HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2006/05/10
-
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
ACTION AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Of the City of Chula Vista, California
City Hall
New Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
-
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madrid, Felber, Bensoussan, Nordstrom, Tripp
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
Continued to
May 31, 2006
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
Recommend
Denial
(5-0)
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
Approved
(4-1)
PCC 06-62; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
permit the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol
associated with a 3,200 sf restaurant within the Eastlake
Village Walk commercial center at the northwest corner
of Eastlake Parkway and Miller Drive.
PCZ OS-03/PCS 04-06; Consideration of the following:
a. Rezone with Precise Plan Modifying District to
change to eastern 200 feet of project site from R1 to
R1 P6 along with Precise Plan development
standards.
b. Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 2.06 acre project
site located at 160 North Del Mar into 12 residential
lots and one common lot in order to allow a planned
residential development. Villas Del Mar, LLC.
(Legislative)
PCC 06-30; Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow three detached units (single -family) on a single lot
located at 46 Madison Avenue in the R3 (Multi-Family
Residential Zone). (Quasi-Judicial)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~
Meeting Date: 5/10/2006
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC-06-30 consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow three detached units (single family) on a single lot located at 46
Madison Avenue in the R3 (Multi Family Residential) zone. Flo-Grove LLC
The Applicant, Flo-Grove LLC, submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to
allow three detached (single family) units on a parcel located in the R3 (multi-family) zone.
Because the units being requested are detached (versus attached) the Municipal Code requires
approval of a CUP.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project qualifies for a
Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small
structures) of the State CEQA guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-06-30 to allow
the construction of detached units on subject parcel, subject to conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Background
On March 6,2006, the Design Review Committee (DRC) considered the proposed project under
preliminary review. Other than a couple of minor changes to the design itself, the committee did not
have any concerns with the site layout proposed. This includes a request to reduce the rear yard
setback from 15 feet to 10 feet as allowed by Section 19.28.070(2) of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code. The project will need to go back to the DRC for a hearing.
2. Project Setting
The project site is a relatively level 10,329 s.f. parcel located on the west side of Madison Avenue
between Chula Vista Street and Sea Vale Street in the northwest quadrant of the City The site is
currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include a combination of single and two-story structures
both attached and detached.
3. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The project is zoned R3 (Multi-Family), and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of ommercial.
The following table specifies the existing land uses surrounding the parcel:
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Page 2 I Item:
Meeting Date: 5/10/2006
General Plan
Zoning
Current Land Use
Med-High Res.
Med-High Res.
Med-High Res.
Med-High Res.
Med-High Res.
R3(Multi-Family Residential Vacant
R3 (Multi-Family Residential) Multi-Family
R3 (Multi-Family Residential) Detached Residential
R3 (Multi-Family Residential) Attach/detached Residential
R3 (Multi-Family Residential) Detached Residential
4. Project Description
The project is to allow for the construction ofthree detached (single family) units on a single parcel
located in the R3 (multi-family) zone.
5. Project Data Table
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Current Zonin :
Land Use Desi ation:
Lot Area:
REQUIRED/ALLOWED:
Parking: 6 spaces
(2 spaces per unit)
570-131-05
R3 Multi-Famil Residential)
Med-Hi Residential
10,329 s . ft.
PROPOSED:
Standard Spaces: 6
Compact Spaces: 0
Disabled: 0
Total: 6
Lot covera e: 34%
10% of the total is allowed for com
Lot Covera e: 50%
Setback:
Front Yard:
Rear Yard:
Side Yard:
15 feet (to building)
15 feet*
5 feet
15 feet (to building)
10 feet*
10/5 feet
Buildin Hei ht: 2 Y2 stories; 28 feet maximum 2 stories; 25 ft 6 in
*In those cases where the rear yard abuts an R3 zone, the Design Review Committee may
grant up to a 10- foot reduction in the rear yard setback; provided, it is found that the affected
open space has been transferred to a more beneficial location on the lot.
6. Staff Analysis
In general, the Municipal Code discourages the allowance of detached units within the R3
(Multi Family) zoned district since they typically do not allow the amount of density called
for on the General Plan to be achieved. This is why a Conditional Use Permit is required in
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 5/10/2006
order to allow for detached units on a case by case basis and with required findings. In this
particular case, the General Plan calls for Medium High Density Residential (11-18 dulac).
Given the size of the lot (.24 acres) this would allow a maximum of four units if all other
development standards could be met. In this case, due to the small size of the lot, the
applicant is only asking for one unit less than what would potentially be allowed under the
General Plan if attached units were proposed. Had the lot been larger in size, the difference
between the allowable attached (versus detached) units could be more significant and
potentially have a negative effect on meeting the goals of the General Plan.
The site is surrounded on all sides by residential development. Although all of the
surrounding properties are zoned R3 (multi-family residential), existing development
consists of a combination of both one and two story structures which are both attached and
detached. Due to this mixture of development type, the proposed detached units will blend
in well with existing surrounding development. The two story detached structures are being
placed near the northern property line, closest to existing two story attached units. The
southern portion of the project will contain the roadway portion ofthe project, which will be
closes to existing single story detached structures to the south and west.
Although the required side yard setbacks are 5 feet, at the request of staff, the applicant has
revised their plan to show aID feet setback from the edge of the building (Unit 3) to the
south property line. This revision provides both more room for vehicular maneuvering and
addresses neighbors concern about distance between the proposed structure and their
property directly to the south.
In addition, while the standard required rear yard setback is 15 feet, staff will be
recommending (Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.28.070) that the DRC allow the
applicants requested reduction to 10 feet based upon the findings that doing so will provide
better accessibility to open space and will provide better vehicular access to the rear
building.
Conclusion
The project is consistent with the goals and policies ofthe General Plan and associated documents.
