..',,","-,'
, i I
III
-..
""...~.~......
"no'II_~_"'"
H3N!)I$3(I!)NI0lInB1VNOISS3":OHd
U!IJtUI!J:! T U!qo~
ala
~
~ ;
,
~
111
~
f
~
~~".
. 1".
, ,I
I!',','"=,-;" '-J
"~-(
t::R= .
.,. .UT"""-
T .-r-r-'--
cr "
\..--r-i---t""""T
'fi-,-,o
'-(=, -.'.-
,=:::::4
ffi
',,; '''I:
. ,,-
HE3
IJ)
-,
~ ~~' ~~
~ ,~&
a "~
,,~
. I
'----
~
,
~
8
"'
Js.
~
~
<
,
~
I
~!!
I
,-
~
')1
:1
~ /(g
~
"
~'
'~
I ~gia'
>' ,
'i, :'\'
{I '~ :1
, -------~
,o'/~ H(;1,b
1/7;9
"
."
-
~
z
o
~
>
w
~
w
w
o ,
c;;~
I-
:I:
C)
a::
z
o
i=
c:t:
>
w
~ %
W ~
I- "-
,. z
~ ~
,~LL
~\
~~
3)
,..~._.~......".~,
.,.,..- ",--- ~
---- ~
-J::='-;; I
...........,
S'tt01~t (I~IJ
,~(u.)
~_.
"C.L1 NO::>W13
~ NV1d
^
~
~
,
"
.'
,---"-
: ~ ilt
~:'
I'
i/
1'77'TT," _~___
w:::r::::::r:J
"
?
"
"k
I..
L
l~
I:
~= gg
~ /;;:+" ., , ,
~ E'::'~:' 0 '''8
-c..J' LJ ~
~
~
i~~
011'1
L
,
f:1
"I
"
."
'"'I
~
'i
, ,
,,'
?
t ~
q ,
, , ~~ , ,
" , ~8 \ I
~ ~I
! If.l ~ i
'"
~
-,
I
I ,,0/"1
;
'II
mIL",,',
. , . " .
: ; 0 . ~ .
c:t:
z z
o :s
i= ..
c:t:
>
w
~
w
~
Z-k
o
~
w
~
w
w
o ~
end.
l-
LL
W
~
~
~
z
o
~
>
W "%
...I <
w 5-
0::
<
w
,0::
ols
oi'"
--
RIoP~.=::
.uno'CJ'fOII]~"2gI~S~,jOI:hl
..1 OlIOS""" '-I
~3H~tS:30 ~HI:I . r UI q 0 CI
U!I)jueJ .
,-= IDl
-'_.,."-~- ~
_.- t:J
-;:-~
~
,
"
~~
..., -I
\,
:J;.
J;
~
>
~:
\(
,. I
I
P> :1
~
,
I
1
'"
*
:z:
o
~
(ij
-I
uJ
uJ
CJ
in
I-
J:
C)
D?
lEE!
lEE!
,
.~
l'f
I \, ~
'\
B
~
$
I
", I Effij
/(h2
I
I
~
~'
oU
i
I
L___
ii' I,:
~___J
~
=
p::p::
8
.,
~
,
,
~~
~~
"~
i
~
"
(
.^
z
o co
i= :
<I: ~
> ~
~ ~
uJ
I- -
Z 2
5
~~ ~ 0-
~~ LL.
~~
~-t
~'
~
,
I
I
i
I
I
,~ I
~~'. ~,
'~ "
\? ,
-~ .
,
~ . ,
. ~I "
~~ll~
~ l1
A""
I
~.L
," ""']] ~1
",06 i.
//0%
38'
"
.
,
""
" 'J11 i
,
, '
"
"
'"
~
.1 EE3
\
c
"
~
,
~
9W:01~t ('~8)
,~=\~;t~
'01' NO~W'3
~ NYld
~
,
,
,
~
, I
~ I
~~-~
I '\
~ .
I ~!
1/
r~,;
, "
, ,
~
d
----1
\
I
i
!
i
i
<
~
"
i: ~
!
~
~ ~
~
~~ I ~
~~ I ~
t~1
'III 4-'
'it"',
~
~
L
.~I,..'"
\ .
~
0'\
~...,'
lli:J
tili
ffa
~
filiI[ ,
11" i : ;
:~! ; : ~ . .
Ie _
:z: z
0::3
- Q,
~
uJ
-I
uJ
.<:>
.-
'"
:z:
o
~
>
uJ
-I
uJ
uJ
CJ
in
l-
LL.
uJ
-I
,
-"
..
it-
110,9
:z:
o
~
(ij
-I
uJ
IX:
<I:
w
a:
J
I Ii
,!i,-+--
", ~--~
11 ~ ~. ,--
'], S 'i '" L
~_~ ~r--..
/, ' ~ ai, "C' I .
~:-'7> ,/v.,--'
~,;
"""'"
'-:~
--
...Y.I_.....
.___.-00--
WJJf!)II1QONICI1ImI1'YNOlm"O~d
UIP!UeJ::! T U!qo~
~r
~I
<<11
~
,
L-J .
~
----,--- ~
-=.=--"'= 'j;j
~-;~
I
I
~
iKO"9~t(U!l) .
nW1Z' (.~tf
""""'_.
-Q.L' NO::>W13
~ N...,d
, I; 1.1, II' I,
! i\'l'(\:
>
~
I
!
,
,
!
~
-
z
:5
Q.
C?;SF:
NOJI'€' /"C?.-"" i
[
~~i
~:
-----+ i
i
I
I
z
:5
Il.
"
o
o
..J
u.
..
'"
...
'I
ii
,I
, [-
.99['
~;~
//O;Sf'-"
c
::0 0
I; -J
~ "
~ ~ '" ,II
~G
> z
:5
II'
.I Il.
"
c=J 0
0
..J
u.
0
z
N.
~ i il
!
'" , 'I
" __1
I
,
~ j
,<7-,67
- -
.._'.- --.,--.-.-
c?'i
-._-..!!!!-
~.,-~"_...
--
--
--
--
-
.
.
-
.
ols
W
-..
oc,,,,!,:>'OOiIQntI
"HI""'a'I'OIII~O___OJ.OI
}l3Nt!IS3C ~NIOlmS l'fNOISS3.~Otlcl
U!PfUI!J:I T U!qo~
,
~ i
f@~'''':~. J,
-"-'-~C:;,'j
, '~..':.-;....+
ul
~,
. ,
....
"O:"J' I
,
:r-:----<~II":"I::!
,....c....~., =.J
-~
\
\
~.
',. I
~
t=:==;'-T-'
t~
\!: ",~
~.
i
~I
I
\i
~:
~~~
iL
~2..J,
I
- \",
~ 8
, , ~i7;S?
, " ~
IlC:y;" 111;26 r ,
~ >.'
,I' " it
.,
~ ~
Z
'- 0
1=
Ii) ~~ <
~ ijj
'..J
I~ W
~ -tl-
, , '<Z
, H~
~ II-
~
f,4:?
, \,
~ ~
t:::: "
.:"" \,
"-
~ .~
~
;1'.""'lj~
Y(J
-.-..-.--:."" ~
-"'.=--""
';;-~t.J
z
o
~
>
W
..J
W
W
C
(ij
I-
:I:
(!)
i'i2
n'l:IHHtl,~g)
t~15\'"tt1' II ~I)
~-,
'01.' NO::>W13
~ NY1d
, ,~. :,.'.;,: :,.1;1'"
~~ j .'.~
~
~
~I~~~ .
~. ~.,
,--H", "
...'".. "
-1--
i;
;
z ,/
~
C~i8
'~-'r-1"::;:-..:;
~-+-,....,.....,
~:...H..:.r,T,:q EE8, "
'I~,:'..'.c".'.,,~., '
. ,
r~''---1
~='
:'':'+;
93
.,-:7.';'"
~- :;::~~ '"
r- r i+
TTr::..ri-"f- ",'
, rt
. i
'~91
...-..}~I--l2J1
-, U-r....-..II
, ,
,
"
,I :t'
-..!
~ i
<
N
Z
:5
..
~
""
z
o
~
>
W
..J
W
W
9
rn
l-
LL
W
..J
~
~~ ~
~~ <<-
HfB "
l. ...t-"- ~
~ "I Z
, 0
, I, . ~
" ;:;:
-;. " ~ d
, " ~ '\ Gj
~ !
~ '..J
" ~I W
"- II::
il ~
,-1'
EtEB : I' .1 a::
" ,
011
:i
II
ffiITC:. il
. I j 3
i i 1 i; i . .,",;..,.,'
.: ',' ;"
ZNV1d
I
ril.'
.. .
II
\
-- --.,.---- ~
ala IICWT.)'OWOO_ ----- ~ trt01~tIU.1
"1J1M'_~_"" :.<1';;:;-_ ,.~~il~.j
o !" 'd3HmS3C f)H.alIn81YNOIS53~O\ld 1""'UO' ~_.
u!I>!ueJ:I T U!qo~ 'O~ 1 NO:>W13
If"?:~.?
I'
r
1,1
. U ~
~ ~
I i"\ ~
4----,1' C'"
.:--,-1
~}'.~
';' ,..:;:,=., ,rl ".~
'""7-";~// 0 \ c! I \,
$ \. i
~~
.. ~
-I
5>1
,',
~],
~
""I
~I
"!
.........
Vf
,,17;6["
/10/,9"/ I
I
...
,
I
~
!
I ....:~;
" ~~,
I
1/':7',6fi
------
! III
I
;
,
g(7Lt'
J
.
.0
_'J{. ;
z
:5
c..
" a:
" 0
. 0
" ...J
C. u..
....
'"
...
,-
"
"
"
CL
z
:5
c..
a:
o
o
...J
u..
c
z
'"
,
-
Case No.IS-Ol-39
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
Elmcon LTD.
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9]910
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
25 Naples Street
Chula Vista, CA 919]0
4.
Name of Proposal:
Country Club Villas
5.
Date of Checklist:
August 8, 200 I (Recirculated)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
LessthalJ
Significant
Impact
N,
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
1<1
o
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low, income
or minority community)?
o
o
o
1<1
o
o
o
1<1
o
o
o
1<1
Comments:
The project setting is 2.25-acres in the western portion of the city. The project proposal, 22
condominium units, is located in the CN Zone (Neighborhood Commercial) and within the CR
(Commercial Retail) General Plan Designation. The site is surrounded to the north, south and west by
single-family residences, and apartments, and to the east by a commercial center. A fire-damaged
commercial retail center currently exists on the project site. The proposed project includes a tentative
map for individual condominium lots, a rezone from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to R3 (Multiple
Family Residential) Zone, a General Plan Amendment from CR to RMH (Medium to High111-18
dwelling units per gross acre) designation and design review. The project proposal will include the
excavation of approximately 2,200 cubic yards, 3,300 cubic yards for embankment and 1,200 cubic
yards of import. Upon approval of the tentative map, General Plan Amendment and rezone, the project
will be consistent with the R3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning designation, RMH (Medium High
Residential) General Plan designation, and the City's environmental plans and policies. The proposed
increased densities in this neighborhood are anticipated to be compatible based upon their orientation
Page - 1
t(~
and location. The proposed reduction in available retail acreage in this primarily residential
neighborhood would not result in a conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The use
and occupancy of the site by multiple family residential uses will not have a significant effect on the
physical arrangement ofthe community.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
II. POPULA nON AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesslhan
Significant IJnless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o
o
o
o
Comments:
Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment and rezone, the project will be consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project proposal is an infill development surrounded by
existing residential development and commercial retail use and does not induce substantial population
or housing growth in the area, No existing housing units would be eliminated. The project proposal
will not exceed the regional or local population projections. No significant population and housing
impacts would result from the development of the proposed 22-condominium lots.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Plltentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 0
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over 0 0 0 0
covering 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 0 0
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 0
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a river
Page - 2
V3
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
The project site has already been disturbed with the existing commercial center and no known
geophysical constraints presently exist on site. The proposed project will not expose people to any
additional geologic or earth hazards.
or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay
inlet or lake?
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
o
o
o
IS!
Potentially
Potentially Significant less than
Significant Vnles! Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 IS!
0 0 0 IS!
0 0 0 IS!
o
o
o
IS!
o
o
o
IS!
o
o
o
IS!
0 0 0 IS!
0 0 0 IS!
0 0 0 IS!
0 0 0 IS!
Comments:
A "Preliminary Drainage Study" by DGB Survey & Mapping dated March 26, 2001 prepared for the
project states that under the existing conditions (building, concrete slab and paved parking) the runoff
generated from the site during a 50-year storm is 7.09 cfs (cubic feet per second). Presently,
approximately 95 percent of the project site is developed with the existing commercial center and
paved parking area. The project site currently drains to Naples Street and existing runoff is conveyed
through an existing curb inlet near the southwcst corner of the property.
Page - 3
Vi
The anticipated runoff generated from the proposed project will drain to the proposed catch basins
connected to the existing drainage facility. Drainage from the site would not impact surface water in
the surrounding water areas. This preliminary study indicates that there will be no significant change
in existing drainage pattern and overall the proposed development will decrease the drainage run-off by
approximately 30 percent.
As a standard Engineering Department condition of approval, the proposed project will be subject to
the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Regiona] Water Quality Control Board, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES). The applicant is required to implement the Best
Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm drain facilities during and after construction. A
standard Engineering Department condition of approval requires drainage improvements be included in
the first submittal of grading/improvement plans that defines the method used to convey on-site surface
water. No significant impacts are anticipated to result from development of this project.
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments:
The project proposal is consistent with the City ofChula Vista General Plan Air Quality Element and
would not substantially affect local or regional air quality. The project would generate an additional
200 average daily trips, would not substantially affect regional air quality. The project would not alter
air movements, humidity, or climatic temperature. The residential project would not create
objectionable odors or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air qnality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D D 0
D D 0 D
D D D 0
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
o
Construction of the condominium project would result in negligible short-tenn construction and
grading emissions. Fugitive dust would also be created due to clearing, earth movement, and travel on
unpaved surfaces. Air quality impacts resulting trom construction related emissions are considered
short-term in duration since construction is a relatively short-term, one-time activity. Dust control
during grading operations would be related in accordance with the rules and regulations of the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
The proposed project includes the demolition of the fire-damaged commercial building, concrete pad
and asphalt parking lot. The demolition ofthese buildings may result in the release of hazardous
materials such as asbestos. ]n order to mitigate potential impacts to a level below significance, the
existing structures will be examined for the presence of asbestos prior to demolition. The applicant
P<lge - 4
V')'
will be required to contract with a consultant certified by the State of California to conduct asbestos
assessments and supervise the proper removal of this element if it is found on-site. The applicant will
adhere to all State and local regulations. These regulations require that a penn it be obtained and the
proper procedures followed in the removal of asbestos. The mitigation measures would reduce air
quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
VI. TRANSPORT ATION/CIRCULA TION. Would Potentially Significant Less than
the proposal result in: Significant Unleu Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 ~
. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ~
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 ~
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 ~
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ~
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments:
The proposed 22-unit condominium project would have a minimal effect on traffic patterns and
volumes on the adjacent streets, Naples Street provides the primary access to the project. The trip
generation rate per units is eight (8) average daily trips (ADT) per day for a total of 200 additional
(ADT).
Presently, Naples Street is operating at a Level of Service (LOS) "A". Project-generated traffic on
Naples Street would not degrade existing levels of service. The Engineering Department has
determined that the additional ADT volumes on surrounding streets would not exceed the City's Level
of Service (LOS) thresholds.
The project applicant will be required to install full improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along
Naples Street frontage per City Engineering Standards. Fifty-eight (58) parking spaces are proposed.
Twenty-two (22) spaces are enclosed in a garage and fourteen (14) will be designated for guest
parking. The proposed parking would meet required City Parking Standard of two (2) spaces per unit.
No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed condominium
project.
Page - 5
tf{~
The project is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and Traffic
Thresholds. No significant traffic related impacts would result.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Leulhan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 !<I
0 0 0 !<I
0 0 0 !<I
0 0 0 !<I
0 0 0 !<I
0 0 0 !<I
Comments: The project proposal is within a fully urbanized area. The project site is largely developed
and the remaining undeveloped area contains ornamental plantings. According to the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of potential
biological resources. The draft MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan) designates this
area for development.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
No
Impact
!<I
!<I
Ii!
Comments: The project proposal does not conflict with the recently adopted CO, Reduction Plan.
The CO2 Reduction Plan encourages infill housing and increased housing density near mass transit.
The infill project will provide 22 additional housing opportunities. Residents of the proposed project
would be served by existing transit lines which include Route 704 along east Naples Street and Route
701 along Hilltop Drive. The proponent will provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Naples
Page - 6
'17
Street frontage. These improvements will aid pedestrian circulation in the project area.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and therefore, would 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 according to the City's General Plan. No significant energy and mineral
resources would result.
Mitigation Measnres:
No mitigation measures are required.
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lenihan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impacl
0 0 0 t>!J
0 0 0 t>!J
0 0 0 t>!J
0 t>!J 0 0
0 0 0 t>!J
Comments: The project proposal would result in the division of one parcel into 22 parcels that would
not interfere with the emergency response plan for the area. The surrounding area is developed with
residential uses and commercial uses that do not include the use or storage of hazardous materials.
There are no known health or fire hazard impacts from the use of the site.
The proposed project includes the demolition and removal of the fire-damaged commercial center.
The demolition of these buildings may result in the release of hazardous materials such as asbestos.
Release of airborne asbestos fibers would result in a significant health hazard unless mitigated.
Mitigation measures included (See Air Quality) would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the propusal result in: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? D D D 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D 181 D D
Page - 7
Iff
Comments:
The project proposal includes the development of22 condominium units. According to the Acoustical
Analysis prepared by Dr. Leslie E. Penzes of Dr. Penzes and Associates, nine units will require
mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts to a level below significance in accordance with
the City of Chula Vista Performance Standards. Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Zoning Code
specifies Exterior Noise Limits of 50 dB for multiple,family residential at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. weekends) and 60 dB during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekends). The condominium project will be required to
comply with the adopted noise standards.
According to the Acoustical Analysis, the noise contributors would include parking lot traffic and
service delivery truck traffic from the adjacent commercial shopping center and the traffic noise on
Naples Street. The exterior yards of the first row of dwellings along Naples Street, measured noise
levels of67 dBA in CNEL. The proponent will be required to mitigate the noise levels through design
layout, building materials, external walls, window treatments, exterior hardwood doors, and installation
of a masonry sound wall at the property line between the east side of the site and the parking lot of the
adjacent shopping center and continue westerly along the entire front property line of the project site
facing Naples Street. The mitigation measures would reduce potential noise impacts to a less than
significant level.
Development ofthe condominiums would result in short-term noise impacts related to construction
activities. In accordance with the City's Municipal Code (Section Chapter 17.24.050 - J), construction
will be restricted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. According to the Engineering
Department, noise associated with any grading operation would be regulated by conditions included in
the approved grading permit. Mitigation measures would reduce potential noise impacts to a less than
significant lcvel.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N,
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Impact i\1itigaled Imp:lct Impact
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0
c) Schools? 0 0 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 0
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0
Comments:
The project site is located in western Chula Vista, a fully urbanized area. According to the Police and
Fire Departments, the project would not result in a significant impact to public services. The Chula
Vista Elementary School District recommends annexation to the new Community Facilities District
(CFD) No. 10. However, under State Law the payment of school fees minimizes the impacts to school
facilities to a level below significance.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
Page ~ 8
y.c;
Potentia1!y
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
N.
Impact
XII.
Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any ofthe Threshold
Standards.
o
o
o
[;]
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 [;]
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. It is anticipated that the minor future development on this parcel map will meet
the threshold standards as this project is in a fully urbanized area. The proposed project
would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: According to the Fire Department, the current level of service is sufficient for the future
development of the condominium units. The nearest fire station is located within 3 miles. The
associated response time is 5.7 minutes. According to the Fire Department, the proponent will be
required to install two fire hydrants. The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact the
Fire/EMS Threshold Standard.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
PotentiaHy
I'otentially Significant Less than
Significant tJnless Significant N.
Impacl Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 [;]
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 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: The Police Department indicates that the current level of police services can continue to
be provided to the project area. The project area is within a fully urbanized area in western Chula
Vista. No impacts to police services are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
~1itigatcd
Less than
Significant
Impact
N.
Impact
Page - 9
5-0
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 "D" can occur
for no more than any two hours of the day.
2. West ofl-80S: Those signalized intersections that do not meet the standard above may
continue to operate at their current 199 I LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: The proposed project will not have a significant impact to the Traffic Threshold
Standard. The primary access road to the project site is Naples Street. There will be
approximately 200 new Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project per day.
According to the Engineering Department, the ADT volumes on the primary access
road, Naples Street, before and upon project completion will not exceed the City's
LOS thresholds along adjacent street segments.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures will be required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant I.essthan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 0
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
(1-805),
Comments: The proposed project is located west of 1,805, therefore, the Parks and Recreation
Threshold does not apply. Park pad obligation will be required per City Ordinance (refer to Municipal
Code Chapter 17.10). No significant impact to parks and recreation is anticipated.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 0
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
Page - 10
')/
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposed project will not exceed City Engineering standards for storm water flows or
volumes. The proponent proposes a 12-inch PYC storm drain across the existing lO-foot drainage
easement which will run into a catch basin on the north east side of the property. An existing IS-foot
drainage easement along the lower southern section of the project site will collect water that drains
onto Naples Street. According to the Engineering Department, drainage facilities will be incorporated
into the final project design upon first submittal of grading and improvement plans. The Engineering
Division will require the applicant to obtain a construction permit to perform any work within the
City's right,of- way or public easements. No significant drainage or storm water impacts would result
from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) Sewer 0 0 0 r;<J
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The City Engineering Department has determined that the existing 12-inch sewer main
under Naples Street and Hilltop Drive are adequate to serve the future development on the project site.