Based on the preceding information in this report, staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve PCC 06-30 subject to the findings and conditions listed in the attached Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Resolution PCC-06-30
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Project Plans
J :\Planning\Case Files\-06 (FY 05-06)\PCC\PCC-06-30\Public Hearing\Staff ReportslPC
-
l)
LOCATOR
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-06-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR 3
DETACHED UNITS TO BE CONSTURCTED AT 46
MADISON AVENUE WITHIN THE R3 (MULTI FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on November 16,2005, Flo Grove LLC, filed a duly verified application for a
Conditional Use Permit (PCC-06-050) ("Project") to allow the construction on detached units at 46
Madison Avenue ("Project Site") in the R3 (Multi Family Residential) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed
project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction or
conversion of small structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental
review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and place as
advertised on May 10, 2006, at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the Planning Commission ofthe City ofChula Vista to receive the recommendation of City staff and
to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves
Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-30 in accordance with the findings contained in this Resolution.
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or
facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The proposed project consists of 3 detached units whose density is consistent with that allowed
under the General Plan. The use of detached units will provide both an alternative housing
type within the multi-family zone for residents who prefer separation from adjacent units as
well as private yards and other amenities more typical of single- family residences. In addition,
the proposed type of development and its proposed placement on the site provides for a
blending of the surrounding development, which consists of a mixture of both attached and
detached structures with heights ranging from one to two stories.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed project will provide all necessary on-site amenities, including parking, so as not
to cause any negative impact to the surrounding area. In addition, the applicant has taken into
consideration the land uses immediately surrounding the project site in determining the best
placement of units on the site. In order to minimize impact to surrounding development, units 1
and 2 are arranged in a linear fashion toward the northern portion ofthe site, adjacent to two
story apartments on the site immediately to the north. This allows the driveway area to be
located closest to the parcel to the south, which consists of one story detached structures.
Finally, the rear unit (Unit 3) is proposed to have an additional five-foot separation (beyond
what is required) in order to eliminate any negative impact to the single-family residence
located on a parcel directly south of this unit.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
code for such use.
The project is subject to all applicable restrictions contained in the Chula Vista Municipal
Code.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
Granting approval of this project will not adversely affect the City's General Plan, as it only it
proposes one unit less than the maximum allowed based upon the density allowance.
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission ofthe City of Chula Vista
hereby grants Conditional Use Permit PCC-06-30 subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions shall be incorporated into the plan by the applicant prior to issuance
of building permits for this project:
Planning Division
A. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction ofthe Director of Planning and
Building:
1. The detached single family units shall be developed and maintained in accordance
with the site plan submitted with the conditional use permit and approved May 10,
2006.
2. The applicant shall successfully have obtained approval ofDRC-06-38 by the Design
Review Committee.
Building Division
B. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Building Official:
1. Submit building plans and required fees per the following Building Division
requirements:
Page 2
a. Building permits are required per 2001 Ca. Building Code (CBC), Ca.
Mechanical Code, Ca. Plumbing Code, and Ca. Handicapped Accessibility
requirements (SB 1 025), 2004 Ca. Electrical Code, and 2005 Ca. Energy
Code. Seismic Zone 4, wind speed 70 mph exposure.
b. Submit architectural plans for building permit review that are stamped and
signed by a licensed architect. Plans shall include a site plan and building
elevations that are consistent with DRC approval.
c. Structural plans and calculations must be stamped and signed by a California
Registered Civil/Structural Engineer.
City Engineer
C. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
1. The following fees will be required based on the final building plans submitted:
a) Sewer Connection and Capacities fees
b) Development Impact Fees
c) Traffic Signal Fees
2. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from the Engineering Department
to perform the following work in the City's right-of-way:
a) Sewer lateral connections to existing public utilities. The Public Works
Operations Sewer Section will need to inspect any existing sewer laterals to
remain and determine if they require replacement. Any proposed sewer
should be shown.
b) Construction of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the proposed project's
frontage to replace broken or cracked concrete and to meet current City and
ADA standards for a residential street.
c) Driveway approach widening/reconstruction per City standard.
3. Obtain a grading permit if determined necessary by the City Engineer.
4. Obtain a Tentative Parcel Map and Final Parcel Map to create a one lot 3-unit
condominium map if the units will be sold individually.
5. The applicant is required to complete the applicable Storm Water Compliance Forms
and comply with the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual.
Page 3
6. The applicant is required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
prevent pollution of the storm water conveyance systems, both during and after
construction. Permanent storm water requirements shall be incorporated into the
proj ect design, and shall be shown on the plans. Any construction and non-structural
BMPs requirements that cannot be shown graphically must be either noted or stapled
on the plans.
7. The City of Chula Vista requires that all new development and significant
redevelopment projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal
Permit, Order No. 2001-01. According to said Permit, all projects falling under the
Priority Development Project Categories are required to comply with the Standard
Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
8. Development ofthe project 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) permit requirements for
urban runoff and storm water discharge, and any regulations adopted by the City of
Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations and requirements. Further, the
applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOl) with the State Water Resource 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 the maintenance of post-construction control measures.
9. The applicant is required to identify storm water pollutants that are potentially
generated at the facility, and propose Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
implemented to prevent such pollutants from entering the storm drainage systems.
10. A water quality study will be required to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction and Municipal Permits, including Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and Numeric Sizing Criteria requirements, with the first
submittal of grading/improvement plans, in accordance with the City's Manual.
Public Works
D. The following shall be accomplished to the satisfaction ofthe Director of Public Works:
Replace or repair all sections of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire frontage
of the property to City ofChula Vista standards.
II. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the property as long as it relies on this
approval.
Page 4
1. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit shall be applied to the subject
property until such time approval is revoked, and the existence of this approval with
conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property.
2. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the plans approved for DRC
06-38 by the Design Review Committee.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the
Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance.
4. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified Conditional Use Permit by the Director of Planning and Building.
5. This Conditional Use Permit shall become void and ineffective ifnot utilized within one year
from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 ofthe Municipal Code.
Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by
the City for additional conditions or revocation.
6. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted
conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental
interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not
impose a substantial expense or deprive the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which
the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
7. The Applicant/owner shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and
against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court
costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or
indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this modification to Conditional Use
Permit and (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 Conditional Use Permit where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's compliance
with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the applicant's operator's successors
and assigns.
Page 5
IV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense ofthe property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City's Planning and Building Department. Failure to return the signed and
stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the
property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
46 Madison Avenue
Date
Signature of Applicant
Date
V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or ifthey are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted, deny, 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. Failure to satisfy the conditions ofthis permit may also result
in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention ofthe Planning Commission that its adoption ofthis 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.
Page 6
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
10th day of May, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Page 7
~ Uc...
-.--
"~~~-=
~~
P I ann
n g
& Bui ding
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
. \\\.1 Wi" S",) ;J
S",5~~,J,"~ Wl\....<.~.:J~kJ
\' -\" I \,' 'l (' () N
.. \ -...: V'J. .., f
S\Jj ~ t-l iN 'L \:>~.....\
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or p
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entit
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.
N A
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~ (' c'
\ ,.,-", '\
~\tfL.'/~Y
pnJl:::"h\\c(\"'IN f)!LS1C/.-J
5. Has any person* associated with this contract 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 IX
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 J:,l Yes _If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~~~
-.-
.~- ~-;;:
....... --
~ --
P I ann
n g
& Bui ding
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX 8
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (1?) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ No~
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
(/11.. I:; <
!
~ \^~
Signature of Contractor/Applicant
r-, ,
~ -, v Lv ~ \ S ;J ',,,,,
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Print or
Date:
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~ ~
Meeting Date: 05/10/06
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 05-03/PCS-04-06; Consideration of the
following:
a. Rezone with Precise Plan Modifying District to change to eastern 200
feet of project site from Rl to RIP6 along with precise plan
development standards.
b. Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 2.06 acre project site into 12
residential lots and one common lot in order to allow a planned
residential development-Villas Del Mar, LLC.
The applicant, Villas Del Mar, LLC, submitted an application for a rezone and tentative subdivision
map to divide 2.06 acre project site into a l2 lot planned residential development ("Project"). The
Project is located on the west side of North Del Mar Avenue, north of C Street ("project site").
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study (IS-04-022) in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of Initial
Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by, or agreed to
by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant impacts would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared
a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-22.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Resolution PCZ-05-03/PCS-04-06 recommending that the City Council approve the
proposed rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the attached City Council Resolutions.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On March 6, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) determined that the Initial
Study IS-04-022 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration IS-04-022.
On April 3, 2006 the development of the project site received discretionary approval from the
Design Review Committee for Design Review Application DRC-05-56.
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 'if1 0/0(;
Existing Site Characteristics
The project is an elongated shaped parcel located on the west side of North Del Mar Avenue.
The site slopes downward from the street frontage to the west. Except for the existing occupied
single-family residence on the easternmost portion of the site (near North Del Mar Avenue), the
site is vacant. It is currently enclosed by chain link fencing.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site currently contains one (1) single family residence, which the applicant proposes
to remove. The predominant surrounding land use is single family residential. Apartments and a
mobile home park abut the southwest and western portion of the site.
Site
General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
Designation
Residential- Low R 1 P6 (except SFDN acant
Medium (RLM) easternmost 200 feet
currently zoned Rl)
Residential - Low Rl Single Family
Medium (RLM) Residential
Residential-Low RI/R3GD Single Family
Medium/Residential - Residential/Apartments
Medium (RLM/RM)
Residential - Low RI Single-Family
Medium (RLM) Residential
Residential-Medium Mobile Home Park Mobile Home Park
(RM) (MHP)
Location
North
South
East
West
Project Description
The Tentative Subdivision Map proposes subdivision of the 2.06 acre lot into a total of 12 single
family residential lots ranging in size from 4,291 to 6,511 square feet. The average lot size will
be 5,150 square feet. A rezone with precise plan is also being requested for the eastern 200 feet
of the project site, which is currently zoned Rl, to consolidate the entire site into the RIP6
zoning. A precise plan is proposed to allow custom development standards for the project.
2
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: t;f1 CVnl1
Analysis
Site Constraints
The proposed project is constrained by the following factors:
. ConfiellT::Ition- The parcel is long (661 feet) and narrow(155 feet wide), with only 80 feet
of frontage along North Del Mar Avenue.
. Topor;:r::lphy- The existing site contains steep terrain which slopes downward to the west.
. Access-Since the applicant only owns a portion of the joint easement at the northern edge
of the property, the proposed 24 foot wide private street, Villas Del Mar Court, contains a
portion centered along the existing easement and remainder entirely within the project
site. The easterly 250 feet of Villa Del Mar Court is proposed to be centered within the
existing easements that combine to serve not only the subject property but also adjacent
properties to the north. The remaining approximately 450 feet is proposed entirely within
the subject site and terminating in a cul-de-sac which contains a 30 ft. wide turn-around
for service and emergency vehicles. This private street terminates approximately 83 feet
in from the western edge of the project site. Although the western edge of the project site
is adjacent to North Third Avenue, at this point Third Avenue is a "paper street" and not
suited for improvement to provide access (see discussion under Access/On-Site
Circulation).
Predse Plan and Rezone
The City's General Plan designates this site for a density of 3-6 dwellings per acre. Due to the
lot constraints described above, to achieve this density range requires modification of most of
the development criteria applying to the site.. These modifications allow for development of the
site in a manner consitent with the General Plan and fitting to the neighborhood. As specific
compensation for a reduction in - lot sizes, the applicant has proposed additional on-site open
space in the form of a small private park.
The applicant proposes rezoning the eastern 200 feet oftl1e project site (about 30% of the site
acreage), from the existing Rl to match the existing the RilPQizoning designation on the majority
of the site. This would allow for a maximum density of 6 units per acre. The applicant is
proposing 12 units which are in compliance with this allowable density (6 dulac). This rezoning
would not change the overall density which could be achieved on the site. The effect of the
rezoning would be to expand the P modifier which allows design flexibility to meet site
constraints.
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 1/1 CVOh
In addition to the proposed rezoning, accompanying precise plan development standards have
been being requested per section 19.56.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. These are
summarized in the 'Proposed' column ofthe table below.
Develooment Standards Reauired Prooosed
T ,nt. . .
Lot Area (minimum) 7 000 s.f. 4291 s.f.
(maximum) N/A 6511 s.f
Lot CoveraQe (max) 40% 45%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 45% 70%
Lot Deoth (minimum) N/A 69 ft
(maximum) N/A 103 ft.
Lot Width (minimum)
Measured at street frontagelPL 60 47ft
Measured at cul-de-sac frontagelPL 60 20 ft
~ .. .. .... .. .
Front Yard Setback:
To main structure 15 10 ft
To garage (typical) 22 20
To 2:ara2:e (Lots 4 and 8 onlv) 22 13.5
Side Yard Setback: 10/3 5/5
Rear Yard Setback: 20 15
. . 2 Y:z storv/28 ft 3 storv/38 ft
~ .. .
SFD: 2 so aces/garage 2 soaces/2:ara2:e
10 off-street parking
Guest Parking: 13 spaces spaces provided off
of private road (see
narrative)
Building Height
In order to maintain access to views for residents of the new homes, the applicant has proposed
that homes constructed on lots 5 and 6 contain three stories or a maximum of 38'. The
Commission will notice that attached to the staffreport (sheet 2 of the Tentative Map) a series of
cross sections through the project. Staff had requested said cross section be provided from the
4
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 111 0/011
applicant in order to illustrate how allowing the increase in height to 3 stories/38 feet would
impact the surrounding area. Due to the sloping conditions of the lots, as illustrated in attached
cross sections, it appears that the three story units will blend in with the heights of the remaining
homes within the development, and not impact the surrounding area. Staff has met with
residents adjacent to the proposed project regarding their concerns over building height. Upon
reviewing the cross- sections and profiles provided by the applicant, the residents concur , the
result will be no more impact than a typical two story structure would have.
Access/On-Site Circulation
Access to the project will be via a 24 foot wide private drive connecting to North Del Mar
Avenue. Due to the narrow width of this roadway, no parallel on-street parking shall be allowed.
A twenty foot wide driveway to each lot will be provided off of this private drive.
Although North Third Avenue abuts the western edge of the property only half of the needed
right-of-way width for public residential street (3D-feet) has been granted for a public street
already. There are currently no street improvements in place. The applicant is not proposing and
staff does not support the use of Third Avenue as providing access to the development. Staff is
requiring twenty-foot paved access for sewer maintenance purposes beginning at the terminus of
the on-site cul-de-sac in a westerly direction to the property line and then in a northerly direction
along North Third Avenue approximately 500 feet. However, widening of the Third Avenue
easement in order to create a public road would be difficult due to both topographic constraints
as well as potential negative impact to the mobile home park located to the west. Further, if an
access road were to be provided by the applicant along North Third Avenue, there is no room to
provide a turn around that would meet the requirements of the Engineering, Fire and Public
Works Departments.
Traffic/Off-Site Circulation
A number of residents living near the project site have expressed concerns regarding project
traffic impacts to the area (see Attachment 6). A traffic study was not required to be conducted
for the project according to standards and thresholds. Thus, the Environmental Review
Coordinator determined there were no significant traffic impacts according the required CEQA
level of analysis (see Attachment 5). Nonetheless, based upon concerns expressed by residents,
staff consulted with the City's Traffic Engineering Division who subsequently conducted some
traffic counts in the area and who provided the following summary analysis.
The proposed project is 12 single family homes with one existing single family home to be
demolished. Therefore, the traffic impacts are for the net additional 11 homes. Using a trip
generation rate of 10 vehicle trips per home assumes a total project traffic impact of
approximately 110 vehicles per day.
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 'if1 o;Oli
Engineering staff completed traffic counts in the area of the subject project. From March 22
through March 24, 2006 traffic counts were completed on North Second Avenue between
Bayview Way and Shirley Street. Also, speed and volume counts were conducted on North Del
Mar Avenue between Vista Del Mar Court and Nixon Place. The results of the data are as
follows:
North Second Avenue
North Second Avenue has an average daily traffic count of approximately 7287 vehicles per day.
Of this total 3491 (48%) were in the northbound direction and 3796 (52%) in the southbound
direction. The percentage split shows that it is approximately evenly distributed. Since North
Second Avenue is a collector street, it circulates localized traffic as well as distributes traffic to
and from arterials and other collectors to access residential areas. The roadway design capacity is
about 9,400 vehicles per day. The volume today is 78% of the design capacity and with the
project, assuming that all of the traffic would utilize North Second Avenue, would increase by
about 1 % to 79%. This 79% figure represents a level of service "C" which means that the
roadway has moderate volumes but would have minimal delays throughout most of the day and
minimal to some minor delays during certain peak hours of the day. The delays during the peak
periods would primarily be traffic queued up at the all-way stop sign at the intersection of North
Second Avenue and C Street. The City of Chula Vista uses Level of Service "C" as a guideline,
whereby Level of Service "A" means free flow condition and Level of Service "F" means
congestion due to volumes exceeding the roadway capacity.
North Del Mar Avenue
The residential street North Del Mar Avenue has an average daily traffic count of approximately
167 vehicles per day. Of this total 101 (60%) were in the northbound direction and 67 (40%) in
the southbound direction. The percentage split shows that it is almost a 2: 1 ratio for northbound
versus southbound vehicles. Since North Del Mar Avenue is a residential street, which is meant
to be the roadway that generates local trips, the roadway design capacity is about 1,200 vehicles
per day. The volume today is 14% of the design capacity and with the project, all of the traffic
has to utilize North Del Mar Avenue. The traffic volume with the project increases to 23% of the
design volume. This 23% figure represents a level of service "A" (less than 60% design
capacity) which means that the roadway would still not be expected to have any delays since the
low volumes would mean that conditions are generally free flow throughout the day. It would
take approximately 720 vehicles per day for the level of service on this street to decease to level
of service "B", which would still be acceptable.