In accordance with Engineering requirements, the proponent proposes the onsite sewer mains to be
publicly maintained. As a standard Engineering condition, the minimum pipe size for public sewer
lines is 8-inches and the sewer main system will be required to provide sufficient access for City
maintenance vehicles to all manholes. No significant sewer impacts would result from the project
proposal.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesslhan
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water 0 0 0 r;<J
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards
are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply
with this Threshold Standard.
Page - 11
s-~
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City ofChula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The proposed project is located in western Chula Vista serviceable by existing storage,
treatment and transmission facilities. According to the Sweetwater Authority, a six-inch water main is
located on the south side of Naples Street adjacent to the site. Adequate fire flow is available to serve
the project site as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department. No significant water impacts would
result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
the proposal result in a needfor new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 181
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The project site is located in western Chula Vista, a fully urbanized area. In accordance
with Engineering requirements, the sewer system within the condominium development shall be made
public. The existing 12-inch sewer main that runs along Naples Street and Hilltop Drive is adequate to
handle solid and liquid (sewer) waste that will be generated by the proposed project. According to
reviewing agencies, the other existing public service facilities are adequate to serve the project. No
significant impacts to utilities and service systems are anticipated from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant lInless Significant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
Page-12 S-3
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
iii
o
o
o
iii
Comments: The proposed project will not have a significant impact to the aesthetics of the
surrounding area. This is an intill project within a fully urbanized area in the western portion of Chula
Vista. The acoustical wall, along the east side, north retaining walls and front entrance wall treatment
will be compatible with the surrounding building features. The proposed project is not located along
any scenic vista or view and will not modify a scenic route. No significant aesthetic impacts will
result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
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
LC5sthan
Significant
Impact
o
o
iii
o
o
o
o
iii
o
o
o
iii
o
o
iii
o
o
o
iii
o
Comments: According to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, the
project site is not located within an area of potential cultural resources The project will include
minimal grading at time of development. No significant cultural resources impacts will result from the
proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures arc required.
Page - 13
~-y
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of pale ontological resources?
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does identify the
subject site or surrounding vicinity as an area of moderate paleontological resources. The proposed
project is located in a fully urbanized area and is relatively flat. During time of development, it is
anticipated that minimal grading will be required. There would be no significant paleontological
resource impacts on the project site because the site is already disturbed by the existing shopping
center and site improvements.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
l1ntess
Mitigated
No
Impact
LcSSlhan
Significant
Impacl
o
o
o
o
Potentially
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impacl Mitigated Impacl Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 0
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 0
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation
Element. The project review is for an infill project on the west side of the City and does not increase
the need for new parks or recreational facilities. Park pad fees would be required as per City
Ordinance (refer to City Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10).
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EJR is
needed. this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality ofthe 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
Page- 14
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
))
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
Comments: The project proposal is in a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The
surrounding area is developed with residential, commercial and recreational uses. Neither sensitive
plant nor animal resources, nor historical or archae logical resources are present on the site. The
proposed project will have no significant impact to the quality of the environment, reduction of habitat
of wild life species or threaten the historical preservation of the area.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
N.
Impact
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The project proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the approved Draft Multiple
Species Conservation Subarea Plan (MSCP) dated October 2000. The project will not negatively alter
long-term, environmental goals.
o
o
o
I8J
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
N.
Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
o
o
o
I8J
Comments: There are no other current or foreseeable projects in the surrounding area that would
contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. This is a small infill project within a fully urbanized
area of western Chula Vista and consistent with the goals and vision of the General Plan.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation measures are required.
Page-IS
~h
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantia] adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
~
Comments: The proposed project is in a fully urbanized area of western Chula Vista. The
surrounding area is developed with residential and commercial uses. The proposed project, 22
condominium units will not create substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITlGA nON MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will
be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
Air Quality & Hazards
Asbestos Related Impacts
During Demolition Phase
1. Prior to demolition of the eXlstmg buildings, the applicant shall contract with an
environmental consultant certified by the State of California to conduct testing for the
presence of asbestos and for the proper removal and disposal of this element, if detected.
The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the required permits from all affected
state and local regulatory agencies including the Air Pollution Control District and shall
provide proof of having obtained approval to proceed with this process to the Planning
and Building Department prior to obtaining a building penni!.
Noise
Noise Related Impacts (Internal and External)
During Construction Phase
I. To ensure that the noise level will be less than or equal to 45 dBA in CNEL at any
location inside of the rooms of the dwellings, al] the windows and exterior doors must be
closed. Due to the restriction of closed windows, forced ventilation is required. This
shall be established by the installation offans or an Air Conditioning System (HV AC).
Page-16
57
2. The installation of fans or an HV AC system shall be constructed to ensure that the ducts
for the outside air supply and the exhaust be placed at two right angles. Two air
exchanges over the course of one hour are required along with a 20% volume change per
hour, which must be taken from the outdoors per Unifonn Building Code (UBe)
requirements. The ducts for the outside air supply and exhaust must be placed on
opposite sides of the units facing the Naples Street.
Windows, French Doors, Exterior Hardwood Doors and Exterior Walls
3. All windows, freuch doors, and exterior hardwood doors on the first and second floors for
the first and second row of units closest to Naples Street shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Acoustical Analysis of Country Club Villas prepared
by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 2001 and revised on August 3,2001. No
mitigation is required for the windows, french doors and exterior hardwood doors of the
rest of the dwellings, (refer to Exhibit B).
4. The external walls of all buildings shall be designed and constructed to reduce interior
noise levels in accordance with the Acoustical Analysis of Country Club Villas prepared
by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 200land revised on August 3,2001 (refer
to Exhibit B).
5. The proposed project shall incorporate required construction components such as
building materials for external walls, window treatments, french doors, exterior
hardwood doors etc. to mitigate the noise impacts as specified in the Acoustical Analysis
of Country Club Villas prepared by Dr. Penzes and Associates, dated March 22, 200 I
and revised on August 3, 2001.
Sound Wall
*6. A 6-foot high sound wall shall be erected at the property line between the east side of the
site and the parking lot of Country Club Shopping Center, to the east of the project site
and continue westerly along the entire front property line of the project site facing Naples
Street, as specified in the Acoustical Analysis prepared by Dr. Fenzes and Associates,
dated March 22,2001 and revised August 3, 2001. The sound walls shall be constructed
from concrete blocks or from masonry per the Acoustical Analysis of the Country Club
Villas and revised on August 3, 2001 (Exhibit B).
'Revised as per the Resource Conservation Commission Meeting on July 30, 2001.
Page. 17
'S"'f
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) andlor Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the
Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
James Elmore
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Prferty Owner's Name
~/0/
Date
gnature of Authorized Represen ative of
roperty Owner's Name]
Stu Wilson
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property 0 er' N31 ]
~.
Datf )'6 J I
Signature f Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning
D Transportation/CircuIation
D Public Services
Page-IS
"),
o Population and Housing
o Biological Resources
~ Hazards
o Utilities and Service
Systems
o Aesthetics
o Cultural Resources
o Geophysical
o Water
o Energy and Mineral Resources
~ Air Quality
o Paleontological
Resources
~ Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Recreation
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the oasis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGA TlVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY havc a significant effcct on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0
at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
/.
onseggl I
Review Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
addendum has been prcpared to provide a record ofthis detennination.
glJ 10 f
/ [
Date
H :UIOME\PLANNING\MARIA \MISC\IS-O 1- 39.chklst,doc
Page - 19
CoO
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Country Club Villas. Chula Vista, IS-OI-039
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City ofChula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Country Club Villas project (IS-OI-039). The proposed project
has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA
guidelil)es. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures
are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-OI-039.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant andlor significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
I. Air Quality and Hazards; and
2. Noise.
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 and Reporting Program
are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written fonn
continning compliance with the mitigation measures specified in MND/IS-OI-039 shall be
provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The Environmental Review
Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been
accomplished.
Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, lists the mitigation measures listed in
Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative
Dcclaration, which will be implemented as part of thc 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 monitoringlverifying 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,
(11:\homc\planning\naria\IS-O] -049 t\1MRP tcxl.doc)
(,,(
E
i"
j!!
C
~
E
E
0
u
C
B
'c
0
:;:
C
0 ~
~ '" 10
~
.. 0
~ 15. ~
E ~
"C 0
Q) u E
"'
'>
Q) .
ex:
...
..
:c
III
I-
:!i
~
C)
o
It:
a.
C)
z
i=
It:
o
a.
w
It:
Q
Z
<(
C)
z
it:
o
I-
Z
o
:!i
Z
o
i=
<(
C)
i=
~
~
:c
.~~
o ~
0.0-
~
~
'"
_C
0.2
",1;;
co
.E~
i= :;
>
_ c
o 0
"C+'
01)
..c;c
dj"i:
:;;~
>
E
~
~
~
~
:;;
c
0 (/J
'" 0
~
g' '"
:E ~
0> I
<<> '"
'? >-
0 >-
ch ::J
<<
::J
~ a
!)1 '"
'> <(
D C 0
::J
(3 oZ
:;:: CD
~ ~
"E "'~
:;:: VI
::J .- ~
0 :;; ~
u :;;
"E
~
.~
C.
a.
<<
.....;
00
00
0.<.>
tn+;
00
'C 0
~ 0
ou
-'
ell. tn,
0:5 x
<.>
"
,..:
~
>-
.c
"'
o
a.
~
"''''
.... .~
Q):-!:::
"'"'
3~
~
~-
2~~
~::~ c5
EffiE rn
c..... c ;::.~
o"So.~'E
.:: VI '"5; > 0
E: :3 C Q) 0
QJUWO:::O
'"
c .
1/)- "0..... Q) ro~
~ -g~~ :g .~~
:g2 8 a.-u1?- 5~ 2 ~
:)co(1)QJ......raOc.!!!c
.D W-:5o= g c;:-;uc...:.o
~E.~ o~ ~~,g15 a>'S
g6E........~cc~o-:S.a
VI.=,E"D_"c roo 0>- co
~ ~~ ~=-jg2D.-'5 ~ 0>
~ 11)0 VI c:..c2:.:;; ro VI.!:
c:.....oQ)oU)......J::~c
C)n:I ou; E.....-o 0)- o"(ij
c..c:vQ)Q),EI1J-CO.....':O
:.;:<:!::::"(V..cQ) (l)U-'O Cl.o
'~~U5 ~.~:e~.~e~E
Q) I.) Q) 'O..c: I/) ro"U a....... ....
~~:5 (l)~ 5'"iUTI~~.g
.::::3 >-::?-ro :E-E.!:'5 3:~
ou..cQ)('/)~oVle-cc
5~~ ~ ~(l)~'~~~ ~
;2..1:::-!::: a..~.D~ Cro g-e
o <l)t (])u= E VJ::,-ro
E.....w-c"ro.....ClwQ.a.
cu.....c.!:Q)n:I-oOQ)
~.~E 0 ro~ a.~c~o
-rn......-c-co{\]curn
2 2: 'S ~ ~ _~ .~ ~ .~ 15 .!:
.... ro tI)._ 0 = :;I :;I ..... .....-0
g Q) :3 if) E 2: 0- cn_~ 2:'=i
ll..:5u2~ro~~oroQ)
-
"E
~
g
C.
a.
<<
--'
:g:g ><
0.<.>
"'-'
00
";:: c
,0
a<.>
00
~ 0
0. 0
<.>
"
,..:
~
>-
.c
"'
o
a.
~
"''''
.....~
(l):-!:::
"'"'
~ ~
-' 0
~
~-
2~.8
~:;ai 0
E CErn
c!!! c :!: c
e"S29:!"E
'>~'>>o
:B8~~8
.81? -0 G
Cii:::: Q) <(
:JoQ)u~>
cr(J).Do......:r:
Q)E(i).....>.-c:
OO:Jui..cErn
c e E ~ ~ 2 .if:
~ Q) ~""O..c gl,"'C
;::: g.!:~(/)~
(J) 0"'C ~.g en.....
Q)Q)....".....c>.
-;;:g ,g ~ :trg..c
..c~2..QQ):E~
~._xo..c,,"tJ
~6~'O~6.~
Q):;::; c c u U ....
> ro ro _0 (J) .... a.
.!!g<l)i3~<(Q)
:g>.~El-c~
.0 c " m -ci ~ ro
c ro.!:: '- Q) 0 U
(/) Q) ro ~ ~.3 (J) ~
I- =-.J Q)..... 0- C Q)
t.) .....w..c 0 Q)~..c
<{ roz:::..... '-_=
o....Eu-rn~.!!!OO
~ ~.!: (J)- 0 6 6 :g
w~<{g>.',;::;~o
(/) ccc=~~ro Q)
Q)"'C Q) (/)c.......c
~ ~ ~ ~ -E ~ .~ Ii]
~
"E
~
"
C.
a.
<<
"E
,~
C.
a.
<<
x
x
~
M
'"
0..
~
~
.c
"
o
a.
~
"''''
Q)~
"'"'
~ ~
-'0
~
>-
.c
"'
o
a.
~
"''''
Q)~
"'"'
~ ~
-' 0
~
(ij,z(ij
_0_
1i5::::1i5 0
E ~ E co
6Se~~
.... (/) ._._"-
.S: c > > 0
1i58Ji&8
~
(ij-5-rn
_0_
1i5:::: 1i5 0
E~E rn
6'3e~:6
'S: ~.S:.S: 0
~8Ji~8
(/) ~ '0 M"..c
~.l!! oe-g.~ 1i5g
Q)'~(/) ~ ro-- ~-gro~ &Q)Q)
..c~!~:J >.3 0,,00 ~~,z
(i)'~~~~ui~ ~M:g~~~ui'O
~~E~~~i= ~~.~~ii~~
E~.~~~~.~~ Ec~_Q~.~"'C~
~ - ..., ..... "" ,... w ro OO"'C 1;) N Q}.!: W
~""'ocrnaQ)w ..c(i)Q):Jc~~~
~.E~~ ~ I!!:Q~ o.~..c 8~1J Q);:::
(/) .....o..co(/) .~;~<{ .i50
u.l!!OOQ)uo5~ 2~..cQ)"" ....(J)
~u"tJ(J)Q)Bo~ ~~(J)~Oo~o
>~~~~6~R "'C~W..c~ON~~
:r: <I) 00 U - Q)..... CL Q)..... <I)
c5~Q)g5oo ~~~.i""O~-~".
~~!~~E~6 .uig(/)Q)~N~g~
OJ:: ""oou~""'O~~gCL~~~D
~""'ooQ)N"" Q)Q)o"tJ~ro~"-(/)~E
CW:J> -:Jo~"'Ccro""Oaro.-rox
~s~~;~~~~..c8zo(/)~cJ::w
o~xQ)~x..ca.(/)uQ)ou~"tJEoo
Q)Q)rn~21-Q)Q)~(/)"",~=Q)ro.~"'"
cowirnQ) ...c~~"'C(;)c>~.~2~
Q.......c~c..c~~ro CQ).-..c"~x-
~"'C""'uo""'c:Jzuiro(/)"'C:J -EQ)~
~~~~ro~EEQ)~~-E~u~O""Oui
(;):Jro.~iEQ)(;)5""O~(J):J~.~z~g>
!:i~ro.~..co.~i~.!:~~icg~~=
Q)ca.O:J._:J..c._~""':Jc:J(/)OoQ)
.= 8 ~~ ~~ ~~.E~ 5'0 88:(~.g~
N
'"
G~
E
'"
c
B
'c
o
:;:
c
.2
rn
:E
:;:
"0
<1>
'"
.;;:
<1>
a:
'"
""
'"
o
J,
'"
~
'>
.0
~
(,)
c
=>
o
(,)
"E "E "E
'" '" '"
.~ .~ .~
c. c. c.
c. c. c.
<: <: <:
x X X
....
Q)
j5
'"
I-
'"
>-
.c
'"
o
c.
"
a:~
(u~
"''''
<1> "
-' U
"
_.e_
",- '"
E.8"E 0
~c~ rn
c~c3:!:
o::Je~"E
.:: 1f)"S; > 0
E; 5 c: Q) 0
wuWO:::U
N
-g ~ N
<U ~ -5.
-0 "'C '- co
~8~~~
~~>~~
IDc:.c......W
"'CI._ :J ro
Q)..I!2-"O.s
-C wO u)'-
m~~~,*
~ Q) 3'13 ....~
(/}.!a 0 0"'"
OJg(J~g
.!: .....'Q<CC\.!
~.g.!Q-g6
D2 ~cu_
m .!: ro ~ ~
o~~~g>
::J_ Q)<::(
~"~o..."'O
to ~:;:::::; . Q)
~.8 ~o'~
~-g8~~
IDU<C-c"b
x2~~iij
Q)............ ro
Q) ~5:to
~ 8-3 c.~
...
'"
>-
.c
'"
o
c.
"
a:~
Q)~
"''''
.3~
"
.e_
2~1!!
ffi::::ffi 0
E~E 10
6'Se~.6
.: VI":; :; 15
E; 5 c: ID 0
wowa:::o
...t ~gf
-2~(/)>-5
..!:2 x (I)..c ....
~(l)~~~
"'C..& l2~ ~ u"'CI
~q;OQ~ID
":; E 0 E c ro
0- t)) "'0"_ ::J"'C
~.S13~oo",
"'0 c;:--
2::::: a:. g-02
n:I:J~ en
(5.Q _ Q) \1)'0
e- ~ ~ :S .~ g C;
8-c:Q)~ro:(o
!: gE.~~-o~
= U) q;.-e_ C{Y)
~2~E~~'ti
U)ffi5:.E~~~
t5 c: 0 .::J c: ::J
~8.'2.2 8 w-.:(
e E'~ OJ <( 0..."'0
a. 0 l2 Q) .....: ~
u 0 (If g..c: O"S
~g~b~E2:
0:;:; 3::"'0'- 1:1
g-gtu g-g-g c:
c.t;EsTI~~
Q) c ~12 It) g.o
~ 8 ~-2 fFa.~
'"
'"
>-
.c
'"
o
c.
"
a:~
~ "
w:-E
"''''
""
-'u
"
.e_
2~1!!
ffi::::ffi 0
E~E ro
g'3e~.a
.= 1/1';;: ;; 0
E: g c: Q) 0
Q)owet::o
"'0
t'2 t: U) ~.~
Q) C) 0 (1j Q) ~
c.. C Q)..t:...... '"'0 Q..@
e:s;;:..c: Q) :R a c: IV (':'>"b
a.~':~E:::...(IJ..cc:c:
iVo..Oc:C/).Q.....=o<tJ
EQ)ooQ)U)1:Ig~~~
rn5~~~@(\JIIJE;:::
"'C-oQ)......g.~N~E:::;
Q) c-,= 01< Q) C\.I co o-CI
t1ft1-at:rJ5...c:::~":=..:::!
~ ,!12 -9 \U ,I:: tfJ f2 u .... 0
Q) Vi - <3"- ctI c 0 c
2 (1)2-2.E~~ i5~c:
-SC~(!)<\J-OU)O::::J"-:'
'rn- ID tfJ.~ c: (!) IDS! OeD
..c:OO(])tfJ<("(t;..c:-CO......
U)~ m$t)(ij-01-2 Q);Q
~'ifj'5. ~ "&~ g ~ ~:S ~
~u; g....s 5.~Ci;g go~
"'0 ftI c: 0 '- NO tfJ
C III t5 0 Q) U 15 U "ti) ......
6Q)-cu~<(tfJ'2E2:-g
U)=~-go~~tfJe~N
..c: cu <\J (1)-1:) ~-<(("}'
F ~ ~2 ~.s r.:: ::::J 2 (ij Ui
..... ~ "E 'ifj ::... -g ~ <( O.!,2 ::::J
gID::3t)t.::;';:Q)-g2't5g>
.....aOQ)~DNtfJu;::::J<(
to ~ ~ "8' e 2i :B s: g 8 r.::
<('-OQ.Q.tfJQ~u<(o
~
N
v
on
'"
0.
...;
a
a
'"
a'
""
.0
S
"
Q
.~
;;;
~
"
~
Ii
~
Q
V
"
"
(;
i::
"
'"
"
Q
V
"
u
~
~
Q
'"
"
0::
"
-;s
~
"
'"
'"
"
.",
"
'"
";;:
"
0::
*
,
~
!
,
"3
~
~
~
r
s
~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:~
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-01-17; Request to amend the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and to modify the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations within Village
Five.
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Public Hearing: PCS-OI-08; Request to approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-04B) for Village Five of the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan, Chula Vista Tract 96-04B,
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to reallocate 422
unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for Village
Five and resubdivide 44.5 acres of Village Five in Otay Ranch. The proposed amendment and
tentative map will create two high-density multi-family sites in Neighborhood R-30 and 122 single-
family detached lots in an alley-product in Neighborhood R-39 in Village Five,
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has detennined that the
Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor
would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously
identified in FEIR 95-01, Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary, and none of the
conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections
15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01has been prepared in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which was considered by the Commission
as part of PCM 01-11, the McMillin Companies Village Five Core amendment to SPA One,
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution No. PCM 01-17 recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, adopt the addendum to FEIR 95-01 and adopt an Ordinance to
modify the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District boundaries
within Village Five.
. Resolution No. PCS 01-08 recommending that the City Council approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map for Village Five (C.V.T. 96-04B).
!
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/22/01
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In June of 1993, the City Council and Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,OOO-acre Otay Ranch, The GDP authorized
1,263 single-family homes and 1,615 multi-family units for a total of 2,878 dwelling units in
Village Five. In June of 1996, the City Council approved the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan for
Villages One and Five based on a plan submitted by Village Development, a Baldwin Company
subsidiary. Subsequent to the approval of the SPA One Plan, the McMillin Companies became an
owner of portions of SPA One and processed a SPA Amendment to reduce the number of dwelling
units in the Village Five Core, In 1997, both the Otay Ranch Company and the McMillin
Companies processed tentative maps for their ownerships in Village Five, Neither developer
utilized all of the units authorized by the SPA One Plan or the Otay Ranch GDP. Approximately
398 units authorized by the GDP and the 1996 SPA Plan were not utilized in McMillin's 1998
amendment. In 2000, the Otay Ranch Company processed a substantial conformity request to the
adopted tentative map for their ownership to change the units and lot sizes in the Yellow and Red
Phases of their portion of Village Five. This request further reduced the number of units in these
two phases by 112 units. Besides reducing the number of units, the substantial conformity request
provided a better circulation system with larger lots, Staff found the request in substantial
conformity with the approved tentative map.
The McMillin Companies are currently processing a SPA One amendment, concurrent with this
application, to add 54 units to the mixed-use site in the Village Five core, The Otay Ranch
Company's amendment takes into account those 54 units into the C-3/R-45 site,
I. Site Characteristics
Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are located in the southeastern corner of Village Five. The
neighborhoods have been mass graded to create lots for development under the existing approvals,
The balance of Village Five to the north and west is currently under development with single-
family residences, multi-family development, parkland, community purpose facilities, an
elementary school and other mixed uses. Immediately south of the Project is the future extension
of Olympic Parkway. East Palomar Street and Santa Rosa Drive in Village Five are on the east
side ofthe project and have been constructed. The Otay Water District's reservoir site is directly
to the north of the Project. A future Residential Promenade street, San Sebastian Avenue, will be
located to the north of the two neighborhoods. The future SR-125 is planned adjacent to the
development to the east.
Santa Rosa Drive connects to East Palomar Street to the south, Access to both Olympic Parkway
and La Media Road are provided from East Palomar Street. The proposed future extension of the
-2
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
light rail transit system will eventually travel through the Village Five core in the center median of
East Palomar Street.
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP designated the land within the Otay Valley Parcel for urban villages that are
transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly. The villages have higher densities and mixed-uses in
village cores, which are surrounded by single-family homes in the secondary areas. The GDP
authorized 2,878 dwelling units in Village Five with 1,615 multi-family units located in the
Village Five core. The secondary areas of Village Five contain 1,263 single-family homes outside
of the Village Five core.
Zoning
The Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities
such as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned
Community District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan along with a
zoning boundary map designating a zone for each neighborhood. Village Five is designed as an
"urban village" (containing mixed-use multi-family housing in a village core). The SPA One Plan
Zoning Districts Map for Village Five are:
. Single-Family Three (SF3)
. Single-Family Four (SF4)
. Residential Multi-Family One (RMI)
. Residential Multi-Family Two (RM2)
. Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
. Open SpacelParks (OSIP-I)
The existing Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are currently designated SF4 and RMI, respectively.
Land Use
Village Five is currently under construction. The McMillin portion for Village Five is basically
built -out under the current SPA Plan, except for the community purpose facility and the mixed,use
sites. The elementary school is under construction and due to open this fall, Cottonwood Park,
the first public neighborhood park in Village Five, is completing the one-year maintenance period
and should be open by late fall, The condominium projects in Neighborhood R-40 and R-46 are
constructed. The Teresina Apartments in R-43 and R-44 were one of the first projects completed in
the Village Five core.
3
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
The Otay Ranch Company portion of Village Five in the Pink, Yellow and Red Phases are under
construction. The Pink phase off Telegraph Canyon Road and Santa Paula A venue in the Village
is complete, and the Yellow phase is under construction with both single-family homes and small
pedestrian parks. The Red phase (fonnerly Phase 2), containing Neighborhoods R- 30 and R-39,
are vacant but have been mass graded. Neighborhood R-30 was originally approved for 145 small
lot single-family homes and Neighborhood R-39 for a multi-family project of 175 units. The
Substantial Confonnity request approved in 2000 provided for 93 units in Neighborhood R-30 and
180 units in R-39,
3. Proposed Plan
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan includes a re-allocation of 422 unused
units previously authorized by the GDP for Village Five in Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 and a
Revised Tentative Subdivision Map for Village Five for these same neighborhoods, The SPA One
Plan amendment proposes to change Neighborhood R-30 from a 93-unit small lot single-family
project to two individual multi-family sites (R-30A and R-30B) with a total of573 apartment units,
Neighborhood R-39 is proposed to change from a 180 multi-family site to a I 22-unit single-family
alley product project. A breakdown of the unused units, as well as the units already designated for
those two neighborhoods is summarized as follows:
Existing SPA Unused SPA Units Proposed SPA Amendment
Units Units
Neighborhood 93 154 Units Allocated Neighborhood R-30A
R-30 Single-Family 247 Multi-Family Units
Units 326 Units Allocated Neighborhood R-30B
326 Multi-Family Units
Neighborhood R- 180 Multi- Decrease of 58 Units Neighborhood R-39
39 Family Units 122 Single-Family Units
Total Units 273 Units 422 Units 695 Units
The reallocation of units to Neighborhood R-30 multi-family site will bring the multi-family unit
count in Village Five to 1,605, still under the overall GDP multi-family allocation of 1,615 for
Village Five, Neighborhood R-30 is proposed as two developments with a residential street,
Geyserville Street, separating them and providing the second access, Access to the R-30A site can
be provided from Santa Rosa Drive, San Sebastian Avenue and Geyserville Street. The alley street
serving R-39 can also be used for access to the R-30A site. Access to R-30B is limited to
Geyserville Street due to the entry cottage location on Santa Rosa Drive. Limited access from the
alley could be provided to the R-30B site,
Lj
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
SPA One Village Design Plan
The amendment to the SPA Plan to re-allocate the 422 unused units will also require an amendment
to the SPA One Village Design Plan (VDP). The VDP currently describes in greater detail how the
design requirements for both Neighborhood R-30 and R-39 concepts are to be implemented.
Neighborhood R-30 will be developed as two multi-family sites, Site design criteria for these two
neighborhoods has changed from the original VDP, requiring an update to that document.
Subsequent to the City Council approval of the SPA Plan amendment, the Precise Plan for the
Village Five core will be taken to the Design Review Committee for their review and approval to add
Neighborhood R-30 to the Village Five Core.
SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
The project proposes to delete the private pedestrian park (P-II) from the Plan. This private park
was to serve the small lot single-family project and will be replaced by the common usable open
space in the Neighborhood R-30 multi-family projects. The project requires additional local
parkland obligation as a result of the 422 unused units now being allocated to the two
neighborhoods. The additional parkland will be provided elsewhere in the Applicant's ownership in
Otay Ranch.
In addition to the VDP, the deletion of the private pedestrian park (P-II) requires the SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan be amended to reflect the change. With the proposed
increase in density and the reduction in parkland, the parks agreement between the Otay Ranch
Company, the McMillin Companies and the City will need to be amended, City staff has prepared
SPA One Plan conditions of approval as well as Tentative Map conditions, These conditions will
bring the SPA One Plan and the Project up to current standards, In part, the conditions require the
implementation of new standards and update the parks agreement between the City, the Otay Ranch
Company and the McMillin Companies to reflect the changes in the SPA One Plan proposed by both
developers.
The Project also requires an additional 1.7 acres of Community Purpose Facility (CPF) land
obligation. The additional CPF land will be provided elsewhere in the Applicant's ownership in
Otay Ranch,
SPA One Affordable Housing Plan
The reallocation ofthe 422 unused units to these neighborhoods will require an amendment to the
SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, The Village Five obligation of low-income units for the
Applicant's ownership has increased from 55 to 76. The Applicant is providing all oftheir SPA One
ownership's low-income obligation (246 units) in the Village One mixed use "Heritage Town
Center" and has received an additional 98 "credits" as part of that development approval. The
------
5
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
Applicant has satisfied the SPA One obligation and will be transferring the other "credits" elsewhere
in the Applicant's ownership in Otay Ranch.
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Planned Community District Regulations Amendment
The existing Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are currently designated SF4 and RMI, respectively, on
the Zoning District map in the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations, This map needs
to be amended to reflect the SPA Plan land use changes. NeighborhoodR-30 is proposed to be zoned
RM-2, and the alley product in Neighborhood R-39 is proposed to remain RMI, but the boundaries
are modified to reflect the Land Use Plan changes between R-30 and R-39.
Revised Tentative Map
The Revised Tentative Map for the portion of Village Five east of Santa Rosa proposes to subdivide
approximately 44,5 acres into two multi-family lots and 121 single-family lots, four homeowner's
maintenance lots, and nine open space lots, The two multi-family sites (R-30A and R-30B) will be
separated by a local street, Geyserville Street, that will provide the second access to the alley product
neighborhood.
The Tentative Map conditions of approval for Otay Ranch Companies' portion of Village Five have
been updated by staff due to the revised subdivision of the two neighborhoods in the Project. The
proposed conditions update the conditions of approval for Chula Vista Tract 96-04,
4, Analysis
The proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised Tentative Map application
for Village Five implements the approved SPA One Land Use Plan and are consistent with prior
approvals including the GDP amendment approved by City Council on November 10, 1998. The
GDP originally authorized 1,615 multi-family units in Village Five, The current approvals for
Village Five only utilized 1,218 multi-family of those original units. The proposed multi-family site
in Neighborhood R-30 is in the Village Five core and within a V. mile radius ofthe future trolley
station in the Village Five core on East Palomar Street. A Residential Promenade Street, San
Sebastian, and a local residential street will serve the alley product proposed for Neighborhood R - 39.
All public utilities and services have been reviewed, and there is sufficient capacity within each
system to support and serve the proposed amendments. The water, sewer and drainage lines that are
being installed now during the Yellow phase construction are large enough to handle the increase in
density in R-30, Santa Rosa and San Sebastian have sufficient traffic capacity for the increase of
422 units.
While the parks planned in Village Five were based on the reduced SPA Plan amendments, the
increase in density (additional obligation oflocal parkland) can be attached to the Community Park
(p
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date 8/22/01
requirement for the village and include an increase in park fees, The GDP envisioned that each
village would provide a portion roughly 2/3 of their parkland in neighborhood parks and 1/3 in
Community Parks located in Village Two and 10 and the Eastern Urban Center, The new SPA
conditions require the applicant to amend the existing park agreement between McMillin, Otay
Ranch Company and the City to provide additional parkland in Village Two and pay fees for the
balance, The private pedestrian park P-Il is deleted in the proposed amendment. This 0.8-acre area
will be provided as common useable open space within the multi-family project.
The Planned Community (PC) zone requires each community, or in this case a village, to provide
land for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF). The ordinance requires 1.39 acres for CPF land for
every 1,000 residents of the village. Since all of Village Five is basically developed and the Otay
Ranch Company amendment will add residents to the village, additional CPF land (1.7 acres) will
need to be provided elsewhere within their ownership in the Otay Ranch. A condition of approval
requires this transfer of the CPF requirement.
Since the R-30 neighborhood is within a Y. mile of the transit station, staff recommends the Village
Five core be amended to include this site, The Village Five Core Master Precise Plan will need to be
amended to add this property, The same pedestrian-oriented standards that have been applied to
other multi-family will be applied to these two sites with ground floor units having their front doors
oriented to the street with a porch or strong entry feature. Access to the apartment sites will be
provided from Geyserville Street, a residential street, which will continue into the alley product
project in Neighborhood R-39,
The alley product proposed for Neighborhood R-39 will provide a better solution than the current
plan, since multi-family traffic travels through a single-family neighborhood under the current SPA
Plan. The proposed amendment will reverse this pattern by having the vehicle trips from the single-
family neighborhood pass by the apartment project to get to Santa Rosa Drive. The alley product
homes will help in sound attenuation from future SR -125 and Olympic Parkway by placing the alley
and garages between the homes and these major transportation corridors,
A community forum was held on August 9, 2001 on both the McMillin Companies and the Otay
Ranch Company SPA One amendments. Notices of the forum were sent to approximately 400
residents of Village Five, At the forum, attended by approximately 30 residents, concerns were
expressed on the elimination of the Village Five Core town square, the increase in the number of
units in the mixed-use project and traffic along Santa Cora A venue north and south of East Palomar
Street (all part ofthe McMillin application). The town square and residential units in the mixed-use
project are discussed in the McMillin staff report (PCM-OI-II), Planning and Engineering
Divisions will review the parking situation along Santa Cora and work to resolve residents concerns.
CONCLUSION:
7
Page 8, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
Staff believes that the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised Tentative Map
application for Village Five are consistent with the approved Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP policies, and recommends approval of the amendments and Revised Tentative Map
subject to the SPA One Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution No, , Exhibit 'B'),
and Revised Tentative Map (C.V.T. 94-068) Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution
No. , Exhibit 'B').
Attachments
1, Locator Map
2. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-04B)
3. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan, and SPA One Zoning District Map and proposed amendments
to the Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; and SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan.
4. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-17)
5. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Draft City Council Resolution No.
6. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Commission Resolution (PCS 01-08)
7. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Draft City Council Resolution No.
8. Disclosure Statement
',I !II i \i'\ \\ '"','U!:I j,,,
f', <ii ],'i"
g
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:~
Meeting Date: 8/22/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-01-17; Request to amend the Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, and to modify the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations within Village
Five,
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
Public Hearing: PCS-OI-08; Request to approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V,T. 96-04B) for Village Five of the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan, Chula Vista Tract 96-04B,
Applicant - The Otay Ranch Company
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to reallocate 422
unused dwelling units authorized by the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for Village
Five and resubdivide 44.5 acres of Village Five in Otay Ranch, The proposed amendment and
tentative map will create two high-density multi-family sites in Neighborhood R-30 and 122 single-
family detached lots in an alley-product in Neighborhood R-39 in Village Five.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has detennined that the
Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously identified, nor
would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any environmental effects previously
identified in FEIR 95-0 I. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary, and none of the
conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections
15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01has been prepared in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which was considered by the Commission
as part ofPCM 01-11, the McMillin Companies Village Five Core amendment to SPA One,
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
. Resolution No, PCM 01-17 recommending the City Council approve an amendment to the
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, adopt the addendum to FEIR 95-0 I and adopt an Ordinance to
modify the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations Zoning District boundaries
within Village Five.
. Resolution No. PCS 01-08 recommending that the City Council approve a Revised
Tentative Subdivision Map for Village Five (C.V.T. 96-04B),
I
Page 2, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION:
In June of 1993, the City Council and Board of Supervisors jointly approved the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan for the 23,OOO-acre Otay Ranch. The GDP authorized
1,263 single-family homes and 1,615 multi-family units for a total of 2,878 dwelling units in
Village Five. In June of 1996, the City Council approved the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan for
Villages One and Five based on a plan submitted by Village Development, a Baldwin Company
subsidiary, Subsequent to the approval of the SPA One Plan, the McMillin Companies became an
owner of portions of SPA One and processed a SPA Amendment to reduce the number of dwelling
units in the Village Five Core. In 1997. both the Otay Ranch Company and the McMillin
Companies processed tentative maps for their ownerships in Village Five. Neither developer
utilized all of the units authorized by the SPA One Plan or the Otay Ranch GDP. Approximately
398 units authorized by the GDP and the 1996 SPA Plan were not utilized in McMillin's 1998
amendment, In 2000, the Otay Ranch Company processed a substantial confonnity request to the
adopted tentative map for their ownership to change the units and lot sizes in the Yellow and Red
Phases oftheir portion of Village Five. This request further reduced the number of units in these
two phases by 112 units. Besides reducing the number of units, the substantial confonnity request
provided a better circulation system with larger lots. Staff found the request in substantial
conformity with the approved tentative map.
The McMillin Companies are currently processing a SPA One amendment, concurrent with this
application, to add 54 units to the mixed-use site in the Village Five core, The Otay Ranch
Company's amendment takes into account those 54 units into the C-3/R-45 site.
1. Site Characteristics
Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are located in the southeastern comer of Village Five. The
neighborhoods have been mass graded to create lots for development under the existing approvals.
The balance of Village Five to the north and west is currently under development with single-
family residences. multi-family development, parkland, community purpose facilities, an
elementary school and other mixed uses, Immediately south of the Project is the future extension
of Olympic Parkway, East Palomar Street and Santa Rosa Drive in Village Five are on the east
side of the project and have been constructed, The Otay Water District's reservoir site is directly
to the north of the Project, A future Residential Promenade street, San Sebastian Avenue, will be
located to the north of the two neighborhoods. The future SR-125 is planned adjacent to the
development to the east.
Santa Rosa Drive connects to East Palomar Street to the south. Access to both Olympic Parkway
and La Media Road are provided from East Palomar Street. The proposed future extension of the
..2
Page 3, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
light rail transit system will eventually travel through the Village Five core in the center median of
East Palomar Street.
2, General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP designated the land within the Otay Valley Parcel for urban villages that are
transit -oriented and pedestrian friendly. The villages have higher densities and mixed-uses in
village cores, which are surrounded by single-family homes in the secondary areas. The GDP
authorized 2.878 dwelling units in Village Five with 1.615 multi-family units located in the
Village Five core. The secondary areas of Village Five contain 1,263 single-family homes outside
of the Village Five core.
Zoning
The Otay Ranch is zoned Planned Community (PC) as are the other master planned communities
such as Sunbow and EastLake. Land development regulations are contained in the Planned
Community District Regulations within each master planned community SPA plan along with a
zoning boundary map designating a zone for each neighborhood. Village Five is designed as an
"urban villagefl (containing mixed-use multi-family housing in a village core). The SPA One Plan
Zoning Districts Map for Village Five are:
. Single-Family Three
. Single-Family Four
. Residential Multi-Family One
. Residential Multi-Family Two
. Community Purpose Facility
. Open SpacelParks
(SF3)
(SF4)
(RMI)
(RM2)
(CPF)
(OSIP-I)
The existing Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are currently designated SF4 and RMI, respectively.
Land Use
Village Five is currently under construction, The McMillin portion for Village Five is basically
built -out under the current SPA Plan, except for the community purpose facility and the mixed-use
sites. The elementary school is under construction and due to open this fall. Cottonwood Park,
the first public neighborhood park in Village Five, is completing the one-year maintenance period
and should be open by late fall. The condominium projects in Neighborhood R-40 and R-46 are
constructed, The Teresina Apartments in R-43 and R-44 were one of the first projects completed in
the Village Five core.
3
"._._, '.__'_'__'_""_'_"___"_"m_'._",__ _____ __._...___.._________"'_,.... _._._. .._~___.._._._
Page 4, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
The Otay Ranch Company portion of Village Five in the Pink, Yellow and Red Phases are under
construction, The Pink phase off Telegraph Canyon Road and Santa Paula A venue in the Village
is complete, and the Yellow phase is under construction with both single-family homes and small
pedestrian parks. The Red phase (formerly Phase 2), containing Neighborhoods R- 30 and R-39,
are vacant but have been mass graded, Neighborhood R-30 was originally approved for 145 small
lot single-family homes and Neighborhood R-39 for a multi-family project of 175 units, The
Substantial Conformity request approved in 2000 provided for 93 units in Neighborhood R-30 and
180 units in R-39,
3. Proposed Plan
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan includes a re-allocation of 422 unused
units previously authorized by the GDP for Village Five in Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 and a
Revised Tentative Subdivision Map for Village Five for these same neighborhoods. The SPA One
Plan amendment proposes to change Neighborhood R-30 from a 93-unit small lot single-family
project to two individual multi-family sites (R-30A and R-30B) with a total of 573 apartment units.
Neighborhood R-39 is proposed to change from a 180 multi-family site to a 122-unit single-family
alley product project. A breakdown of the unused units, as well as the units already designated for
those two neighborhoods is summarized as follows:
Existing SPA Unused SPA Units Proposed SPA Amendment
Units Units
Neighborhood 93 154 Units Allocated Neighborhood R-30A
R-30 Single-Family 247 Multi-Family Units
Units 326 Units Allocated Neighborhood R-30B
326 Multi-Family Units
Neighborhood R- 180 Multi- Decrease of 58 Units Neighborhood R-39
39 Family Units 122 Single-Family Units
Total Units 273 Units 422 Units 695 Units
The reallocation of units to Neighborhood R-30 multi-family site will bring the multi-family unit
count in Village Five to 1,605, still under the overall GDP multi-family allocation of 1,615 for
Village Five, Neighborhood R-30 is proposed as two developments with a residential street,
Geyserville Street, separating them and providing the second access, Access to the R-30A site can
be provided from Santa Rosa Drive, San Sebastian A venue and Geyserville Street, The alley street
serving R-39 can also be used for access to the R-30A site, Access to R-30B is limited to
Geyserville Street due to the entry cottage location on Santa Rosa Drive, Limited access from the
alley could be provided to the R-30B site,
~
Page 5, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
SPA One Village Design Plan
The amendment to the SPA Plan to re-allocate the 422 unused units will also require an amendment
to the SPA One Village Design Plan (YDP). The VDP currently describes in greater detail how the
design requirements for both Neighborhood R-30 and R-39 concepts are to be implemented.