The speed count data showed that on this 25 MPH roadway northbound speeds averaged 18
MPH and 85% of the vehicles were at 24 MPH or lower. For the southbound direction, the
average speed was 21 MPH and 85% of the vehicles were at 28 MPH or less. The southbound
6
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 'if1 OfOli
direction has a downward grade as it approaches the stop sign at the T -intersection with C Street.
Bayview Way
Bayview Way is a paved narrow two-way street with no curb improvements and one-lane in each
direction. Assuming all project traffic uses Bayview Way, traffic volume of less than 300
vehicles per day, is still acceptable on this local street. The proposed increase in project traffic
impacts on the level of service of Bayview Way would not change from level of service "A".
The City's Subdivision Manual design criteria for streets states that residential streets should
provide access to not more than 120 tributary dwelling units. This project area has
approximately 62 dwelling units and with the project, the total will increase to 73 dwelling units
served by the existing three access points; Bayview Way, Shirley Street and North Del Mar
Avenue. Since the design criteria also states that single family residential development shall not
exceed 120 residential lots unless two points of access are provided and there are three points of
access, the project does not create any traffic impacts on the local roadway network. The three
access points serve to better distribute the local traffic in this area.
Parkinr:
A two car garage is required and proposed for each of the 12 units proposed. No parking will be
allowed along the private drive. In addition, section 19.22.150 ofthe Municipal Code requires
guest parking be provided since access to the proposed lots will be off of a proposed private road.
The applicant is proposing 10 guest parking spaces on site, in bays near the terminus of Villas del
Mar Court, to serve the lower 8 parcels. In addition, there is room for approximately 4 of the
guest parking spaces on street on N. Del Mar Avenue. Based upon concerns expressed by a few
residents in the vicinity of the project, city staff conducted a parking analysis and finds the
project will have negligible impact. While no parking will be allowed along the traveled way of
the private drive , the driveways provided for on nine of the twelve lots will be of adequate
length to provide room for additional guest parking. Thus, the site will accommodate the
projected guest parking demand. In order to affirm guest parking availability, the following
restrictions have been placed in the proposed Conditions of Approval and required to be
included in the CC&R's for the project:
. Garages must be free and clear to allow for parking of 2 vehicles at all times
. No on-street parking along private drive
. Driveways should be available for additional guest parking
7
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: C;/1 0/011
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions recommending that
the City Council approve the tentative map and rezone based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
Attachments
1 Locator Map
2 Draft Planning Commission Resolution
3 Draft City Council Resolution
4 Draft City Council Ordinance
5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 Letters from residents
7 Project Plans
8 Ownership Disclosure Form
J: planning\casefiles\05\PCZ 05-03\...\Villas Del Mar PC Staff Report 3 may 06
8
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1
,~ --,~
LOCATOR
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ 05-03/ PCS-04-06
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IS-
04-022; REZONE WITH PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS; AND
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF A
TENTATIVE MAP TO DNIDE 2.06 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF N. DEL MAR AVENUE INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND ONE COMMON LOT IN ORDER TO ALLOW A
PLANED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT-VILLAS DEL MAR,
LLC.
WHEREAS, on January 20,2004 a duly verified application for PCS 04-06 and on June 22,
2005 a duly verified application for PCZ 05-03 were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department, requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 2.06 acres
into 13 10ts("Project"), and rezone application requesting a change from the Rl to RlP6 zone with
Precise Plan Modifying District Standards ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as Villas Del Mar (PCS 04-06) Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-04-06), Chula Vista Tract No. 04-06, which is the subject matter of this
Resolution, is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of2.06 acres located on
the west side ofN. Del Mar Avenue ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-04-22 in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, based on the results ofthe Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator
has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However,
revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the Developer would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-22; and.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-04-022) has been prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures ofthe City OfChula Vista, and hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-04-022); and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission does hereby find that in the exercise of their
independent review and judgment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (IS-04-022) in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with
requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Review Procedures
of the City ofChula Vista and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the same; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on March 10,2006,
as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain
findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCZ-05-03/PCS-04-06 herein, and
recommended that the City Council approve the Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-
022, based on certain terms and conditions; 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 ofthe
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., May
10, 2006 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the
Project, Draft Ordinance for Rezone, and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-022 in accordance
with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy ofthis resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of May, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Vicki Madrid, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J :\Planning\Case Files\-06 (FY 05-06)\GP A \ gpa-05-0 I ]CS-03-0 I-PCRes
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2006- (PCS-04-06)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM IS-04-022 AND APPROVING AND
ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO
DIVIDE 2.06 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF N.
DEL MAR AVENUE INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE
COMMON LOT -VILLAS DEL MAR, LLC.
I. RECITALS
A. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2004, a duly verified application was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, requesting approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map to subdivide 2.06 acres into 12 residential lots and one common lot
("Project") by Villas Del Mar LLC ("Developer"); and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the development of the Project Site received the following
discretionary approvals from the Chula Vista City Council: 1) Zone Reclassification PCZ-05-
03, adopting an ordinance changing the zoning of portion of the property from R-l to R-l-
P6;and
B. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2006, the development of the Project Site received discretionary
approval from the Design Review Committee for Design Review Application DRC-05-56 for
a 12 lot single family planned residential project conditioned upon approval of rezone to
establish special development standards; and
C. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area ofland commonly known as Villas Del Mar Tentative Subdivision Map
(PCS-04-06), Chula Vista Tract No. 04-06, 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 2.06 acres
located on the west side ofN. Del Mar Avenue, north ofC Street, west ofN. Second Avenue
and south of Bay View Court, located within the Residential Low Medium Designation (3-6
dwelling units per acre) of the General Plan, and the Residential Single Family (R-I-P6) zone
(Single Family Residential Zone, Precise Plan Modifying District ), consisting of APN 563-
290-04 ("Project Site"); and
Resolution No. 2006-
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an
Initial Study, IS-04-22 in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, based on the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator
has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment.