Neighborhood R-30 will be developed as two multi-family sites, Site design criteria for these two
neighborhoods has changed from the original VDP, requiring an update to that document.
Subsequent to the City Council approval of the SPA Plan amendment, the Precise Plan for the
Village Five core will be taken to the Design Review Committee for their review and approval to add
Neighborhood R-30 to the Village Five Core.
SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
The project proposes to delete the private pedestrian park (P-II) from the Plan, This private park
was to serve the small lot single-family project and will be replaced by the common usable open
space in the Neighborhood R-30 multi-family projects. The project requires additional local
parkland obligation as a result of the 422 unused units now being allocated to the two
neighborhoods, The additional parkland will be provided elsewhere in the Applicant's ownership in
Otay Ranch.
In addition to the VDP, the deletion of the private pedestrian park (P-II) requires the SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan be amended to reflect the change, With the proposed
increase in density and the reduction in parkland, the parks agreement between the Otay Ranch
Company, the McMillin Companies and the City will need to be amended. City staff has prepared
SPA One Plan conditions of approval as well as Tentative Map conditions. These conditions will
bring the SPA One Plan and the Project up to current standards, In part, the conditions require the
implementation of new standards and update the parks agreement between the City, the Otay Ranch
Company and the McMillin Companies to reflect the changes in the SPA One Plan proposed by both
developers.
The Project also requires an additional 1.7 acres of Community Purpose Facility (CPF) land
obligation. The additional CPF land will be provided elsewhere in the Applicant's ownership in
Otay Ranch,
SPA One Affordable Housing Plan
The reallocation of the 422 unused units to these neighborhoods will require an amendment to the
SPA One Affordable Housing Plan. The Village Five obligation of low-income units for the
Applicant's ownership has increased from 55 to 76, The Applicant is providing all of their SPA One
ownership's low-income obligation (246 units) in the Village One mixed use "Heritage Town
Center" and has received an additional 98 "credits" as part of that development approval. The
5
Page 6, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
Applicant has satisfied the SPA One obligation and will be transferring the other "credits" elsewhere
in the Applicant's ownership in Otay Ranch,
Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Planned Community District Regulations Amendment
The existing Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 are currently designated SF4 and RMl, respectively, on
the Zoning District map in the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. This map needs
to be amended to reflect the SPA Plan land use changes. Neighborhood R-30 is proposed to be zoned
RM-2, and the alley product in Neighborhood R-39 is proposed to remain RMl, but the boundaries
are modified to reflect the Land Use Plan changes between R-30 and R-39.
Revised Tentative Map
The Revised Tentative Map for the portion of Village Five east of Santa Rosa proposes to subdivide
approximately 44.5 acres into two multi-family lots and 121 single-family lots, four homeowner's
maintenance lots, and nine open space lots, The two multi-family sites (R-30A and R-30B) will be
separated by a local street, Geyserville Street, that will provide the second access to the alley product
neighborhood.
The Tentative Map conditions of approval for Otay Ranch Companies' portion of Village Five have
been updated by staff due to the revised subdivision of the two neighborhoods in the Project. The
proposed conditions update the conditions of approval fDr Chula Vista Tract 96-04,
4, Analysis
The proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised Tentative Map application
for Village Five implements the approved SPA One Land Use Plan and are consistent with prior
approvals including the GDP amendment approved by City Council on November 10, 1998, The
GDP originally authorized 1,615 multi-family units in Village Five. The current approvals for
Village Five only utilized 1,218 multi-family of those original units. The proposed multi-family site
in Neighborhood R-30 is in the Village Five core and within a Y. mile radius of the future trolley
station in the Village Five core on East Palomar Street. A Residential Promenade Street, San
Sebastian, and a local residential street will serve the alley product proposed for Neighborhood R-39,
All public utilities and services have been reviewed, and there is sufficient capacity within each
system to support and serve the proposed amendments. The water, sewer and drainage lines that are
being installed now during the Yellow phase construction are large enough to handle the increase in
density in R-30. Santa Rosa and San Sebastian have sufficient traffic capacity for the increase of
422 units.
While the parks planned in Village Five were based on the reduced SPA Plan amendments, the
increase in density (additional obligation oflocal parkland) can be attached to the Community Park
(p
Page 7, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
requirement for the village and include an increase in park fees. The GDP envisioned that each
village would provide a portion roughly 2/3 of their parkland in neighborhoDd parks and 113 in
Community Parks located in Village Two and 10 and the Eastern Urban Center. The new SPA
conditions require the applicant to amend the existing park agreement between McMillin, Otay
Ranch Company and the City to provide additional parkland in Village Two and pay fees for the
balance. The private pedestrian park P-I I is deleted in the proposed amendment. This 0,8-acre area
will be provided as common useable open space within the multi-family project,
The Planned Community (PC) zone requires each community, or in this case a village, to provide
land for Community Purpose Facilities (CPF), The ordinance requires 1.39 acres for CPF land for
every 1,000 residents of the village. Since all of Village Five is basically developed and the Otay
Ranch Company amendment will add residents to the village, additional CPF land (1.7 acres) will
need to be provided elsewhere within their ownership in the Otay Ranch, A condition of approval
requires this transfer of the CPF requirement.
Since the R-30 neighborhood is within a v.. mile of the transit station, staff recommends the Village
Five core be amended to include this site. The Village Five Core Master Precise Plan will need to be
amended to add this property. The same pedestrian-oriented standards that have been applied to
other multi-family will be applied to these two sites with ground floor units having their front doors
oriented to the street with a porch or strong entry feature. Access to the apartment sites will be
provided from Geyserville Street, a residential street, which will continue into the alley product
project in Neighborhood R-39.
The alley product proposed for Neighborhood R-39 will provide a better solution than the current
plan, since multi-family traffic travels through a single-family neighborhood under the current SPA
Plan, The proposed amendment will reverse this pattern by having the vehicle trips from the single-
family neighborhood pass by the apartment project to get to Santa Rosa Drive, The alley product
homes will help in sound attenuation from future SR-125 and Olympic Parkway by placing the alley
and garages between the homes and these major transportation corridors.
A community forum was held on August 9, 2001 on both the McMillin Companies and the Otay
Ranch Company SPA One amendments, Notices of the forum were sent to approximately 400
residents of Village Five, At the forum, attended by approximately 30 residents, concerns were
expressed on the elimination of the Village Five Core town square, the increase in the number of
units in the mixed-use project and traffic along Santa Cora A venue north and south of East Palomar
Street (all part of the McMillin application). The town square and residential units in the mixed-use
project are discussed in the McMillin staff report (PCM -01- I I ). Planning and Engineering
Divisions will review the parking situation along Santa Cora and work to resolve residents concerns,
CONCLUSION:
7
Page 8, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/01
Staff believes that the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised Tentative Map
application for Village Five are consistent with the approved Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP policies, and recommends approval of the amendments and Revised Tentative Map
subject to the SPA One Conditions of Approval (see Council ResDlution No. , Exhibit '8 '),
and Revised Tentative Map (C,V.T. 94-068) Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution
No, , Exhibit '8'),
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T, 96-04B)
3. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan, and SPA One Zoning District Map and proposed amendments
to the Village Design Plan; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan; and SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan.
4. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-17)
5, Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Draft City Council Resolution No.
6. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Commission Resolution (PCS 01-08)
7. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Draft City Council Resolution No,
8. Disclosure Statement
( PI:\T'<i\I,\(j,Cn .-\ YR\;(II',TFNT ~ \L\f"\' I \\ :-"1l1th_Rt:\i~t:d PC ... TfRPT.dnc
~
~ ~ - ~ YAj~EfF}),~/~~
\::', ~" of) ~~A~~)Q?J~
_.v '\ \\\\ VI/.. ~~~\. ~
\ ~~ [R"'-;1 y:- ~21
------'-".Y ,(\\),~S fill '>-.:~
" A' \ .:. R:,;D\, D--'~ \' R.n r.:::J ~
~ \" :.:: K" \\\\\\\.\. ~,o.c::; I"
,~~ ", ~ ~Tt I
'\3:-8 J \\' ~\ m ,~R"6< ~~ ~ Bm t I
';~ ~ ~ Y\\ ~ ~ ",~'J~
~>:~-"'~ .\ ~ w/ ~\: t ~ ~, '-----=::::r' v
\ ~~d:\1J\M\1~ ~-27.'~J::; ~ ...1"'""1"' r/ ~
~...M{ ~ R,J\ K'\\' V
\ \. -IJ)! ~ t:"J Fu"'~- PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC <"
1,_ ~~ ~ '~L~~ .6S,"g', OTAYWATERDISTRICT / I \,
1\ }. ,~ '1"'.\((\\ ,\ \ \Y_ I-< C ~ II Ii,a;,'y nol a pari
1'0 ~ ~~'O ~ ~t 'r..s,"g"/~rE. =-
I~ < ~ ~ ~ 1(3. ~ ,
. Z \:; MCMILL~ IImfffifi't!.,t~ . //<//J /';'>P
t :; J -r / ELEMENTARY ~ME~O .:1 (//>J~/ . Single
=> I.. I ~ SCHO<;; [Sing,. Fa"'ily F:&-.. </;. / / ~a'J';IJ. >'1
,_''':: ~ I I....... ~, II!'\. t7fJ;:V.> /, / . //~I
"") r-- :: CO};E7D k~;27 / / , ~ ----.J
~ S~~OM1Rsr ~ );;~~~:~. ~ ~
t mulli-family '~<<</ 'V.*'~
l' /&,c,
J TTTTTTri mulli-family VISTA 0"';>;
II' \\\\\\UilllliJ ~ SONRISA Q
It \\'~~~'J.t"="
I~ S~~
, IT;- ~ :::FJ ~
111 ~/
lffi-r() '<....J>-
O~
~
FUTURE
OTAY RANCH
VILLAGE 6
PROJECT
LOCATION
'\
I
~~
,
/
/
'Tj
l::i
~
I~
;~
~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR :~~~'&..~T OTAY PROJECTS, LP PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT Olay Ranch. SPA One ~equest: Revise SPA One and TM 96-04 to allocate
ADDRESS: Village Five .2 unallocated multi-family units to neighborhOodS
SCALE: FilE NUMBER M:-30a&b and R-39.
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-17(b) Related Cases: PCS-01 Oar, 15-01-043
OJ
ATTACHMENT #l
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-01-17
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTA Y RANCH SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN, ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO
FEIR 95-01 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE OTA Y
RANCH SPA ONE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS WITHIN VILLAGE FIVE.
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
96-04B, and is commonly known as Village Five, Red Phase ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan portion
of Otay Ranch Village Five was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department on February 16,2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant");
and
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan including the
SPA One Planned Community District Regulations modifYing the SPA One Zoning District Map;
SPA One Land Use Map; Village Five Land Use Map; SPA One Village Design Plan; SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, and to reflect the
reallocation of 422 unused dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39, IDcated in south east
portion ofOtay Ranch Village Five; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No, 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not
previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any
environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01. Only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA
One Plan FEIR 95-0 1 has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-OI-17) 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
(0
ATTACHMENT #4
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,
August 22,2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the approval of an amendment to Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM-Ol-l7) is consistent with the City ofChula
Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all
other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan amendment (PCM-01-17) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City
Council Resolution No,
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
II
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of August, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
111'1 \'''1'\(, ()I:I\ 1{:IIKh"!',\()!1~' \':; UR( \mend I'CLlkwd"..:
/,2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
FOR VILLAGE FIVE.
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 96-04B, and is commonly known as Village Five, Red Phase
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan portion of Otay Ranch Village One West was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on February 16,2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay
Ranch Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests to amend the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
including the SPA One Planned Community District Regulations modifying the SPA One
Zoning District Map; SPA One Land Use Map; Village Five Land Use Map; SPA One
Village Design Plan; SPA One Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan; SPA One
Affordable Housing Plan, and to reflect the reallocation of 422 unused dwelling units to
Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39, located in the south east portion of Otay Ranch Village
Five; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4, 1996 by Resolution No. ] 8286, wherein the City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch
SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No, 95-0], SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-
0] "), and
, ,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
Project and has detennined that the Project would not result in any new environmental
impacts that were not previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial
increase in severity in any environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-0 I.
Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions
requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental E]R, as identified in Sections
]5162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01has been
prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15]64 identified as Exhibit
"c" in this resolution; and,
13
ATTACHMENT # 5
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-01-17) 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. August 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of
project; and,
the Planning Commission approved the
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment and adopting the ordinance to
modifY the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations for Village
Five; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing held on August 22, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the resolution amending the Otay Ranch SPA
One Plan modifYing the SPA One Plan and supporting documents (SPA One
Land Use Plan; Village Five Land Use Plan; SPA One Village Design Plan; SPA
One Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan; SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan), identified as Exhibit "D", in this resolution, finding it is consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and
implementation,
/v
Resolution No.
Page 3
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
FEIR 95-0 I, would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR
(Guideline 15168 (c )(2)).
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRiOR
EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from
the FEIR 95-0 I which would require revisions of said report; (2) no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project
is undertaken since the previous report; (3) and no new infonnation of substantial
importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of
the prior report; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and
made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City Council
approved the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered
by the FEIR 95-01 (Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)),
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum (Case No. IS-01-43) prepared to Otay
Ranch SPA One EIR 95-01, identified as Exhibit "c" in this resolution reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and
hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 95-01.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND
AL TERNA TlVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR 90-01, and 0tay Ranch
SPA One EIR 95-01.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this
Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the FEIR 95-
o I adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA
(Guideline 15168(e)),
IS--
Resolution No.
Page 4
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following
reasons:
A THE PROPOSED SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENT IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN,
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment reflects
the land uses, circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and
public facility uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan and Chula Vista General Plan,
B. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLAN AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALlZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA,
The SPA One Plan Amendments contain provisions and requirements to
ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) ONE PLAN AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer
adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and
within the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One, 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 plan closely follows all existing
environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay
Ranch SPA One Environmental Impact Report (EIR 95-01),
IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
1ft;
Resolution No.
Page 5
x. APPROVAL OF OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA)
ONE AMENDMENT
The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set
forth in Section VI and Section IX listed above and based upon the findings and
determinations on the record for this Project.
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregDing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further
condition issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
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.
17
Resolution No,
Page 6
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
/5'
,.-....-,....--.
Approved as to form by
John M, Kaheny
City Attorney
'-", "..--... - --,._-~--.__.....__.,- ~_._-----_._.
~ ~ \ 'Y"/:'Ll f- ~ YA f1)~:.t/ ~
~ ~ I-- -----" ~"')~ ~R'J7~~
.J.-:-.,,~. :;;;;-" of) ~ rlL ~~ iv;" ~~
~~ ~f{R'~~~
_ ~ ,\\i\~~\.' 1/1/ '>'~ 8A
l~..../' ~o.-\ ...,.. .)R']~ IT.L1.1ll1Y\ ~\.)<V r'\
I/..../' A \~;3I.--R'~ :t~~\~~X& Ip"o];; I
~ ~\ ~\. ~'m ~ ~ fID..rcn. I h
~ ~ ~\ t-' ~\I< <Yr< ~'L_h I ~"'
\\' (>(.,;J. f-\""\Y ~\' ~ R.J2 ~ V
Y\ DJ- ~ (>; .1\\\ S,\\ \ \ \ \.)M'\ ~ c ?!JjI .
~~~~\\ ??~Q~~~ ~'~~ ~~ _ ----=:::: I; ~
~ ~~ ~'~~ (\" uo~
~ ,\ ,~' ~ . ~~ 1);~~Y'1\'\ PUBLlC/QUASI.PUBLIC
,~ K ~ . ~ 1I!1!f.Jf not a part
I~ : ~ ~ ~~\pfi;s..gl<Fam'r':: .l11J ,
\::: 2 X<I\~ MCMILLIN m8;~ / . //<, /; ;/r/
J:: ~ I ~ :-;:: ELEMENTARY ME-=", ' ,1 ~:.'. .'.'"/ / Single . . . /.i
"\.- ; /~ SCHOOL Singldam,'''.~ . / /'/~~~ / // ~aJ"r, '/j
~.::j_~ _ ~ 111 ~:"./}"l.." . /./ / '/ /.'
"" con;:~,';:~ooo -- r/ /)'~'-f1"J; .
. r-- EA ~"bI'< . MultI> ---........
j STI'6.b.oMAn ;; Fam.ily \ ~
~ f--.J= ST ///// ~ ~
multi:fami/y ~ r------:. <<<"/ ~<"I.,G ~~ ~
I,) multi:family VISTA ,..."')')
11111\ SONRISA ,v.
Ij~ \\\,~~~~ PROJECt
~@JljjjjjjD~ OT~=CH LOCATION
I ~ -.,))/ / VILLAGE 6
"T 1= d \=IT
j!!fJ ~~'
f J.l.Jh- "'- 1>
a"'-l.l.L1.?-:"
\
~
1
~~
,
/
/
.,.,
Ie::
~
I~
I~
r
~
CHUlA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECTS LP PROJECT DESCRIPTION'
C) APPUCAN~ ' . SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT Otay Ranch, SPA One ~~quest: Revise SPA One and TM 96-04 to allocate
ADDRESS: Village Five . unallocated multi-family units to neighborhOodS
SCALE: FilE NUMBER: r=t-30a&b and R-39.
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-17(b) Related Cases: PCS-01-06r, 15-01-043
/'7
Exhibit "B"
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and CDde requirements set forth
below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of Planning
and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the
appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the Applicant shall be
required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the
City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City, Where
fee title-is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be !Tee and clear of all encumbrances,
unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GENERALIPRELIMINARY
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 as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant".
2, The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City ofChula Vista
General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable
Housing Plan; Overall Design Plan; Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan
and supporting documents including: SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan; SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended !Tom time to time, unless specifically
modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, These
plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the
approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
3. Ifany of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their tenns, 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 pennits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to
1
c;2J)
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
4, Applicant shall indemnifY, protect, defend and hold the City hannless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any
or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
5. The Project shall comply with all applicable SPA One conditions of approval, as may be
amended from time to time.
6. :\flY and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a fonn
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The tenns, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent
with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No, 2679 by the City Council on
July 16, 1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
H :\PLANNINGlOtaL Ranch\ V5 _Revised JM _ Phase2A&5 _ Cond.doc
8/6/01 9:57 AM
2
c>2I
ADDENDUM TO OTAY Ro\NCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) I AND ANNEXATION
FINAL SECOND -TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-
EIR-95-01
PROJECT NAME: Otay Ranch SPA I Village 5 Mixed Use Core Amendment (Parce]s
R-45IC-3, & P-8); and Village 5 - Red Phase Amendment (Parcels
R-30 and R-39).
PROJECT LOCATION: Otay Ranch, SPA I, Village 5 Core. Southeast corner of Palomar
Street and the west leg of Santa Cora Avenue;
Otay Ranch, SPA I, Village 5 - Red Phase. Southeast corner of
East Palomar and Santa Rosa Drive.
PROJECT APPLICANT: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC;
The Otay Project, LP
CASE NO.:
IS,OI -35 and IS-01-43
DATE:
July 20, 2001
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Addendum is to discuss minor changes in the arrangement of multi-
family residential densities within the Village Five Core of the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan").
As the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") (Pub, Resources Code, 9 21000 et seq.), the City of Chula Vista ("City")
prepared and conducted an environmental analysis (Final Second Tier EIR 95-01) of the
SPA One Plan, Final EIR 95-01 ("Final EIR") contains a comprehensive disclosure and
analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the
SPA One project, including Villages One and Five of Otay Ranch. The Fina] EIR was
certified and the SPA One Plan was approved by the City Council in 1996.
The Final ErR considered the environmental impacts associated with development of a
total of 2.878 dwelling units in Village 5 of SPA One. Subsequent SPA One Plan
amendments and actual residential development did not utilize (develop) 532 residential
dwelling units approved under the original SPA One Plan. The proposed amendments
would reallocate 476 of those unutilized dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-45/C-3 (54
units), and R,30 and R-39 (422 units). The total unit count would not exceed the number
of units analyzed in the Final EIR. The net effect of the proposed amendments to the
SPA One Plan would be a minor shift in the arrangement and distribution of multi-family
units within Village Five. Table 1, Dlay Ranch Village Five Land Use Comparison
~J-
provides a summ'ary of the proposed changes to unit types and locations within Village
Five. The changes proposed with this amendment are identified with shading,
II. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Sections 15162 through 15164 of the CEQA guidelines discuss a lead agency's
responsibilities in handling new infonnation that was not included in a project's final
environmental impact report (EIR). Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provides:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the City detennines. on
the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of
the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantia] increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. New infonnation of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time the EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration
adopted shows any ofthe following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the [Final] EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the [Final] EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously
found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the [Final]
EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In the event that one of these conditions would require preparation of a subsequent EIR,
but "only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the [Final] EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation," the City could choose instead to
issue a supplement to the Final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, g 15163, subd. (a).)
"J...3,
Page 2
TABLE 1-0TAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE LAND USE COMPARISON
Neighborhood GDP Original SPA SPA Substantial Sub Cont. vs. Final Proposed
10/2811993 06/0411996 2/16/99 Conformance 2/16/99 SPA Maps' SPA Amend.3
R-22 108 MF N/A N/A 86 86
R-23 104 87 N/A N/A 87 87
R-24 104 138 N/A N/A 138 138
R-25 73 73 56 -17 56 56
R-26 78 78 63 -15 63 63
R-27 58 58 69 11 69 69
R-28 82 82 73 -9 73 73
R-30 145 145 93 -52 MF MF
R-31 83 83 85 2 85 85
R-32 113 113 118 5 118 118
R-33 55 55 42 -13 42 42
R-34 40 40 35 -5 35 35
R.35 40 40 36 -4 36 36
R,36 69 69 62 -7 62 62
R-37 66 66 60 -6 60 60
R-38 45 45 43 -2 43 43
R-41 MF 90 N/A N/A 90 90
R-42 MF MF N/A N/A 74 74
Subtotal SF 1,263 1.263 1,262 835 -112 1,217 1.217
R-22 SF 86 N/A
R.29 90 90 83 83 83
R-30a~ Sf SF '. 247
R-30b' Sf SF 326
R-39' 175 182 180 122
R-40 204 201 N/A 198 198
R-41 127 SF NJA SF SF
R-425 241 74 N/A SF SF
R_435 175 240 NJA 240 240
R_445 261 210 N/A 200 200
R-45 (Mixed Use)" 165 18 N/A 72
R-46' 177 117 N/A 117 117
Subtotal MF 1,615 1,615 1,218 263 838 1,605
Total Residential 2,878 2,878 2,480 1,098 2,055 2,822
Notes:
Final Map information provided by City of Chula Vista.
2 Neighborhoods R~30a. R-30b and R-39 are the subject of the revised Village 5 Tentative Map.
3 Proposed SPA Amendment reflects substantial conformity, final maps,
and moving R-22 and R-42 units from MF to SF to correct typo in 2/16/99 document.
, 2/16/99 SPA reflects 1998 McMillin Amendment.
5 Proposed SPA Amendment includes McMillin Village Core Amendment (2001).
r:::J'/
Page 3
Thus the Citv must consider under the standards articulated above whether there will be
, .
previously undisclosed significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity ofpreviousJy disclosed impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, gg15162, 15163 subd, (a).)
As the discussion below demonstrates, the proposed SPA One Plan amendments wilJ
result in no new impacts, or no more severe impacts, than any that were disclosed in the
Final EIR. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to prepare an Addendum pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines, g 15164. That section states that an addendum should include a "brief
explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to g 15162," and
that the explanation needs to be supported by substantial evidence, (CEQA Guidelines, g
.15164, subd. (e).), The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may
simply be anached to the Final EIR. (Ibid; CEQA Guidelines, g 15164, subd. (c)),
In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared the
folJowing Addendum to Final EIR-95-01.
III. PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)
area located east of Interstate 805 (I-80S) in the City of Chula Vista. More specifically,
the proposed amendment areas are within the SPA One Plan area which is comprised of
Villages One, One West and Five. The proposed amendment areas are both located
within the VilJage Five Core (see Figure 1). Village Five is comprised of approximately
493 acres located in the northern portion of the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch
GDP,
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) designates Village Five as an urban
village to be served by a light rail transit system. The Otay Ranch GDP pennits a total of
2,878 dwelJing units, including both single and multi-family units. As an urban village,
the Otay Ranch GDP provides for an approximately 115 acre village core including
commercial uses, an elementary school site, neighborhood parks, Community Purpose
Facilities land uses, and medium high density housing.
Existing major roadways within Village Five include Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay
Lakes Road which fonns the northern boundary, La Media Road which fonns the western
boundary, the future extension of Olympic Parkway which fonns the southern boundary,
and future SR-125 which fonns the eastern boundary. East Palomar Street bisects the
VilJage Five area, connecting Olympic Parkway with La Media Road. East-west access
to the project is provided along Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road. I-80S,
located to the west of the project site, currently provides regional north-south freeway
access. Local interchanges in the project vicinity are at Olympic Parkway, TeJegraph
Canyon Road, and East H Street.
The VilJage Five project area has been mass graded in accordance with the approved SPA
One Plan. associated Tentative Maps, and the City ofChula Vista Grading Ordinance.
cl)
Page 4
Deve]opment has occurred or is in process in the adjacent neighborhoods. In addition,
the required infrastructure, including major backbone streets, are in place.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core site is located at the southeast comer of Palomar Street
and the west leg of Santa Cora Avenue in Village Five, The project site consists of two
lega] parcels, Parcels R-45/C-3, and P-8. Parcel P-8 is a 0,90-acre parcel and R-45/C-3 is
a 2.9-acre parcel for a total of 3.8 acres. The vacant site is relatively flat and has been
previously graded. Existing surrounding land uses include multi-family to the south,
.east and west. Vacant land designated for Community Purpose Faci]ities (CPF) and a
Community Park are located to the north across East Palomar Street.
NeiJ!hborhoods R-30 and R-39
Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 comprise 44.5 acres and are located in the southeastern
portion of Village Five, north ofOJympic Parkway and immediately southeast of the
intersection of Santa Rosa Drive and San Sebastian Avenue, Neighborhood R-3] and the
Otay Water District Parcel, which is not a part of the Otay Ranch GDP, are located
immediately to the north of the site. Neighborhood R-29 and the CPF 5 site are located
immediately to the west. Open space lots, within the Poggi Canyon Creek drainage, form
the southern boundary adjacent to the future Olympic Parkway, Village Six, currently
undeveloped, is located further to the south across the (future) Olympic Parkway. The
community of East]ake is located to the east.
As stated above, the site has been mass graded. The topography is moderately sloping
from the north to the south and southeast. E]evations range from approximately 575 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northwest comer to approximately 500 feet AMSL
in the southwest corner of the site.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approved Otay Ranch GDP, adopted on October 28, ]993 and the original SPA One
Plan, approved on June 4, 1996, assumed a total of 2,878 units within Village Five. The
proposed amendments would reallocate unutilized units to the R-45/C-3 and R-30 and R-
39 neighborhoods for a total of 2,822 units within Village Five. Therefore, the proposed
SP A One Plan amendments would be consistent with the overall densities authorized in
the Otay Ranch GDP and SPA One Plan. Redistributing the units and locating higher
densities in closer proximity to the village core enhances the viability of the village core
and meets the GDP goals and objectives related to pedestrian oriented urban villages
served by light rail transit.
As described above, Village Five has been mass graded with many areas within the
Village already developed, or currently developing. Concurrent with the mass grading of
the Village Five area, the majority ofthe project mitigation measures outlined in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been implemented. For
example, mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources, including the
cttP
Page 5
conveyance of open space to the Preserve, as required by the Otay Ranch Resource
Management Plan (RMP), have already occurred. Therefore, those mitigation measures
would not be applicable to this project.
The following is a brief description of each proposed amendment.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The adopted Village 5 Core Master Precise Plan envisioned a mixed use residential and
commercial project oriented towards a town square public park. The project proposes to
1IIodifY the mix of commercial and residential elements, and utilize a "Main Street"
concept with the mixed-use commercial residential building oriented towards East
Palomar Street. The proposed modifications would create a more pedestrian friendly
transit oriented environment with urban plazas, outdoor seating, and pedestrian linkages
to the planned trail system.
The proposed modifications require amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA I, Village 5
Core Master Precise Plan; Village Design Plan; and Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Master Plan to:
1. Increase the residential density from 18 multi-family dwelling units to 72 multi-
family dwelling units, designed as a mixed use development with commercial on
the ground floor and some of the residential units above.
2. Decrease the commercial land use from approximately 30,000 to 10,000 square
feet.
3. Incorporate an urban plaza design in lieu of a 0.90 acre town square park.
4. Relocate the transit stop approximately 150-feet west of the intersection of East
Palomar Street and the east leg of Santa Cora A venue.
NeiJ(hborhoods R-30 and R-39
The proposed project is an amendment to the SPA One Plan, SPA One Affordable
Housing P1an, SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, Village
Five Design Plan, and Tentative Map (TM) 96-04 for the reallocation of a total of 422
multi-family dwelling units to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39. These units were
approved under the original SPA One Plan but were not utilized by other developing
neighborhoods. Specifically, the proposed amendment to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39
would result in the following:
1. Neighborhood R-30 was previously planned as a small lot single-family project
with 93 dwelling units, This amendment would create two multi-family
neighborhoods (R-30a and R-30b) with 247 multi-family units and 326 multi,
family units, respectively.
dl
Page 6
2. Neighborhood R-39 was previously planned as a muJti-family neighborhood with
180 dwelling units, This amendment creates a neighborhood with 122 multi-
family detached units served by alleys,
3. The P-II private park site, currently within Neighborhood R-30, would be
relocated to a more central location situated to the north of the intersection of
Santa Paula Road and Santa Rosa Drive.
In addition, the project would result in minor modifications to the previously graded site
to accommodate the revised housing types. The units would be accessed from two points
-along Santa Rosa Drive.
V. COMPATIBILITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS
The proposed reallocation of multi-family units would maintain the overall densities
identified in the adopted GDP and SPA One Plan. Specifically, the GDP policies and
SPA One Plan concentrate the higher density residential densities within one-quarter mile
of the Village Core and transit stop. The proposed project would also redesignate Parcel
P-8 from a Park land use to Mixed Use. The proposed project would be required to
provide the parkland obligation in another location within Otay Ranch. Therefore, the
proposed amendments to the SPA One Plan are considered compatible with applicable
zoning and the adopted GDP in the City of Chula Vista,
VI. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL EIR
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached
Environmental Checklist fonn) detennined that the proposed project would not resuJt in
any additional significant environmental effects than those previously covered under
Final EIR-95-0J.
Land Use
The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not involve additional land uses not
previously analyzed in EIR 95-0J. The total residential dwelling unit count proposed
under the SPA Plan Amendments is 2,822 dwelling units which is less than the 2,878
dwelling units analyzed in the original SPA Plan and Final EIR. The redistribution of
dwelling units would not change the analysis and conclusions presented in EIR 95-0J.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The proposed SPA amendments and development of Parcel P-8 and R-45/C-3 as a
mixed-use site would result in a reallocation of 54 residential units and the reduction in
approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial uses. The total unit increase would be
within the maximum number of units planned for Village Five, and would be located
within areas planned for higher density within the village core.
~f
Page 7
Neif!hborhoods R-30 and R-39
In addition to the previously planned 93 units for Neighborhood R-30 and 180 units for
Neighborhood R-39, the proposed SPA One Plan amendment would reallocate 422
dwelling units that have not been utilized within SPA One to these neighborhoods, The
project proposes a multi-family attached unit in Neighborhood R-30 and multi-family
detached unit served by alleys in Neighborhood R-39.
In summary, as shown on Table I, Otay Ranch Village Five Land Use Comparison,
the total dwelling unit count proposed under the proposed SPA One Plan amendments is
'less than the original SPA analyzed in the Final EIR (2,878 units), Single-family
residential units would total 1,217 under the amended SPA, as compared to 1,263 units
proposed and analyzed under the original SPA Plan analyzed in the Final EIR. Multi-
family dwelling units would total 1,605 total units, as compared to the 1,615 dwelling
units proposed and analyzed under the original SPA Plan analyzed in the Final EIR The
proposed reallocation of multi-family units would be in planning areas that would
maintain consistency with the adopted GDP and SPA One Plan. Specifically, the GDP
policies and SPA One Plan concentrate the higher density residential densities within
one-quarter mile of the Village Core and transit stop. The proposed increased densities
within R-30a and 30b would provide for higher densities by proposing multi-family uses
within the one- quarter mile radius instead of single family uses as identified in the
adopted plan. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the SPA would not conflict
with surrounding land uses, since the overall residential character of the proposed uses
would be similar to the adopted plan.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Traffic assessments were conducted for the proposed amendments to Neighborhoods R-
451C-3 and R-30 and R-39. Both of the reports concluded that the overall level of
service, as previously analyzed in the EIR 95-01, would not be changed by the proposed
amendments. The SPA One Plan amendments would not cause any additional impacts to
traffic, and would not require additional mitigation beyond that required in EIR 95-01.
The intersection of Otay Lakes RoadlTelegraph Canyon Road would be impacted either
with or without the proposed amendment, as previously concluded in EIR 95-01. It
should be noted that the major ("backbone") transportation improvements, previously
identified in the Final EIR 95-01 MMRP have been or are currently under construction in
the project vicinity.
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
A trip generation comparison was prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc, on May 4, 2001
to analyze potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed amendment. The trip
generation comparison showed that the proposed amendment to the SPA One Plan
(addition of 54 residential units and reduction in commercial square footage) would result
in 1,656 fewer daily trips, with 69 fewer AM peak hour trips and 105 fewer PM peak
hour trips.
~~
Page 8
Neif!hborhoods R-30 and R-39
A Traffic Assessment was prepared by URSIBRW on July 20, 2001 to assess the
potential impact to traffic and circulation associated with redistributing residential
densities within Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 of Village Five. Overall, the SPA One
Plan amendment to Neighborhoods R-30 and R-39 would generate 2,710 daily trips with
an increase of 217 AM peak hour and 272 PM peak hour trips. The report assessed
roadways and intersections in the vicinity to determine if the increased traffic levels
would result in substantial increased delays or reduced levels of service.
'[he URSIBRW report concludes that the critical intersections for project access,
including La Media Road/East Palomar Street intersection and Village 5 NS (Santa
Paula)/Otay Lakes Road intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of
service, Additionally, intersections associated with access to the site were evaluated. In
particular, San Sebastian AvenuelSanta Rosa Drive, East Palomar Street/Santa Rosa
Drive and Geyserville StreetJSanta Rosa Drive were evaluated and were found to operate
at acceptable levels during both AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, the SPA One Plan
amendment would not cause additional impacts to the surrounding roadway circulation
system, including site access points.
Water Quality and Drainage
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
The extent of the development area proposed under the amendment would be the same as
previously assessed under EIR 95-01. Because the effects of storm water run-off are
based on development area (impervious surface) rather than number of units, the increase
in dwelling units and decrease in commercial square footage on R-45/C-3 would not
change the amount of storm water previously anticipated for the site.
In addition, based on a Drainage Study prepared by Rick Engineering Company dated,
April 2001, the proposed changes in land use for Parcel P-8 from park use to residential
uses will result in an increase of 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), However, the existing 12
inch PVC storm drain has the capacity to carry the additional flow. The City's
Engineering Division has reviewed the aforementioned Drainage Study and concurs with
the findings and conclusions. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in any
additional impacts to drainage beyond those previously identified in EIR 95-01.
Neif!hborhoods R-30 and R-39
Based on a Drainage Assessment, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated May 24,
200 I, the proposed increase in density would result in a negligible change in the drainage
volume and would not have any adverse impacts to Poggi Canyon Creek. The
conclusions of the previous analysis conducted in the "Master Drainage Study for Poggi
Canyon Creek" would remain. The City's Engineering Division has reviewed the report
and concurred with the findings and conclusions.
30
Page 9
The total amount of urban area would not be changed, and the amount of impervious
surfaces represented by the proposed amended plan would not substantially change from
that analyzed in the Final EIR. Water quality issues would also be similar, due to the
similar character and quantity of proposed land uses.
Concurrent with the mass grading in Village Five, the project has complied with the
MMRP mitigation measures regarding payment of "fair share" fees as required by the
SPA One Plan and adherence to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements.
Public Services alld Facilities
R-45/C-3 Mixed Use Core
Water and Sewer: Based on a Water and Sewer Service analysis by PowelI/PBSJ, dated
May 2001, the regional transmission mains planned and approved within Village Five are
sized to accommodate peak hour and maximum day plus fire flow rates to the revised
Village Five Core Area (R-45IC-3). Therefore, the increase in residential density and
decrease in commercial square footage would not affect the analysis previously provided
in EIR 95-01.
Parks: The proposed amendment would result in 54 additional residential units and the
elimination of a 0.9 acre park site (P-S). The project would be required to provide
additional park acreage within Otay Ranch to compensate for the elimination of the P-S
park site as well as the increased residential units. At this time, the additional park
acreage is anticipated to occur within the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) of Otay Ranch. In
addition, as required by Municipal Code Section 17.1 (Parkland Ordinance), park
development fees would be increased to reflect the increase in multi-family units.
Neif!hborhoods R-30 and R-39
Water and Sewer: Based on letter report ITom Dexter Wilson Engineering Inc., dated
May IS, 1001, the regional water facilities being constructed within Village Five are
sufficient to provide domestic and fire protection services to the revised development
areas. Currently, sixteen-inch potable water lines are planned in Olympic Parkway, East
Palomar StTeet, and Santa Rosa Drive and recycled water lines are proposed in East
Palomar Street and Santa Rosa Drive.
In addition, the proposed SPA One Plan amendment will not affect the planned sewer
line design for the Village 5 area. Based on a letter report ITom Dexter Wilson
Engineering, Inc., dated May IS, 2001, the S-inch gravity sewer line in East Palomar
Street has capacity to accommodate the proposed planning change. The design capacity
of the S-inch line is 600 EDUs and the proposed change would generate 555 EDUs.
3(
Page] 0
Parks: The additional 422 multi-family units to be reallocated to Neighborhoods R-30
and R-39 results in a demand for approximately 2.6 acres of local parks (neighborhood
and community parks) beyond that provided in the Otay Ranch Park Agreement. The
project would be required to provide additional park acreage within Otay Ranch to
compensate for the increased residential units. At this time, the additional park acreage is
anticipated to occur within Village Two of Otay Ranch. In addition, as required by
Municipal Code Section 17.1 (Parkland Ordinance), park development fees will be
increased to reflect the increase in multi-family units.
VII. CONCLUSION
The analysis and conclusions presented in the Final EIR are not changed by the proposed
revisions, and preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not warranted.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in
only minor technical changes or additions to the project, and that none of the conditions
for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR , as identified by Sections 15162 and
15163 exist. Therefore, the preparation of this Addendum is appropriate to make the
Final EIR 95-01 adequate under CEQA.
~*c?/r~ r~'
Environmental Review Coordinator
~h/ol
Date /
REFERENCES
Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and Annexation Final Second-Tier
Envirorunemal Impact Report (EIR 95-01), April 1996
Water and Sewer Service. PowellIPBSJ, May 2001
Traffic Analysis. Darnell and Associates, May 4, 2001
Drainage Study. Rick Engineering Company, April 2001
Water and Sewer Analysis. Dexter Wilson Engineering, May 18,2001
Traffic Analysis. URSIBRW. July 20. 2001
Drainage Assessment. Hunsaker and Associates, May 24, 2001
~
Page 11
Case No.IS-01-35;and 15-01-43
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC; and
Otay Ranch PrDject, LP
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
350 W. Ash Street. Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
4. Name of Proposal: Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Village Five Amendments
5. Date of Checklist: July 20, 2001
PoteatiaDy
SipUK:aIIC
1m.."
PoteDtiaUy
Sipificaat
u.....
Mitipled
Lasllul..
SipiftcalU
1m.."
No
1m.."
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
o
o
o
II
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g.. impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
Comments: The proposed amendments would be consistent with the overall densities approved
in the SPA One Plan, and the GDP and SPA Plan policies as evaluated under Fina] EIR 95-0].
See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
33
Page 12
Pot"DtiaUy
PCM"DtiaUy Signif"ICIIDI ..... ....
Sigaif"ICIDI U..... SigalrK:aD( N.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Impact Mit.ipt~ Impact Impact
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 II!!
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 II!!
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 II!!
housing?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not exceed the total multi-family and single
family unit counts compared to the land use assumptions contained in the Final EIR 95-01
analysis of population and housing. Since the proposed amendments represent similar numbers
and types of residential uses, the amendments are anticipated to result in virtually identical
impacts to population and housing as was analyzed for the original SPA Plan in the Final EIR 95-
01.
P01al1ially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or POI.RtiaU,. SipiflC&DI .........
SigDif"ICaDt u..... SigDirlCaDt N.
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigat~ Impact lm..d
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 II!!
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 II!!
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 II!!
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 II!!
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils. 0 0 0 II!!
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 II!!
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 II!!
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:
The Final EIR 95-01 determined that no significant impacts associated with ground
3Y
Page 13
surface rupture (faulting) or liquefaction would occur on the project site. The Final EIR identified
specific mitigation measures for ground shaking, soils, and slope stability that reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures required the submittal of site
specific geoteclmical analysis prepared by a licensed geotechnical consultant. Concurrent with the
mass grading of the site, these mitigation measures have been complied with. As the area of
potential effect for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment will not change, and with compliance
with the Final EIR mitigation measures, the proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
PoteRtiaUy
PotentiaUy Sil,tnifiClDt Less thaD
IV. . WATER. Would the proposal result in: Signifkaat u..... SigDifkallt No
1m.." Mitil..ed 1m.." 1m.."
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 II!I
or the rate and amDunt of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 II!I
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 0 II!I
alteration of surface water quality (e.g..
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 II!I
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 II!I
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 II!I
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 II!I
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 II!I
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 II!I
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 II!I
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not change the extent of development area
(impervious surface) evaluated under the previous water quality and drainage analysis conducted
for the Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
3S'
Page] 4
PotaniaU:"
v. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Puce.baBy Si&:lIiraca.t ..... ....
Sie..mca..1 u..... SipUf"1CII..t N.
Im_ Mitiplrd 1m.." IlQpact
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 l1li
an existing or projected ait quality violatiDn?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 l1li
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 l1li
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectiDnable odors? 0 0 0 l1li
- e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 l1li
non-staUDnary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: As discussed in Section VI. of the Addendum, the proposed amendments would not
result in traffic volumes beyond those previously analyzed in the Final ElR. The traffic analysis
reports concluded that the levels of service at nearby intersections would remain the same, and
access points to the projects would operate at acceptable levels. Therefore, air quality impacts and
mitigation measures would be similar to those previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01,
PotnatiaUy
PoteJItiaUy Siplfic:a..t ..... ....