However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the Developer would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur;
therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-04-22; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that
Initial Study IS-04-22 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-22. Furthermore, on May 10,2006, the Planning
Commission also recommended adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-22.
E. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the Project on May
10, 2006, and after hearing staff s presentation and public testimony voted xxx to
recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions listed below; and
F. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the Project's
tentative subdivision map application; and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project, at least 10 days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 6, 2006, in the Council Chambers, 276
Fourth Avenue, at 4:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine
and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at its public
hearing on the Project held on May 10, 2006 and the minutes and Resolution resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
2
Resolution No. 2006-
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and concurs with the
Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and Environmental Review
Coordinator's determination that Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (IS-04-22), in the form presented, has been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and hereby
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program IS-04-022.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65350 et. seq. (Planning and Zoning Law), and
66473.5 (Subdivision Map Act), the City Council finds that the Project, as conditioned
herein, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan based on the
following:
1. Land Use
The project will be developed at a density of 6 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the allowable residential density range of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The
project design is consistent with the clustering provision of the Land Use Element,
because the clustered design will preserve significant areas of steep slope.. Also, the
project proposes a detached single family planned development which will be
consistent with the character intended for a Residential Low-Medium area, and will
be more compatible with the development of the surrounding area, which is primarily
single family residential. The proposed project provides housing opportunities in the
northwest portion of the City.
2. Circulation
The Developer will construct the on-site private street, and the off-site public streets
required to serve the subdivision already exist. Required public street improvements
will be provided by the Developer through the attached Conditions of Approval. The
private streets within the Project will be designed in accordance with the City design
standards and/or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections.
The City's Subdivision Manual design criteria for streets states that residential streets
should provide access to not more than 120 tributary dwelling units. This project area
has approximately 62 dwelling units and with this project, the toal will increase to 73
dwelling units served by the existing three access points: Bayview Way, Sirley Street
and North Del Mar Avenue. Since the design criteria states that single family
residential development shall not exceed 120 residential lots unless two points of
access are provided and there are three points of access, the project does not create
any traffic impacts on the local roadway network. The three access points serve to
better distribute the local traffic in this area.
3. Public Facilities
3
Resolution No. 2006-
The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and
services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those
services. There are no public service, facility, or phasing needs created by the Project
that warrants the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan, therefore this
requirement is waived.
4. Housing
The Project is consistent with the density prescribed within the Residential - Low
Medium General Plan designation, and the Project provides additional opportunities
for single family residential home ownership.
5. Growth Management
The Project is in compliance with applicable Growth Management Element
requirements because there are no public service, facility, or phasing needs that
warrant the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan.
6. Open Space and Conservation
The project proposes clustering of the development of dwellings on the lower
elevations in order to minimize grading of steep slopes.. The Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-02-045, which
addressed the goals and policies of the California Environmental Quality Act, and
found the development of the site to be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element.
7. Parks and Recreation
The Project includes an 8,000 square feet park, privately maintained open space to
provide additional open space for each dwelling unit, and has been conditioned to pay
park acquisition and development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map.
8. Safety
The City Engineer, Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed
subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the
proposal, as conditioned, meets those standards. A Fire Protection Plan has been
prepared and approved by the City Fire Marshal.
9. Noise
The Project has been reviewed for compliance with the Noise Element and will
comply with applicable noise measures at the time of issuance of the building permit.
The Project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to
preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA
for all outside private yard areas.
4
Resolution No. 2006-
10. Scenic Highway
This Project Site IS not located adjacent to or visible from a designated scemc
highway.
11. Seismic Safety
A preliminary geotechnical investigation has been prepared for the project, which
determined that a trace of the potentially active Nacion Fault is present on the
property. The report recommended that certain geotechnical mitigation measures be
required, which have been included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
conditions of approval. Also, another condition of approval has been included which
requires that a detailed soils report and geo-technical study be prepared in conjunction
with grading plans, and that the Developer follw the recommendations of the
geotechnical report and study prepared in conjunction with the grading plans.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that 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.
C. 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.
D. The site is physically suited for residential development because the proposed the site can
be as to allow the density of residential development called for by the General Plan while
at the same time grading the site in such as way that is sensitive to the existing sloping
topography of the site.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created
by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to
the general and special conditions set forth below.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
The Developer, or hislher successors in interest and assigns, shall improve the Project Site
with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 03-01,
El Dorado Ridge.
VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
5
Resolution No. 2006-
A. The conditions herein imposed on the tentative map approval or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both to nature and extent of impact created by the
proposed development. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements
listed below shall be fully completed by the Developer or successor-in-interest to the City's
satisfaction prior to approval of the Final Map, unless otherwise specified:
GENERAL! PLANNING AND BUILDING
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.
2. Developer and/or hislher successors in interest, shall comply, remain in compliance and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which
is the subject matter of the Zone Reclassification, and Tentative Subdivision Map, as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006, and the
Notice of Decision for Design Review Permit DRC-05-56, approved by the Design
Review Committee on April 3, 2006. Prior to approval of the Final Map for the project,
the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such
security and implementation procedures as the City may require compliance with the
above regulatory documents. The Agreement shall also ensure that, after approval of the
Final Map, the Developer and hislher successors in interest will continue to comply,
remain in compliance, and implement such Plans.
3. Any and all agreements that the Developer is required to enter into hereunder shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
4. Design and construct all street improvements in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards, Chula Vista Street standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Obtain City Engineer approval of detailed
improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer licensed in the State of
California detailing horizontal and vertical alignment of public improvements.
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base,
concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, pedestrian ramps, driveway, sewer and water utilities,
drainage facilities, street light, and fire hydrants.
5. Guarantee the construction of public street improvements deemed necessary to provide
service to the subject subdivision in accordance with City standards.
6. ,Detailed street tree Plans for the Project shall be submitted concurrent with grading plan
submittal and approved prior to approval of the Grading Permit by the Director of
Building and Planning or designee. Plans shall be prepared by a registered Landscape
Architect pursuant to the City's Landscape Manual, City Grading Ordinance and
Subdivision Manual.
7. All retaining wall footings that occur within planter areas shall be of a deep-footed design
to accommodate shrub plantings and tree planting where occur. In some cases this may
6
Resolution No. 2006-
be a specially designed footing to satisfy this condition. The tree and shrub plantings
shall conform to the approved landscape concept plan.
8. Developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
the City Growth Management Ordinance, and the City's General Plan, as amended from
time to time. The Developer shall prepare any final maps and all plans in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, the Landscape Manual, and Subdivision Manual.
9. All project landscaping shall conform to the design elements of the City's Landscape
Manual, and requirements of the DRC-05-56 Notice of Decision.
10. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they
are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such
conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of
building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived
from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Developer shall
be notified in writing 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by
the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the
City.
11. Submit a "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan" which has been approved by
the City of Chula Vista Conservation Coordinator. The plan shall demonstrate those steps
the Developer will take to comply with Municipal Code, including but not limited to
Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the State mandate to reduce or divert at least 50 percent
of the waste generated by all residential, commercial and industrial developments. The
Developer shall contract with the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and
occupancy phase of the project. The plan shall incorporate trash enclosures which are
designed to comply with the City's N.P.D.E.S. permit if applicable, to provide
compatibility with the architectural style of the development, and to enhance trash
enclosure doors where they are highly visible.
12. Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation
measures pertaining to the Project identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-22.
Mitigation measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by Project
design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved
in conjunction with the above Mitigated Negative Declaration. Modification of the
sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building
should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision.
13. Developer and/or its successors-in-interest shall, to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Review Coordinator, deposit funds sufficient to pay the costs associated with the hiring
of a Mitigation Monitor (biological specialist) to oversee the implementation of the
7
Resolution No. 2006-
biological mitigation measures identified in the IS-04-22 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
14. 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
and comply with other requirements delineated in comment letter dated March 28, 2006.
15. Install fire hydrants as determined by the City Fire Marshall. Said hydrant locations shall
be shown on the grading and/or improvement plans.
16. Provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of ties to established survey
monuments for the proposed street centerlines prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permits, or approval of the final map.
GRADINGIDRAINAGEINPDES
17. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of grading plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the
grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by
the City Engineer and Planning Director. Grading and improvement plans shall be based
on NA VD88 vertical datum. All off site grading and construction shall require signed and
notarized letters of permission from the affected property owners.
18. Design all lot grading so that lot lines are located at the top of slopes. This may require
the use of retaining walls along some lot lines. All retaining walls shall be noted on the
grading plans and include a detailed wall profile. The maximum height of all retaining
walls shall not exceed 6 feet per Section 19.58.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Structural wall calculations are required if walls are not built per City Standards and/or if
fences are to be placed on top of retaining walls.
19. Submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer for an erOSIOn and sedimentation
control plan as part of grading plans.
20. Show the location of cut/fill lines based on existing topography on grading plans.
21. 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.
22. Submit a detailed geotechnical report prepared, 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.
23. Submit a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer to be reviewed 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 calculate the pre-developed and the post-
8
Resolution No. 2006-
developed flows and show how downstream properties and storm drain facilities are
impacted. The study shall include calculations sizing the proposed underground
detention system. The extent of the study shall be as approved by the City Engineer. The
energy dissipaters shall be designed to accommodate the runoff velocities from a 100-
year storm.
24. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private.
NPDES REQUIREMENTS
25. Comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development
process, including but not limited to: rough grading, construction of street and
landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units.
26. The 15-foot wide sewer access road (Third Avenue Extension) shall be designed to
handle storm water runoff form the site and from the adjacent properties to the north.
Provide erosion control measures at the northerly end of said sewer access road and a
PCC cross gutter at the storm drain outlet structure from the development.
27. The proposed project is subject to NPDES General Construction Permit requirements.
Obtain permit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prior to the issuance of a Land Development (Grading) Permit. Said SWPPP shall
include construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm
water pollution prevention, as well as funding mechanisms for post-construction BMPs.
28. The applicant is required to complete the applicable forms upon submittal of the project
grading plans (see City of Chula Vista's Development and Redevelopment Storm Water
Management Requirements Manual) and comply with the Manual's requirements.
29. According to the NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01, this project is
considered a Priority Development Project and, hence, subject to the requirements of the
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing Criteria.
30. The developer shall enter into an agreement to fully implement NPDES best management
practices ("BMPs") to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the city's storm water
conveyance system, including but not limited to:
a. Providing storm drain system stenciling and signage; more specifically:
i. Provide and maintain stenciling or labeling near all storm drain inlets and
catch basins.
11. Post and maintain City-approved signs with language and/or graphical
icons that prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels
and creeks.
b. Installing and using efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; more
9
Resolution No. 2006-
specificall y:
1. Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation.
11. Adjust irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water
requirements
111. Using flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to
control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines.
IV. Employing other comparable, equally effective, methods to reduce
irrigation water runoff.
c. Employing integrated pest management principles. More specifically, eliminate
and/or reduce the need for pesticide use by implementing Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), including: (1) planting pest-resistant or well-adapted plant
varieties such as native plants; (2) discouraging pests in the landscaping design;
(3) distributing IPM educational materials to homeowners/residents. Minimally,
educational materials must address the following topics: keeping pests out of
buildings and landscaping using barriers, screens, and caulking; physical pest
elimination techniques, such as, weeding, squashing, trapping, washing, or
pruning out pests; relying on natural enemies to eat pests; and, proper use of
pesticides as a last line of defense.
d. Educate the Public. More specifically, the Homeowners Association, through
Property Management, etc., shall inform residents about the City's non-storm
water and pollutant discharge prohibitions. This goal can be achieved by
distributing informative brochures (some available free from the City ofChula
Vista) to new home buyers and dedicating sections of newsletters to storm water
quality issues, as applicable.