SipirlCll..1 u..... SipUlC2Dt N.
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would 1m.." Mitigated 1m.." 1m.."
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic cDngestion? 0 0 0 l1li
b) Hazards ID safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 l1li
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 l1li
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 l1li
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 l1li
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 l1li
alternative transportation (e. g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 l1li
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 l1li
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
3&
Page 15
Comments: The propDsed amendments would result in simiJar traffic impacts as were evaluated in
Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section VI. of Addendum.
PoteatiaBy
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would The Potulially SipiflC&lll Lea thall
Sipmc..RI u..... SipificalDI No
proposal resulr in impacTs W: Impad MJUp.... 1m.." Impllct
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 181
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g,. heritage 0 0 0 181
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 181
oak forest. coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 181
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181
t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181
efforts?
Comments: The Final EIR 95-01 identified impacts to biological resources that required
mitigation to reduce impacts to a level less than significant. Since that time, the proposed project
site has been mass graded in accordance with the SPA One Plan, Tentative Map and the City's
grading ordinance and no vegetation remains onsite, With the proposed amendment to the SPA
One Plan, the area of development will not be altered from the previous biological resource
assessment boundary; therefore, the proposed revisions will not result in significant impacts to
biological resources. Conveyance of land into the Preserve for development in SPA One has
already occurred, and the proposed amendment will not require additional conveyance ofland by
the project applicant(s).
PotUliaUy
PoteDtiaU,. Sipiftcant Less than
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. S"IplficaDI Uo.... Sipilkallt No
Would The proposal: 1m.." Mitigated 1m.." 1m.."
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection. will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: There were no impacts identified in Final EIR 95-0 I associated with energy and mineral
resources. The proposed amendments would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR 95-01.
3)
Page 16
IX. HAZARDS. Would rhe proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including. but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
respDnse plan Dr emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
POIentiaU,"
Potentially ~rK:aDI Lastluin
SignifICant U..... SiI;D.irIQ.DI No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
0 0 0 III
Comments: The proposed amendments to the SPA Plan would not result in a change in the type
or character of land uses that would cause any hazards to human health or safety or to the
environment. The proposed changes to the plan include reallocation of residential densities,
which would not result in any impacts related to hazards or hazardous conditions, as previously
concluded under Final ErR 95-01.
PolmtiaUy
X. NOISE. Would rhe proposal resulr in: PolnniaUy Significanl ..........
SipiJic:allt U"'... Signifk.lllt No
lmpod Mitilafed lmpod ImpaCI
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 III
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 III
Comments: Due to the same development area for the proposed SPA One Plan amendment,
construction noise impacts will not change with the proposed amendment. Mass grading of the
site has occurred and the project has complied with the construction noise mitigation measure as
outlined in the Final EIR 95-01. As with the approved SPA One Plan, additional pad grading wi1l
be required and the project applicant sha1l adhere to the MMRP construction noise mitigation for
any additional grading activities required. The proposed plan changes were analyzed for potential
increases in traffic on surrounding roadways. The conclusions of the traffic studies indicate that
localized increases in traffic resulting trom the rea1location ofresidential densities would not be
sufficient to result in any substantia] increases in traffic volumes. As a result, no new impacts to
noise are anticipated to occur with the proposed SPA amendments, and no new mitigation
measures would be required. As previously required, noise barriers would still need to be
provided for units adjacent to roadways with noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL.
3?
Page 17
Pot~!lI.iaUy
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have Pot~lItiaU:r Sigllinca!ll Lesstnll
S'1I:alflCall( u..... SiplflCallt N.
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or Impact Miti,.t~ Impact Impact
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 III
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 III
c) Schools? 0 0 0 III
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 I!II
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 I!II
Comments:
Schools. Implementation of the proposed amendments would result in a slight decrease (1699 vs.
1665) in the overall number of students generated by Village when compared to the previous
analysis. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the previous
EIR, no significant impact to school services will occur with implementation of the proposed SPA
One Plan amendment. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than
were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-0].
Law Enforcement/Fire/EMS. The Final EIR 95-01 identifies the need for police and fire service
in the project area with future development of the SPA One Plan area, The project is within the
boundaries of the public facilities Development Impact Fee program, and therefore will be subject
to the payment of the police and firelEMS fee rates in effect at the time building pennits are
issued. Therefore, no new impacts to law enforcement, fire, or EMS will occur with
implementation of the SPA One Plan amendment.
Library. The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not change the impact analysis perfonned
in the Final EIR. The demand for the 4,876 square feet oflibrary space generated by Village Five
will be satisfied by the 36,758 square foot library planned in the Eastern Urban Center; therefore,
no significant impacts to library services will occur with implementation of the proposed SPA
One PJan amendment. In addition, the payment of Development Impact Fees for library services
at the rate in effect at the time building pennits are issued will further assist in development of
adequate library facilities in the project area. The proposed amendments would not result in any
additional impacts than were previously analyzed in Fina] EIR 95-01.
Integrated Waste Management, The proposed SPA One Plan amendments do not change the
impact analysis prepared for the Final EIR 95-01. The Final EIR states that development ofSP A
One will result in a significant increase in solid waste generation; however, with implementation
of proposed mitigation measures these impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. An
Integrated Waste Management Plan has been prepared for the Otay Ranch GDP area. The plan
has identified the need for solid waste and recycling facilities in the Otay Ranch including
neighborhood recycling dropofffaci]ities, a materials recovery facility, composting facility, and a
facility to collects household hazardous waste. The proposed amendments would not result in any
3)
Page] 8
additional impacts than were previousJy analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below. the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven.
Threshold Standards.
PoIe:atiaU,.
PoIC'DtiaUy S1plfkaDt ""'....
Sir:DificaDt v..... Sipil'ODI N.
Impact Mitigated 1m,." Im~cl
0 0 0 l1li
PotC'DtiaD)'
PotentilDy Siplficaal ""'....
SiiniflCllDt v..... SipifICaDt N.
Impact Milipled 1m,." Impact
a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 l1li
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 determined that this threshold standard will be met
because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and
EMS Master Plan.
Comments: The Final EIR 95-01 identified impacts associated with the overa]] SPA One development
and required mitigation through the payment of Public Facilities fees to reduce impacts tD a level less than
significant. The proposed amendments would be within the total unit count previously analyzed, and
therefore would not affect the previous conclusions of Final EIR 95-01.
PoteutiaU,'
PolnltiaUy ,,-, """baa
SigldficaDt v..... SigDific:aDI N.
1m,." MitiJaled Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 l1li
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of
4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7
minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes
or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Final EIR 95-01 identified impacts associated with the overa]] SPA One development
and required mitigation through the payment of Public Facilities fees to reduce impacts to a level less than
significant. The proposed amendments would be within the total unit count previously analyzed, and
therefore would not affect the previous conclusions of Final EIR 95-01.
POIeotiaUJ
PotC'otiaUy Significaat LessthaD
SipiftcaDt u..... Signif'kaDt N.
1m,." Mitigated 1m,." 1m,."
c) Traffic 0 0 0 l1li
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur
during the peak two hours Df the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of
Y-D
Page 19
1-805 are not 10 operate at a LOS belDw their 1987 LOS, No intersection may reach
LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
Comments: As previously discussed, the propDsed amendments would not result in an increase of
lTaffic volumes and would maintain the levels of service as previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-0 I.
PoIenw.1I1
S"lpmc.at
Im..ct
PoteatiaU,.
Sipif"lc...t
v.....
MitiplN
Lao ....
SipWKaDt
lIapllel
No
Impact
. d) ParkslRecreation
o
o
o
I!I
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: The proposed amendments would result in modifications to the previously planned parks
within Village Five; however, the project would be required tD compensate for any changes to the park
acreage elsewhere in Otay Ranch and would be subject to park acquisition and development fees in effect
at the time building permits are obtained. Therefore, the project would comply with the Parks and
RecreatIOn Threshold.
PoIeDtiaDy
PoteatiaUy Siplficaal Lao "'0
S'lpif"lCUIl Voku Sipificaat No
1m.." Mitipled 1m.." Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 I!I
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase to the development area
(impervious surface) previously evaluated under the Final EIR 95-0 I, and therefore the necessary drainage
improvements previousJy required would be maintained.
PoteadaD,
Pote.tiaU,. SigDifiC&D1 Less lbaa
Sipificalal Voku SignificaDt No
1m.." Mitigated 1m.." 1m.."
f) Sewer 0 0 0 I!I
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase to sewage flows previously
evaluated under the Final EIR 95-0 I, and therefore the necessary improvements previously required
would be maintained.
Y-!
Page 20
PotaltiaU,
Poft.lliaD,. SipirtC8.t Leat....
SipilkllJlt v..... -.. N.
Im.-ct Mitipttd Im.-ct Impact
g) Water 0 0 0 ~
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in an increase in water transmissiDn, treatment or
storage facilities as previously evaluated under the Final ErR 95-0 I, and therefore the necessary
improvements previously required would be maintained.
PotentiaDy
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would PattDtiaU,. SigDirlCllDt Lou....
SigDirKaDI v..... SipirJCaDI N.
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 ~
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 ~
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 ~
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in the need for additional facilities or
improvements beyond that previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section
VI. of Addendum.
PoteatiaUy
PoteDliaU,. SipificaDI Lou ....
Signific.aDI u..... Sipaific;aJll No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impod Mitiaattd Impod Impod
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ~
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 ~
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 ~
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 ~
~~
Page 2J
-----.....-.- ..._~~.._-,---~.-
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
181
o
Comments: The proposed amendment areas have been previously mass graded and no
additional encroachment into steep slope areas would result ITom implementation .of the
amendments. In addition, the proposed amendments would not require any substantial changes to
the grading plans for Village Five. Views of the project area would not be substantially changed
with tl}e proposed amendments, since the visual character of the proposed uses in the locations
identified would not be substantially different ITom those that would result under the adopted
SPA One Plan and Final EIR 95-0]. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional
impacts than were previously analyzed in Fina] EIR 95-0].
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 tD 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?
PoteatiaUy
POIenlbUy Si!:_ifieant Leu....
SignirteaDI UDI<u SipiftCaDI N.
Impact Mitiga.ed 1m.." Impact
0 0 0 181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
181
Comments: The proposed SPA One Plan amendments will not increase the deveJopment area
ITom that which was previously analyzed in Fina] EIR 95-01. All of the archaeological and
historical investigations for the Final EIR were completed in accordance with the guidelines of the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego (Guidelines for the Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act 1991). The cultural resource studies and further testing of
sites detennined that there would be one direct impact to one site of moderate significance that
was considered a significant impact. This identified site is not within the boundaries of the
proposed amendment areas. Further, through the implementation of Fina] EIR MMRP during
mass grading of the site, these impacts have been mitigated through an onsite monitor during
grading activities that have occurred. As the proposed amendment does not alter the area of
potential effect and with the cultural resource mitigation measures in the Final EIR already
<';:3
Page 22
implemented, the proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts than were
previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
PoteatiaU,.
SipI(teaD'
Impact
PotaatiaDy
Sip1ficaat
u.....
MItip."
Les:.;tblla
SipiflCUt
Im_
No
Impact
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
. destruction of paleontological resources?
o
o
o
I!!I
Comments: The Final EIR determined that the project area contains areas of "High Sensitivity"
and "Moderate Sensitivity" for paleontological resources. The Final EIR indicated that
development of the SPA One project would result in massive grading over the entire project site
and that significant impacts would occur to paleontological resources in the areas comprised of
"High'. and "Moderate" sensitivity, This grading activity has been completed and the MMRP
measures complied with. The proposed amendments would not result in any additional impacts
than were previously analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
PoteatiaUy
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: PotentiaU,. SigDiftcaat ..........
SipirlCaDt u..... SigniftCaIU N.
Impo" Mitigated Impo" Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 I!!I
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I!!I
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 I!!I
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed amendment would result in a minor modification to the park acreage
location and quantity. The project would be required to provide adequate park acreage, as approved W1der
the original SPA One Plan and evaluated W1der Final EIR 95-01. See further discussion in Section VI. of
Addendum.
Pote:atiaUy
Sapificaat
Impo"
Pot......,.
Sip.ificaDt
u.....
Mitigaud
...... ....
Sipifiaat
Impo"
No
Impo"
}""VIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
mandatory findings of significance, If an EIR is
needed, rhis secrion should be comp/ered.
a) Does the project have the potential tD degrade
the qualiry 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 communiry, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
y:.. 'f'
o
o
o
I!!I
Page 23
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in significant impacts biological or
archaeological resources.
PocentiaUy
SipiflCllat
Impact
Potenlially
SipifiCIIDt
Ualess
Miti.cal~
Ln5IUD
Sipif.aal
Impact
N.
Impact
b) 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
181
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in cumulative impacts beyond those previously
analyzed in Final EIR 95-01.
PoteatiaUy
SipiflCaDt
1m.."
POIeDtiaUy
Sipil"ICaDt
U.,...
Mitigated
Lessthaa
SipifiCIIDt
1m.."
N.
1m.."
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
181
Comments: The proposed amendments would not result in substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed amendments would not result in substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
XiX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: No additional mitigation measures
beyond those previously identified in Final EIR 95-01 are required for the proposed amendments to
the SPA One Plan.
y)
Page 24
XX. AGREEME~l TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASliRES
By signing the line(s) provided below. the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read.
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review CODrdinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants'
and/or Operator's desire that the Project be heJd in abeyance without approval.
N/A
Printed Name and TitJe of Authorized Representative of
[Propeny Owner's Name]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
N/A
Printed Name and Tit]e of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/C irculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
o Paleontological 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
\/0
Page 25
XXTI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirDtunent, 0
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. 0
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVII~ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects .
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this determination.
JJ;wh%A;J'lr~ ~.
Marilyn K.F, ponseggi I '
Envirorunental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
eh/ oj
, riate
lI7
Page 26
~ ~~t~~k~ . ~.~~'})
\<-\M.~\. '=;:;: /J 'I'i' ~ ~
.\~~ R.JS 61YAP I~
R," ~ ~ r.;;:J;i ~ III "
, ~\.\.f w-n J.lJ.J, . i",
,~~ ~ ~~ ,9: ~u:~ ~ ) ,.
. (VERANpA \ ':r /\ \ ~nJ.Y::: v J\\'iJ: '> ~ ,~- -----:::::::r' .
~I\i ):~, ~~i ~~~) v--:
<1\ .. ~ ~\ \\\\0;\ y );s~~1= Ir1i PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
~l } g ~ '\). \\\'I~ ~ B (Si, ~ I fit c QTAY WAT" D. ISTRlCT .
\~ _ '< I MCMILLIN ~"7>/ r//, ..' '/~/;~ ~
j E ' EL~~~Y ~O fffl r;/~!:>~. ~;.. ~ ~ :, ... ~ f'
III \.. I~' ~ I 1\" - rTYJ ~/~ ~';<//>J' ,<'J i
;9\ffii f!/~I 0 \~I .~
1rn II' 11"" ______ () \. ~ FtITURE ''''
I ~ 1\ \-.i\\D 8= ~SAKfA CORA es VILLAGE SIX '"
'tt- 1\ d W\W '6 PARK /, ~
,I'-~ ,.... ,'::::;s ::--.... / ·
i+I-JJ. \, ""\~,\;; ~.dJJ., " I ,0Y: ,
'i!!/::; '/I: ~ f41/1111 \ \...). ~IROJECT
i:: ~ ~ '\!--';(Ul~I,'" I\~ LOCATION :
~fl!Jh ~ / ·
i );!!lljp \, /'
I~p
FurURE
VILLAGE TWO
~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DE PARTM E NT
LOCATOR PROJECT MCMILLIN COMMUNITIES INC. & PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: OTAY PROJECTS, LP. INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT
ADDRESs:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: !f'~
NORTH No Scale IS-01-035(C)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY
RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR VILLAGE FIVE.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this ordinance is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-04B, and is commonly known as
Village Five, Red Phase ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Planned
Community District Regulations Zoning District Map for Village Five was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on February 16,2001 by Otay Project, LLC, The
Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the modified Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
Zoning District Map is intended to ensure that the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan is prepared in
accordance with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City ofChula
Vista General Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long tenn phased
development of the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the amended
Otay Ranch SPA One area to exist in hannony within the community ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
and Zoning District Map is 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
SPA One Land Use Plan of the amended SPA One Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations
modifies the SPA One Zoning District Map for Village Five to reflect zoning district adjustments to
the Single-Family Four, Open SpacelPark One, Residential Multi-Family One and Residential Multi-
Family Two Zoning Districts located in the south east portion ofOtay Ranch Village Five; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No, 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan refines and implements the land plans,
goals, objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP as adopted by the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista on October, 28,1993, and as amended on May 14, 1996, and November 10, 1998; and,
v-c;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not
previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any
environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01. Only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA
One Plan FEIR 95-01has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
identified as Exhibit "c" in the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Resolution No.
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-01-17) 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.
August 22,2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed,
WHEREAS, by a vote of
approval the project; and,
, the Planning Commission recommended
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment and adopting the ordinance to modify the Otay
Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations for Village Five; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the amended SPA One Plan held on August 22, 2001 and the minutes and
resolutions therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These
documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the
entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
claims.
II. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance to the SPA One Planned Community District
S()
Ordinance No,
Page 3
Regulations modifying the Zoning District Map for Village Five, identified as Exhibit "B" in
this ordinance, 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.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the FEIR 95-01,
would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR [Guideline 15168 (c)(2)];
and
IV. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the FEIR
95-01 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken since the
previous reports; (3) and no new information of substantial importance to the Project has
become available since the issuance and approval of the prior repDrts; and that, therefore, no
new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those
already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation, Therefore, the City
Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered by
the FEIR 95-01 [Guideline 15168(c)(2) and 15162(a)].
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council found that pursuant to Resolution No. that the Addendum
prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 95-0 I identified as Exhibit "c" in the amended Otay
Ranch SPA One Resolution No. reflects the independent judgement of the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista and adopted the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One
EIR 97-03.
VI. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval
all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings adopted in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR 95-01.
VII. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project was
fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the FEIR 95-0 I adequately describes
5"/
Ordinance No.
Page 4
and analyzes this project for the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168(e)].
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A, THE PROPOSED SPA ONE PLAN AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SPA ONE
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS ZONING DISTRICT
MAP FOR VILLAGE FIVE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment modifying the
Otay Ranch SPA One Zoning District Map for Village Five reflects the land uses,
circulation system, open space and recreational uses, and public facility uses
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General
Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan Amendment contain provisions and requirements to ensure the
orderly, phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY,
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to
other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay Ranch
Sectional Planning Area One. 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 plan closely follows all
existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch
SPA One Environmental Impact Report (EIR-95-01),
s~
Ordinance No,
Page 5
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M, Kaheny
City Attorney
S-3
\~N":J ~~ ,d€J~ ~/=JI&~
\/\'t--::: -::;:'c.on ~ ~ ~ R;~~S\
:r::- ., ., ~\): '\ (A ~~ ~~" \"
~~'\L ~~6IN ~,,~
~\\ \f'\\~0 11111/ \\
A' i~~~---I'\ ~'3~",:\ /~'35'T r.Jrff@ ~
~ ~ R.25 P" i\\\\U;}(~~ {jj p.\O Sl)Y' ,."
~ ~~ \ill-Kk .~;g rn:= if I
w: (>I ~ '\\\~~W tr5~ F t
~~ "'.);-r(\~\X\)",; I' ~\- \v~ - . ------: /
i\ 0/ '\M"'\~~\---...-f \\~R.27'~~'Y'" ~~'<)~ /' r--------
\' '< --(\\ N ~0Yj\ '0 ~~, R.3I y-rr\\ \ i ~
1>-: \~:\ "IS ~ J F","~~ ' ,. PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ~ ("""
1._ ~ ~~ WIL. L~'6S,"g/, OTAYWATERDlSTRlCT V \
I~ ~~,\ ~ ~t;-. 1\ ftity not apart
;- ~ ~~1:;.. ~ I? s;~,,:a~~.::'ittJF= ~ "------
~ 2 ~\\\ ~CMILLIN ~,' ~>/,,:j::>;>.~';/ I v "'--
;::: ~~;:-- ,-;: ELEMENTARY ME~O ~ ~..' >>/ ,>'j:<; Sjngle>:~
s: ; I Iii. '-+- SCHOOL s~g~ I/~ ~ :..!Z r/ / I;aJII'J,
I_'J'~I -_........-< ~ ~T"'f; ,"',
COTIONWOOD ,~/ /:~,: ~
1"';1 PARK" / ~ , ---
I..J r-----. E p"b/" , Mull1 ---
1;;1 ASTJ'ALOMAh \ / Famj/y \ ~
).., ~ ~ ///// ~ ~
'~ mul(j-family ~ I --...: ;;;;;;>' /~,(, ~~ ~
j: multi-family VISTA \ ::}."'>>
SONRISA -\
~ ,.~~~ PROJECT
~ 1\ Y@'@fIHijjjl~ OT~~CH LOCATION
I If;. ~~fw J' VILLAGE 6
It Jff/;~ '-~ 7'
'Otq]f;,0,
~
I~
\
"'
,.
,.
'Tj
l::i
~
I~
I;::;
r
----------
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECTS LP PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCAN~ I . SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT Olay Ranch, SPA One ~e~uest: Revise SPA One and TM 96-04 to allocate
ADDRESS: Village Five .2 unallocated multi-family units to neighbol'"hOodS
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER R-30a&b and R-39.
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-17(b) Related Cases: PCS-01-0ar-. 15-01-043
s-y
,e-~
-;;;~
~~
~
~
~
c..
m ~ ~
c
0 I- ~
,.. ,..
'E 'E u.
m m . .
e ~ '\- '\- ~ r1
F & E ~ ~
"3 .
~ ~ "-
,.. ,.. ::; ::; "- "
E E :;; :;; i!> .. ~
. . c "
u. u. E E 0-
m m . . ~ . '"
" " " " E E c
.. 0; E E 8-
c c . . 8 0
in v; II: II: <> 0
"0
c:
Q)
C) ~
Q) M .. ~ N IL I!:
IL U. :; :; a.. U '"
..J '" rn a: a: u 0
l"- e. ... ~
C') '"
...!. C'CI '" ~
- :iE
:c :f
:c -
u
)( o-
W ~
-
~.. II)
;.;::2: i5
..'" J
g~ C)
~~ ~~j c:
.-
N IEB c:
::E ;U 0
!5IN ~ N
I::E ~
a:
'"
..
.. ~
'" 0
O.....ob
.."''''
~..
..!:I~ u
- ~
~ h
.
! i
I ~ ~ ;';t
l' ~ t!-
! 1 III":-i~
df ~ -IIi
S-s
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-OI-08
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE FIVE OF THE OTAY
RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04B.
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
96-04B, and is commonly known as Village Five, Red Phase ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for
the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as "Revised
Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 96-04B", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building Department
of the City ofChula Vista on February 16,2001; and,
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately
44.5 acres located north of Olympic Parkway, northeast of East Palomar Street, east of the Santa
Rosa Drive, and west of the future planned SR-125in Village Five of the Otay Ranch into 121 single-
family residential lots, 2 multi-family lots, 6 private street lots, 12 common lots, and 6 open space
lots for a total of 147 lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993
by Resolution No. 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No. 19253 ("GDP
Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said GDP, relied in part
on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report No. 90-01, SCH
#9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No. 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA
One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, (PCM-01-17), and
said amendment was adopted by the City Council on August 28,2001 by Resolution No.
and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not
previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any
environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01. Only minor technical changes or
50
ATTACHMENT #6
additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to SPA
One Plan FEIR 95-0 I has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
identified as Exhibit "C" in the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Resolution No,
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said "Revised
Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 96-04B" (PCS-OI-OS) 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.
August 22,2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the approval of Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-04B) is consistent with the City ofChula Vista General Plan, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and
that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the
approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-
04B) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
~7
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of August, 2001 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Kevin O'Neil, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
1!1'1.\''';'\I'..;l,' It:]' Ibn.:IH)\;J' _R~lIh:h_( ,\I11P:II1\ \';_Rc'\i~~'J_r\1.I'( RI'-'O.ddL
')6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE FIVE OF THE OTAY
RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 96-04B.
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 96-04B, and is commonly known as Village Five, Red Phase ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application
for the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as
"Revised Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 96-04B", ("Project"), with the Planning and Building
Department of the City ofChula Vista on February 16,2001; and,
WHEREAS, the application requested the approval for the subdivision of approximately
44.5 acres located north of Olympic Parkway, northeast of East Palomar Street, east of the Santa
Rosa Drive, and west of the future planned SR-125 into 122 residential lots, 6 private street lots,
12 common lots, and 6 open space lots for a total of 147 lots; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP") previously approved by the City Council on October
28, 1993 by Resolution No, 17298, and as amended on November 10, 1998 by Resolution No.
19253 ("GDP Resolution") wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
GDP, relied in part on the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Environmental Impact Report
No, 90-01, SCH #9010154 ("Program EIR 90-01"); and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4,
1996 by Resolution No, 18286, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of
said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01 "); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, (PCM-OI-09), and
said amendment was adopted by the City Council on August 28, 2001 by Resolution No.
; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
has determined that the Project would not result in any new environmental impacts that were not
previously identified, nor would the Project result in a substantial increase in severity in any
environmental effects previously identified in FEIR 95-01. Only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, as identified in Sections 15162 and 15163 exist; therefore, an addendum to
SPA One Plan FEIR 95-01has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section
51
ATTACHMENT #7
15164 identified as Exhibit "C" in the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Resolution No.
; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village Five "Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T, 96-04B)" 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.
August 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, by a vote of
the Planning Commission approved the project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on the Project and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, a hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on August 28, 2001
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL finds, determines, and resolves as
follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this project held on August 22, 2001, and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
II. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Program
EIR 90-01, Second-Tier FEIR 95-01, would have no new effects that were not examined
in the preceding Program EIR 90-01, Second-Tier FEIR 95-01, [Guideline 15168 (c)(2));
and,
III. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR EIR
The City Council hereby finds that: (1) there were no changes in the Project from the
Program EIR and the FEIR which would require revisions of said environmental report;
(2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which
the Project is undertaken since the previous environmental report; (3) and no new
(co
infonnation of substantial importance to the Project has become available since the
issuance and approval of the prior environmental report; and that, therefore, no new
effects could occur or no new mitigation measures will be required in addition to those
already in existence and made a condition for Project implementation. Therefore, the City
Council approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered
by the Program EIR and FEIR, and an Addendum has been prepared [Guideline 15168
(c)(2) and 15162 (a)].
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to Otay Ranch SPA One EIR 95-01
reflects the independent judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and
hereby adopts the Addendum to Otay Ranch SPA One ErR 95-01.
V. INCORPORATION OF ALL MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby readopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this
approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in the findings
adopted in the Otay Ranch GDP approval (90-01) and SPA One Plan approval (95-01).
VI. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this Project
was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the GDP EIR (90-01), the
original SPA One Plan EIR (95-01), adequately describes and analyzes this project for
the purposes ofCEQA [Guideline 15168 (e)].
VII, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Otay Ranch Village Five "Revised Tentative Subdivision Map
(C.V.T. 96-04B)" as conditioned, attached as Exhibit "B" to this resolution, hereto for
The Otay Ranch Company ("Otay Project LLC"), is in confonnance with all the various
elements of the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
Sectional Planning Area One Plan as amended, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The Project IS In a planned community that provides multi-family
residential uses and open space. The Project is also consistent with
General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP, and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan policies
related to grading and landfonns.
0/
2, Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public and private improvements required to
serve the subdivision are part of the project description or are conditioned
consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and the Otay
Ranch SPA One Plan. The Applicant shall construct those facilities in
accordance with City and Otay Ranch SPA One Plan standards.
3, Housing
An affordable housing agreement between the City and The Otay Ranch
Company (Master Developer) has been executed and is applicable to
subject Project providing for low and moderate income households.
4, Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Parks, recreation and open space will be conditioned under Tentative Map
conditions to dedicate additional parkland obligation for the Project
elsewhere in Otay Ranch on the Applicant's ownership. Construction of
additional parkland and open space and programmable recreation facilities
are the responsibility of the Applicant,
5, Conservation
The Program EIR and FEIR's addressed the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element of the General Plan and found development of this
site to be consistent with these goals and policies. The Otay Ranch Phase
Two Resource Management Plan requires conveyance of 1.18 acres of
land to the Otay Ranch Preserve for every one-acre of developed land
prior to approval of any Final Map,
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in confonnance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults
have been identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay
Ranch SPA One Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report.
7. Public Safety
All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the
threshold response times for fire and police services.
8. Public Facilities
&2..
The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and
water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also
contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to
provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
9, Noise
The Project may include noise attenuation walls under review in an
acoustic study currently being prepared for the Project. In addition, all
units are required to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code
with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
10. Scenic Highway
The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic
Parkway the only General Plan, GDP/SRP scenic highways adjacent to the
Project.
II. Bicycle Routes
The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes on East Palomar
Street and Olympic Parkway as indicated in the regional circulation
system of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
12. Public Buildings
Public buildings are not proposed on the Project site as part of the
community purpose facility locations. The Project is subject to
appropriate residential fees prior to issuance of building permits.
The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development.
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons:
A. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE FIVE REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP (C,V.T. 96-04B) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTAY
RANCH GDP/SRP, AND OTAY RANCH SPA ONE AMENDMENTS, AND IS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map (C.V.T. 96-04B)
implements the recently approved Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
03
Plan Amendment, and reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space and
recreational uses consistent with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and
Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE, REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP (C.V.T. 96-04B) WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA.
The proposed Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map (C.V,T. 96-04B)
implements the SPA One Plan amendment and SPA One Public Facilities
Financing Plan containing provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly,
phased development of the project.
C. THE PROPOSED OTAY RANCH VILLAGE FIVE, REVISED TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP (C.V.T. 96-04B) IMPLEMENTATION WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer adjacent
to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay
Ranch SPA One. A comprehensive street network serves the Project and provides
for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows all
existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid unacceptable off-site
impacts through the provision of mitigation measures specified in the Otay Ranch
Environmental Impact Report(s).
IX, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
X, APPROVAL OF TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Section VII and Section IX listed above and based upon the findings and detenninations
on the record for this Project.
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenns, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their tenns, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition issuance
of all future building pennits 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.
0'{
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 A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John Kaheny
City Attorney
(p~
~~ \Y,0l::\ I-'-'~ Y.J€j ~ /' 1J})/~il.:;;'~
~ \/\\::=== I-- ~~ ~~'R:3;,~~...s::\
(,'l:"~' ~V""n\n -Af\\\X ,,~~\'~~ ~~
~ e? \.: ~.~ ;." r"R.36 7fJ: w':l
~ '" \ 0\ t:A '\. \Y..tC.--- 1ill1.7'X'
_ A:...> :..--r~ . \J.J, R.J3 JO - ~ UJ.J1't0. x\\ \ill) '\
A \\U~ ~\ \ --1: .~ ,\' WR.35 r:-::-J):.
../\Y ~ K"' ~\\\\ \\ VI ?h..j}j ~,f-::; Y I"
~~~ ~ ~ I
'i3 0-(.y ~~ m ~R.26( \~~~ ~ Eh: t
\\-~ ~ 1'\\ \lJ>~ ~'1l ,~';? cJ ~
~\~ ~~ IV-~~~ \8~~ ~~ ----=:: v
\\\~ 1\~~ ~ ~~~'Y ~~~~ V r-
\ ~ \\\~ ~ -'~ R'3I~f~ /
,'; iM' :\ \ ~ ~... ~ Fu,"~: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC /' \
~ ~ Cf\ :\ \ W WILLOWS, ''] S,"g/' OTAY WATER DISTRICT
-\ ,~ ~vt '\\\\' H""'~ II IJ,a;'iy not apart
~ ,g ~~~ ~\\~ ~t:~,Smg/da~;>i ,=. .
:....; E ~I>' MCM~LIN rT //,' ' /j ~'--;.::;< >/1
~ ~,~/ i= EL~~~~6~RY ~:~;~ ~~)~~, ~;:'j, f7>;';1~~<~;t~ >Jf/' ~
~ .::j ~ tTI',~ 7U;F7(; / / , / :1
"" I )COTT"~;:~OOD /:<k.,d -::;::::;-=r _______v
I~ ~ EAS,~ st P."'~ r;}F~~~ ~~ \ ~ ~
multi-family ~ ---------- I' ~~
~ J ~(,
rnrrd multi-family VISTA ..J,~
\\\\\\ill ~ - . SONRISA 0"-
ij _~ ~\s~~ mtamilY
:2; ,\ \ ~~ *'- r1\'~
f:= ~~ \~
trJ :::i
tf1 r=J~ w
'I!!JJ. J;/7
O~
~~
,
FUTURE
OTAYRANCH
VILLAGE 6
PROJECT
LOCATION
..,
I~
~
I~
IN
v.
\
~
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY PROJECTS LP PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: ' .
REVISED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROJECT Olay Ranch, SPA One
ADDRESS: Village Five Request: Revise SPA One and TM 96-04 to allocate
42.2J,Jnallocated multi-family units to neighborhoOds
SCALE: FILE NUMBER R-30a&b and R-39.
NORTH No Scale PCS-O 1-08r Related Cases: PCM-01-17. 15-01-043
!.ok:,
Exhibit "B"
Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (Red Phase)
(C.V,T.96-04B)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth
below shall be completed prior to the related final map as detennined by the Director of Planning
and Building and the City Engineer (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the
appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the Applicant shall be
required to provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the
City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where
fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances,
unless otherwise excused by the City.
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict
shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
GENERALIPRELIMINARY
I , All of the tenns, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any
or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the tenn "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant" .
2, The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City ofChula Vista
General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase I and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable
Housing Plan; Overall Design Plan; Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan
and supporting documents including: SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan; SPA One
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA One Affordable Housing Plan and the
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan as amended from time to time, unless specifically
modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval ofthe City Manager. These
plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the
approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
3. If any of the tenns, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their tenns, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their tenns, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building pennits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or
seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified 10 days in advance prior to
1
(;:;7
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to
remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless rrom and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising rrom challenges to the
Environmental Impact Report and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any
or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project.
5. The Project shall comply with all applicable SPA One conditions of approval, as may be
amended rrom time to time.
6. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent
with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on
July 16, 1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996.
ENVIRONMENTAL
8. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building,
all applicable environmental mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, subsequent EIR
97-03, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan dated
October, 1998 (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
9, Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the Applicant shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Phase 1 Resource Management Plan (RMP 1), as approved and adopted
by the City Council on October 28, 1993, and Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP2)
as approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended rrom time to time
by the City.
10. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the Applicant shall comply with the Otay Ranch
Resource Preserve Conveyance Plan, as approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996.
II, The Applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, as may be
amended from time to time, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on
October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement").
12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department
ofFish and Game, the California State Water Quality Resources Control Board, the U.S,
Department ofFish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2
Co~
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
13. The following conditions of approval are based upon the project having multiple Final Maps
for the entire subdivision, which shall be referenced hereinafter as "Final 'B' Maps". Unless
otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully
completed to the City's reasonable satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final 'B' Map.
14. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for either parcel R-30A or R-30B, a parcel
map may be submitted upon request of the City Engineer and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
15. Prior to approval of the first final "B" map within the tentative map, and upon the request of
the City Engineer, the developer may submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master
final map ("A" Map) over the portion of the tentative map within each area showing "super
block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing
thereof. Said "A" map shall also show open space lot dedications, the backbone street
dedications and utility easements required to serve the "super block" lots created by this "A"
Map. All "super block" lots created by this "A" Map or parcel map shall have access to a
dedicated public street. A lot line adjustment, if utilized in accordance with City standards
and procedures, shall not be considered the first "A" Map. The "A" Map may contain single-
family residential units.
16. The subsequent development of a multi-family lot which does not require the filing of a "B"
map shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable
conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple-family lots will be required to be
constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring construction of street
improvements under the design review and building issuance permit processes.
17. To the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building, the Applicant shall provide 1.7
acres of Community Purpose Facility land in their ownership in Village Two in order to
fulfill the additional SPA One Community Purpose Facility obligation for the Project.
18, In the event of a filing of a final 'B' map which requires oversizing of the improvements
necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to install all necessary
improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve
such other properties (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances).
DESIGN
19, Any proposed monumentationlsignage shall be consistent with the SPA One Village Design
Plan and shall be reviewed and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and
Building prior to approval of the appropriate final map.
3
G'1
20. Applicant shall provide stop sign controls, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to
the approval of street improvement plans at Santa Rosa Drive and San Sebastian Avenue,
Santa Rosa Drive and Geyserville Street, Geyserville Street and Jamestown Place, Parker
Mountain Court and Jamestown Place, Geyserville Street and Parker Mountain Court.
21. Applicant shall obtain the approval of the City's Fire Marshal for the timing of construction
of all internal streets in the Project.
22. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of City's Fire Department's policy for
Fire Prevention, as may be amended from time to time. In particular, the Applicant shall
provide the following items prior to delivery of combustible materials on any construction
site on the Project:
a. Water supply consisting of fire hydrants as approved and indicated by the Fire
Department during plan check to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Any
temporary water supply source is subject to prior approval by the Fire Marshal; and,
b. Vehicle access consisting of an asphalt or concrete surface, with a minimum standard
width of20 feet designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and the Director of
Public Works; and,
c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The
Department of Public Works and Fire Department may approve temporary street
signs. Locations and identification of temporary street signs shall be subject to
review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Fire Department.
23. All fire hydrant locations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal.
24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the R-30B, Applicant shall provide a 20-foot wide
pedestrian and secondary (emergency) access from the southwest comer ofR-30B to Santa
Rosa Drive. The ultimate location of said access shall be submitted and subject to the review
and approval of the Director of Planning and Building and Fire Marshal.
25. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
privately maintained slopes in excess of25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to
soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one I-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and
appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften
and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed
and subject to the approval ofthe Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the
appropriate final map.
26. A comprehensive fence and wall plan for the Project, indicating color, materials, height and
location shall be reviewed and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and
Building prior to approval of the first final "B" Map for the Project. Materials and color used
4
70
shall be compatible and all walls located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public or
private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or
wrought iron material. Prior to submittal of the fence and wall plan, a revised acoustical
analysis for Neighborhoods R-30A, R-30B and R-39 shall be prepared by the Applicant and
subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building indicating if view
fencing, such as a combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the perimeter of
the Project or at any other lots backing up to East Palomar Street, Olympic Parkway, San
Sebastian Avenue and at the eastern edge ofthe Project adjacent to future State Route 125.
If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the ends of
such streets as detennined by the Director of Planning and Building. View fencing shall be
provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required. Any
combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed 8.5 feet in height. Visible height
shall not exceed 6-feet. The Applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the
maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination walls" which include retaining and free
standing walls. Said detail shall be reviewed and subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning and Building prior to the approval of the first final "B" map. The maximum height
of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding walls,
which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between free standing
and retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8,5 feet.
27. The developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Otay Ranch SPA One,
Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) as may be amended from time to time or as required
by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The
City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to WaITant such a revision.
STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
28. Developer shall dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map
within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the first map for the Project, the
Applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure all street
improvements as required by the PFFP, for each particular phase, as may be amended from
time to time. The Developer shall construct the public improvements and provide security
satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney. The City Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment
and design of improvement construction should conditions change to WaITant such a revision.
29. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the
construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as
identified in the Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP, as may be amended from time to time deemed
necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision, Said improvements shall include, but
not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer,
reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs,
landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants. Street light locations shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
5
71
Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the tentative map, unless
otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the
current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein.
30. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the
installation of the related street improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring at the following intersections:
a. East Palomar and Olympic Parkway
b. East Palomar and Santa Rosa Drive
Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street
improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined
by and upon the request of the City Engineer.
31. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or
higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans.
32, Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, upon the request of and as
determined necessary by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end of temporarily
stubbed streets greater than 150 ft. in length (as measured from the nearest street centerline
intersection.
33. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the
Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near
horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to
comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City of Chula
Vista policies, where a conflict exists, the City ofChula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted
SAG vertical curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at
intersections per AASHTO standards.
34. Waiver Nos, 1 and 2, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are approved,
subject to the provision that the design speed for horizontal and vertical curves on private
streets shall be 25 mph in lieu of 15 mph as provided for in the Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual.
35, Enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the approval of the first final map where the
developer agrees to the following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities within the tentative map boundary
when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said
stops shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the
6
7~
Village Design Plans and subject to the review and approval of the Directors of
Planning and Building and Public Works.
b. Not protest the fonnation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance
the MTDB San Diego Trolley LRT System.
36. The Applicant shall install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, All street trees shall be planted in parkways, or as otherwise
approved by the Director of Planning and Building. Street trees, which have been selected
from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan, shall be
approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. Prior to
the installation of any dry utilities, including but not limited to cable, telephone, gas or
electric lines, Applicant agrees to complete preliminary street improvement plans that show
the location of all future street trees, which will be subject to the review and approval of the
Director of Parks & Recreation and the Director of Planning & Building. Prior to any utility
installation, wood stakes shall be placed by the Applicant on site according to approved
preliminary street tree plans and shall be painted a bright color and labeled as future street
tree location. Applicant further agrees to provide City documentation, acceptable by the
Director of Parks and Recreation and the Director of Planning and Building, that all utility
companies have been given notice that no dry utility line shall be located within five feet of
the wood stake in any direction, Applicant will maintain street tree identification stakes in
location as shown on approved preliminary plans until all dry utilities are in place. The
Applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of
Planning and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. A street
tree improvement plan shall be submitted for review and subject to the approval of the
Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the
second submittal of street improvement plans within the subdivision. Approval of the street
tree improvement plans shall constitute final approval of the selection of street trees for the
street parkways.
37, The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to
meet "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In
the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way, which are
in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting
with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required
by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as detennined by Federal
regulations, only after construction has commenced.
38. Prior to the issuance of any rough grading pennit for the Project, the Applicant shall submit a
study showing that all curb returns for any intersections in excess of 4% located within the
pennit boundaries comply with all "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards at the front
and back of sidewalks.
39, On streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or less in length, the Applicant shall provide a
twenty-foot setback on driveways from property line to garage and sectional roll-up type
7
73
garage doors except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or
approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building,
40. Residential Street Condition 'A' as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the
preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building.
41. The developer shall not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities
crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for
future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this
requirement if the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to
the following:
(i) Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities
within the public right-of-way.
(ii) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert
Service.
(iii) Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area.
The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the
developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations
where private facilities traverse public streets.
42. Street names shall be as on the approved tentative map.
43. The typical cross section of Olympic Parkway including the right-of-way, regional trail, and
meandering sidewalks shall conform to the final Olympic Parkway Master Landscape Plan
by Estrada Land Planning, Inc, as may be amended ITom time to time. The Regional Trail
shall be located on the north side of Olympic Parkway as determined by the Director of
Planning and Building,
44. Alleys openings shall be per San Diego Regional Standard Drawing No. 0-17, or City
approved modifications thereto. Additional requirements may be imposed by the City on
alleys to address specific geometric and other design issues that may arise during the review
ofthe site plan and/or improvements plans for Neighborhood R-39. These requirements shall
include but may not be limited to: minimwn turning radius for alleys, comer chamfers, alley
signage, lighting and unit addressing
8
71
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
45. Stonn drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on
grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public
system or to the point at which stonn water that is collected from public street right-of-way,
public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that
point, the stonn drain system shall be public. An encroachment pennit shall be processed
and approved by the City for private stonn drains within the public right-of-way or within
C.F,D. maintained Open Space lots.
46. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and
hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets.
Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage
structures, pipes and inlets.
47, Prior to the issuance of any grading pennit for the project which impacts off-site property,
the Applicant shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of pennission to grade and drain
signed by the owner( s) of any and all proposed off-site grading. The letter shall clearly state
that the off-site property owner has reviewed the subject grading plan and understands the
scope of work involved to which he/she is granting pennission. The letter shall have an
exhibit attached, initialed by the off-site property owner, which clearly shows the proposed
off-site grading.
48. Stonn drain design shall confonn to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the
Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time.
49. Provide improved all-weather access with H-20 loading to all stonn drain clean-outs or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
50. Provide a setback, as detennined by the City Engineer, between the property lines of the
proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading
adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer will not
approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback.
51. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on
the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building,
52, Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the
structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
9
~
7'1
53, Grant on the appropriate final "B" map a 15 feet minimum drainage and access easement for
stonn drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City
Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
54. Provide runoff detention basins or other facilities approved by the City Engineer to reduce
the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less that the present
100-year frequency runoff.
55. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) pennit requirements for urban runoff
and stonn water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City ofChula Vista pursuant
to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the Applicant shall file a Notice of
Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P .D.E.S.
General Pennit for Stonn Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall
implement a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities, The SWPPP shall include both,construction and post
construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identifY funding
mechanisms for post construction control measures. The developer shall comply with all the
provisions of the N.P.D.E.S. 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. The Applicant
shall design the Project's stonn drains and other drainage facilities to include Best
Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City
Engineer.
56. Prior to the approval of the first final map, or issuance of the first grading pennit for the
Project, whichever occurs earlier, enter into an agreement with the City ofChula Vista, wherein
the Developer agrees to the following:
a. Comply with the requirements of the new Municipal Stonn Water Pennit (Order No.
2001-01) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, including
revision of plans as necessary.
b. Indemnify, and hold hannless 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 the Project, whether the non-
compliance results from any action by the Developer, any agent or employee,
subcontractors, or others. The Developer's 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
10
7~
undergoing approval process, in accordance with Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No.
CAS0108758 Municipal Permit, as determined by the City Engineer,
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.
The above noted agreement shall run with the entire land contained within the Project.
57. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance
equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope
contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees trom perpendicular to the
contours.
58, Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 3:1
gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via
underground storm drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet connected to an
underground storm drain. The Applicant shall ensure that brow channels and ditches
emanating trom and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private
property. Brow ditches and channels trom private property shall not be routed through City
open space unless approved by the City Engineer.
59. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the approval of the Director of Public
Works of any amendment necessary to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the
approved Tentative Map. Prior to issuance of each grading permit for the Project, prepare
and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building of an erosion
and sedimentation control plan,
60. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by open space
district's shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
61. Unless otherwise provided by the Olympic Parkway Financing and Construction Agreement
dated April 20, 1999, prior to issuance of any grading permit for any land that is contained
within the Tentative Map and within the Poggi Canyon Basin, the Applicant shall secure the
required permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). No grading adjacent to the Poggi Canyon shall occur without
prior consultation with the City Mitigation Monitor, and the City Engineer.
62. The maintenance road turnaround at the north side of the Poggi Canyon Channel shall be
relocated, if necessary and upon request as determined by and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
11
77
SEWER
63. All sewer access points shall be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works.
64. Provide sewer access points at all changes of aligmnent of grade unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a
minimum grade of 1 %.
65. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a sewer access points placed in
the center of the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
66. Prior to the approval of the first grading plan for the project, provide an access road with a
minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer access points located outside of a street. The
access roadway shall be provided with minimum 6-inch thick PCC pavement with a
minimum reinforcement of #4 bars at 18 inches each way, but in no case shall the roadway
be designed for less than an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City
Engineer. Sewer lines shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as
possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours.
67. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for
sewer lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
All other easements shall meet City standards for required width.
68. No diversion from the natural boundaries of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin will be allowed
unless approved by the City Engineer. Only temporary diversion may be approved and only
in the event of lack of capacity for the Project in the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer or sewer
facilities farther downstream. Prior to the approval of any diversion by pumping to the
Telegraph Canyon Basin, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to finance
the costs associated with the installation, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and
eventual decommissioning and removal of any required pumping station and connection of
the Project to the Poggi Canyon trunk sewer (when capacity is available), in accordance with
City Council Policy 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy). The Applicant shall
pay the Telegraph Canyon Pumped Flow Sewer DlF prior to the issuance of building pennits
for any dwelling units in the Project pumping to the Telegraph Canyon Basin.
12
77"
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
69. The project shall satisfY the requirements of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO).
The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres oflocal parks
and related improvements per 1,000 per residents. Local parks are comprised of community
parks and neighborhood parks.
70, The Applicant shall agree and acknowledge in writing, prior to the first "A" map and
subsequent to this tentative map, that approval of the Project creates an additional 2.61 acres
of parkland obligation ("Additional Park Land Obligation"). The Applicant's Additional
Park Land Obligation shall be satisfied through the dedication of Community parkland and
the payment of community park improvement fees.
71, Prior to the approval of the first "B" map for the Project, the Applicant shall submit and be
subject to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation, a community park delivery
schedule that demonstrates delivery of the community park within a time frame deemed
reasonable by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
72, The Applicant shall deliver to the City contemporaneously with the first "A" map for the
Project an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for 2.61 acres of real property for Community
Park dedication within the Applicant's property in Village Two in a location acceptable to
the Director of Parks and Recreation, or as otherwise detennined by the Director of Parks
and Recreation,
73. The location of the Additional Parkland Obligation (Community Park) shall be within a
services radius of SPA One as defined in the GDP, and deemed acceptable by the Director of
Parks and Recreation, The Additional Parkland Obligation (Community Park) may
ultimately be aggregated with other parkland, subject to approval by the Director of Parks
and Recreation. Upon request of the Director of Planning and Building, the Applicant shall
amend the Otay Ranch GDP to reflect the actual location of the community park, and any
amendment shall be at the Applicant's expense.
74. Prior to the issuance of the first building pennit for either Neighborhood R-30 or R-39,
whichever occurs first, Applicant shall complete construction of Heritage Park (P-I) in
Village One. "Complete Construction" means that construction of Park P-l has been
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation, but shall be prior to
and shall not include the City's established maintenance period required prior to acceptance
of the park by the City for public use.
75, Within 30 days of approval of this Tentative Map the Applicant shall submit an Amendment
to the Otay Ranch Park Agreement ("Agreement") to the Director of Parks and Recreation to
incorporate these tentative map conditions. The Applicant shall fully cooperate with the City
in the Amendment to the "Agreement" to reflect all applicable current parkland and park
improvement obligations.
13
7Cj
76, Trails/Open Space:
a. All trails shall be bonded/secured and constructed with the approved rough grading,
and connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring development
projects, as detennined by the Director of Parks and Recreation
b. The Applicant shall construct the Regional Trail on the north side of Poggi Canyon
(Olympic Parkway) for the entire length of Olympic Parkway in Village One, and
shall be designed to incorporate the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan by
Estrada Land Planning, Inc. as approved by the City and as amended from time to
time, including the "tree planting nodes" as specified in the Olympic Parkway
Landscape Master Plan, The Regional Trail shall meander away from the curb as
much as possible avoiding the "tree planting nodes". Ifretaining walls are necessary,
they should be kept to a minimum and/or if a grading solution can be found, retaining
walls will not be used to gain additional space for the street corridor. The retaining
walls are to be located and detailed on the Grading Plans for Olympic Parkway
and/or the Poggi Canyon Drainage Channel, and subject to the approval of the
Directors of Planning and Building and Public Works. Slopes gradients may be
increased to the maximum pennitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to
accommodate the "tree planting nodes" and maintenance access ways. Landfonn
grading policies shall be observed. If a combination of low retaining walls and
modified landfonn grading cannot accommodate "tree planting nodes" and
maintenance access areas, the top of slope shall be adjusted as necessary.
g, Prior to the installation of the Regional Trail, install a fence along those portions of
the proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are
proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shall be
erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the nonnal
channel maintenance, The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the
fence details shall be as detennined by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and
Recreation.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
77, Prior to the approval of the first final "B" Map, the developer shall:
a. Submit and obtain approval of a revised Otay Ranch SPA One Maintenance
Responsibility Map from the Director of Planning and Building, which shall include
delineation of private and public streets.
b, Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and
Building prior to approval of the first "B" Map of the fonnation of a Master
Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to
the City Manager. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those
14
~o
_._.._._.____ . -- '+-+-"P-'-- ._.~. ,___._
landscaping improvements that are not to be included in the proposed Open Space
District. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require
that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the Open Space District.
The final determination of which improvements are to be included in the Open Space
District and those to be maintained by the MHOA shall be made during the Open
Space District Proceedings. The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of
future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning
and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA
formation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney.
78. Prior to the approval of the first map within the Project, the Applicant shall offer for
dedication in fee interest to the City, all numbered open space lots shown on the tentative
map. Execute and record an irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest for each of the lots
to be maintained by the City through the open space district.
79. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the
owners, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost.
Developer shall submit the document and obtain the approval of the City Engineer and
Director of Planning and Building prior to distribution through escrow.
80. For any open space lot within the project for which a rough grading permit has been issued
prior to the approved Landscape and Irrigation plans for such lot, security shall be provided
prior to issuance of the rough grading permit, and to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building, City Engineer, City Attorney and Director of Parks and Recreation.
81. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the
length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured ITom face-of-wall to
beginning of slope. Said area shall be as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of
Planning and Building.
82. Ensure that all buyers of lots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the
open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are
aware that the walls are on City property and that they shall not modify or supplement the
wall or encroach onto City property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the
CC&R's for each lot.
83, The developer agrees to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone
for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within or
adjacent to the subject subdivision.
84, Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L&I)
improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the Community
Facility District (CFD), the developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will
guarantee the maintenance of the L&I improvements until the City accepts said
improvements. In the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as
15
~(
determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation, the deposit shall
be used to perform the maintenance. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the
estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six
months, ("Minimum Deposit Amount"), as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused
portion of said deposit may be incorporated into the CFD' s Reserve Account, or returned to
the Developer, according to the following:
a. If, six months prior to the scheduled date of acceptance of Landscape and Irrigation
improvements for maintenance by the CFD, the Reserve Account is less than the
Minimum Deposit Amount, the difference between these two amounts shall be
incorporated into the Reserve Account, or;
b. If the Reserve Account is at or above the Minimum Deposit Amount, the unused
portion of the deposit may be returned to the Developer in 6 equal monthly
increments over the last six month's of the maintenance period if the maintenance is
being accomplished to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
UTILITIES
85. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form ofa letter from Otay Water District that
the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities,
86. AIl utilities within the subdivision shaIl be underground in accordance with the Municipal
Code. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Sempra Energy,
Pacific Bell and/or similar entities and cable service providers that electrical, telephone and
cable service distribution facilities within the subdivision will be underground.
EASEMENTS
87. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage
of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
88, Indicate on all appropriate "B" Maps a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners
Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City
Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary
for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer
shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers,
maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject
subdivision.
89, Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on
any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as
directed by the City Engineer.
16
<6,)..
90. Grant to City on all appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and
side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district The
locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Planning and Building
and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls.
91, Storm drain easements shall be private unless the storm drain systems therein are public.
92. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements
shall be delineated separately on the final map and on the grading and improvement plans. If
any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to
the common portion of the easements.
93. Prior to the approval of each final map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or
the subordination of any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and
complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way.
94, The developer shall notifY the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by
City if any off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of
approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the
Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.)
After said notification, the developer shall:
a, Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way and/or easements required by the
Conditions of Approval of the tentative map.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way and/or
easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer.
c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals
complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as
determined by the City Attorney.
d, Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way,
easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final
map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said
acquisition.
The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of
the first Final "B" Map.
17
<63
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
95. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map,
where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of
the following occur:
(i). Regional development threshold limits set by the Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached or in order to
have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program, as may be
amended from time to time.
(ii). Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance,
(iii). The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to the
satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing
and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected, In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City's
Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director.
b. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense.
c. To ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are
permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to
each lot within the subdivision. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may
grant access to cable companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place
conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall
restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who
are, and remain in compliance with, all other rules, regulations, ordinances and
procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as
same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City ofChula Vista.
d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should
18
g'f
the Developer be detennined by the City to be in breach of any of the tenns of the
Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide
the Developer of notice of such detennination and allow the Developer reasonable
time to cure said breach
e. Hold the City hannless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
96. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B"
Map, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted
by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the fonnation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities.
97, The Applicant shall comply with all previous Agreements as they pertain to the tentative
map.
MISCELLANEOUS
98. Within thirty (30) days of the City Council approval of these map conditions, or prior to the
submittal of the first final map for the project, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall
submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved fonn, The drawing
projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The
digital file shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or
ArcView (GIS) fonnat and shall contain the following individual layers:
a. Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (poly lines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
The digital drawing file shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital
Submittal on 3 Y:," disks, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
99. Submit copies of all final maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital fonnat. The
drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6).
The digital file of the final maps shall combine all map sheets into a single CADD drawing,
in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) fonnat and shall contain the following individual layers:
a Subdivision Boundary (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
19
~~
c. Street Centerlines (polylines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
The final map, grading plan and improvement plan digital files shall also conform to the City
ofChula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore, The digital drawing files shall be
submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 'i1" disks, as an
e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
I 00, Tie the boundary ofthe subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (1983).
101. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the
CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and as they may be amended
from time to time, the Applicant shall complete the following: (I) Fund the preparation of an
annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual
monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services
governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first
fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second
quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted
on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2) Prepare a five year development phasing
forecast identifYing targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPA's and
tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the
adopted threshold standards, and identifYing financing options for necessary facilities.
102, The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate
the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City ofChula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure
consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project
manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not
limited to land use planning and architecture.
103, If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map
but prior to recordation of the applicable final "8" Map, they may do so by obtaining the
required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the
City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do
not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "8" Map and improvement
plans) will be approved, All work performed by the developer prior to approval of the
applicable "8" Map shall be at the developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the
developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "8" Map and
improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under
such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other
security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the
rehabilitation of the land ifthe applicable final "8" Map does not record.
20
~0
-"".-.....--.- --_....----- .,------ --...-...--..-,----. --.-- ,- .---'''.,.---.---.-..---.--
PHASING
104. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the
developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and
Building. The City reserves the fight to require said improvements, facilities and/or
dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may,
at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions
change to warrant such a revision. The developer agrees that the City Engineer may change
the timing of construction of the public facilities.
105. The Public Facility Finance Plan and all revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and
tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to
meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility
phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One,
actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP. Neither the
PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as
assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those
identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements
and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility
improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which
improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by
the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revision. The Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP, at the
Applicant's expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, shall be updated no later
than six (6) months after the approval of a PFFP for the EastLake III GDP Area, and the
conclusions of such update~ including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing
for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all
subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps. Developer agrees that
the City Engineer may change the timing of construction of the public facilities.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
106. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the
Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
23.
107. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
108. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, as may be
amended from time to time:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees.
d. Interim SR-125 impact fee.
e. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
109. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water
Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation
to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
110. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments"
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments.
Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval.
III. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within
open spaces.
112. The Applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City ofChula Vista Landscape Manual.
113. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned
Community District Regulations.
114. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth
Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is
not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation
(19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100).
The Applicant acknowledges that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth
Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions
necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particularly traffic) prior
to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a
proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the
22
~g-
Applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted amendments to the Growth Management
Ordinance.
115. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as
defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residential development, plans shall
clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided within the
subdivision.
GUARDED AREAS
116. Guarded entrances shall not have physical barriers. Guarded entrances shall be staffed from
dusk until dawn, unless the MHOA or the Applicant determines it is economically
impractical. Physical barriers shall be prohibited at the entrances to guarded areas unless
specifically approved by City Council.
117. Parks located within guarded areas shall not receive park credit.
118. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as private. Design of said streets shall
meet the City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the tentative map.
119. All private streets within Final "B" Maps shall be included in separate lots. The Applicant
shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private
street lots on the appropriate Final "B" Map. All private streets shall be owned as an equal
and undivided interest by each subsequent property within the subdivision.
120. Guarded entrances shall:
a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without interrupting traffic
on public streets.
c. Provide a turn-around. The size and location of said turn-around shall be approved
by the City Engineer.
d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and private streets through the use
of distinctive pavements.
e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant to be shown on appropriate
grading and/or improvement plans, which is to be retained as a parking space for so
long as the guarded entrance is retained.
f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and exiting vehicles.
23
<6,
. _ .'._........._.,_,._.._.._..._... ~~._.__.~ .m_.._~___,__~._._. _._ "___~'_' _ _....____
121. Establish Homeowners Associations (HOA) to provide for the maintenance of private open
space lots, slope areas, landscape and irrigation and walls within each subdivision prior to the
approval of the associated final "B" maps. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of
Planning and Building and the City Engineer of the proposed CC&R's for each subdivision
prior to the approval of the corresponding final map.
122. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. The CC&R's shall also
include language which states that any proposal by the HOA to allow "speed bumps" in the
future shall require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners Association
members.
123. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all facilities within the
common areas and streets behind the guarded entrance. The facilities to be maintained
include, but are not limited to: pavements, sidewalks, street trees, street lights including
power supply, street sweeping, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common
areas. The only facilities, which will be maintained by the City are mainline sewers and
public concrete drainage facilities (i.e., pipes, inlets, clean-outs and catch basins).
H:\PLANNINGIOtay _ Ranchl V 5_ Revised JM ]hase2A&5 _ Cond.doc
8/13/0111:lOAM
24
10
~
- THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
PurSUanlto Counc.iI Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon mailers which will require disc.rc.tionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all othc.r official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chub Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the applicatio;" or the
contnlct, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Otav PTo-'jp-et: T..P.
2. If any person* identified pursuant 10 (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
Jim Baldwin
AI Baldwin
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or 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. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this mailer?
Jim Ba1dwin 'lfcnfo lI.~et:J
Al Baldwin Ranie HuntpT
Kim Kilkenny Chuck Cater
5. Has any person* associated with this conttact had any financial dealings with an official" of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes No~
i ( ATTACHMENT #8
.,
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official,;* may have in this contract?
6.
Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? No ~ Yes ~ If yes, which Council member? .
7.
Have you or any member of your governing board (I.e. Corporate Board of DirectorslExecutives, non-profit Board
of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the pa~ four (4) years to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? Yes_ No~
If Yes, which COW1cil member?
8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an offlciald C)f the City of Chula Vista in
the past twelve (12) months? (I1Us includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No-X-
If Yes, which official" and what was the ilature of item provided?
Date:
2/i~;;'1
.
c~ .
Signa of Contractorl Applicant
/?'1t'4A(,(j'$" I!gr~ .
Print or type name of .Contractorl Applicanl..-
.
Person is deImcd as: any individual, firm, co-putneDhip, joWl venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
carporatian. est3LC, 1IUSt, receiver, syndicatc, aJJY other caUllty, city, municipality, disuict, or other' political subdivisioD, -or
any other group or combination acting as a unit.
+.
Official includes, but is not limited ta; Mayor. Council member, PlaDDing Commissioner, Member of a board. cammission.
or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADM!N\CONTRAC1\STU.5200.23 (Boaer MiD!
~d-
Page 8, Item_
Meeting Date 8/22/0 I
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the amendments to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and Revised Tentative Map
application for Village Five are consistent with the approved Otay Ranch SPA One Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP policies, and recommends approval of the amendments and Revised Tentative Map
subject to the SPA One Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution No. , Exhibit 'B'),
and Revised Tentative Map (C.V.T. 94-068) Conditions of Approval (see Council Resolution
No. , Exhibit 'B').
Attachments
] . Locator Map
2. Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-04B)
3. Proposed Otay Ranch SPA One Land Use Plan, and SPA One Zoning District Map and proposed amendments
to the Village Design Plan; Parks. Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan: and SPA One Affordable
Housing Plan.
4. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-17)
5. Otay Ranch SPA One Amendment Draft City Council Resolution No.
6. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Commission Resolution (PCS 01-08)
7. Otay Ranch Village Five Revised Tentative Map Planning Draft City Council Resolution No.
8. Disclosure Statement
l P1A:-..:,r\(1 () 1..\ YI\.1\CII TfI\T_\I.-\P V] \\ ~(HIl!l_R~\ j"cd PC .....lTRPT.d\h..
'13