SEWER / WATER
31. All proposed public sewer lines shall be located within the 24-foot public sewer and
access easement. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any needed offsite sewer
easements.
32. Design and construct all the sewer mains and manholes within Villas Del Mar Court and
the Third Avenue Extension to public standards in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards and Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
33. A Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) paved access is required through the development.
An asphalt concrete (AC) paved access is required through the Third Avenue Extension
to accommodate City sewer maintenance trucks and fire trucks. All paved access shall be
designed based upon a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0.
34. If the flow line elevation at the end of the proposed gutter at the northerly end of the
sewer access road is higher than the rim elevation of the existing sewer manhole just to
10
Resolution No. 2006-
the north of the property limits, the existing sewer manhole shall be upgraded to a water
tight sewer manhole.
35. An additional sewer manhole shall be required either upstream or downstream of MH 5,
to prevent a ninety (90) degree bend in the sewer main.
36. The paved sewer access on Third Avenue shall extend to the existing northerly sewer
manhole shown on the Tentative Map.
37. Removable ballards or an approved access gate shall be required at the entrance to the
sewer access road, just south of Lot 12.
STREETS
38. Provide a 100-watt street light on North Del Mar Avenue as approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
39. Design and construct public street improvements fronting the properties located at 160
and 152 North Del Mar Avenue to connect to the existing improvements south of the
project and provide a transition north of the project. Installation of street improvements
shall include, but not be limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, alley type apron, cross gutter,
approved pedestrian ramps, and street light on per City Standards. Street improvements
on North Del Mar require a centerline to curb width of 18 feet.
40. Driveway dimensions shall include the width of the driveway flares. Driveways shall
comply with the City ofChula Vista driveway standards per CVCS 1A.
41. Streets within the development shall be private.
42. The existing power pole shall be relocated as shown on the Tentative Map. All utilities
services for the subdivision shall be underground.
EASEMENTS
43. Grant to the City a 24-foot public sewer and access easement over the public sewer lines
on the Final Subdivision Map.
44. A private 10- foot storm drain easement on Lot 5 shall be granted on the Final
Subdivision Map to APN 563-290-05-00,152 North Del Mar Avenue.
45. Grant to the City on the Final Subdivision Map a 5.5 foot wide street tree planting and
maintenance easement along North Del Mar Avenue as shown on the Tentative Map.
46. The private 5-foot landscape (Lots 1-12), IS-foot drainage (Lots 9 and 10) and 25-foot
general utility and drainage easement (Lot A) within the subdivision boundary shall be
11
Resolution No. 2006-
conveyed to subsequent purchasers of Lots 1-12 pursuant to the requirements of Section
18.20.150 of the Municipal Code of the City ofChula Vista.
AGREEMENTS
47. 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 of Chula Vista,
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 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.
48. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow
of drainage resulting from this project.
49. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are
permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each
lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable
television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and
conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules,
regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable
television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the
City ofChula Vista.
50. Agree to comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
prepare the Final Parcel Map and all plans in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of
Chula Vista.
51. Agree to include provisions in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's) assuring maintenance of all common landscaping, open space, streets,
driveways, sewer and drainage systems, which are private. The City of Chula Vista shall
be named as a party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision.
All the individual homeowners of the project shall own all private driveways jointly and
inseparably. Include provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become
public unless 100% of all homeowners have agreed in the form of a written petition.
52. Prior to the approval a Final Map, a Declaration or Supplementary Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall include the
following obligations of the Homeowners Association (HOA):
1. A requirement that the HOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability
insurance against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas:
-All open space lots that shall remain private,
12
Resolution No. 2006-
-Other Master Association property.
11. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the
City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The
HOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior
consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within
the HOA.
111. The HOA shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims,
demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the
maintenance activities of the HOA.
IV. The HOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance
obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent
of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the HOA.
v. The HOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than
one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the
City and name the City as additionally insured to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney.
VI. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all open space lots,
streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private.
Vll. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring HOA membership in an advance
notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity.
Vlll. The CC&R's shall include provisions that provide the City has the right but not
the obligation to enforce the CC&R provisions the same as any owner in the
project.
IX. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative map conditions
may not be revised at any time without prior written permission ofthe City.
X. The HOA shall not dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private
streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members or holder of first
mortgages within the HOA.
XI. The HOA shall maintain all water quality facilities in conformance with the
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01
XII. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring compliance with the solid waste
and recycling program requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Conservation
Coordinator.
Xlll. The HOA shall maintain all landscaping installed in common areas as defined by
the CC&R's.
13
Resolution No. 2006-
XIV. CC&R's shall include those provisions required by the conditions of approval of
DRC-05-56 dated 4/3/06.
XV. CC&R's shall include restriction related to garages and parking as follows:
· Garages must be free and clear to allow for parking of 2 vehicles at all
times.
· No on-street parking along private drive (other than designated guest
parking spaces).
· Driveways shall be available for additional guest parking
53. Developer agrees to submit Homeowners Association budget for review and approval by
the City Engineer for the maintenance of private streets, water quality improvements,
storm drains, sewage systems, electrical system, plumbing and roof. More specifically,
said budget shall include the following provisions and maintenance activities:
a. Streets must be sealed every 7 years and overlaid every 20 years
b. Sewers must be cleaned once a year with the contingency for emergencies
c. Red curbs/striping must be painted once every three years.
d. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for service utilities including
water and sewer, and the billing and payment of these utility costs.
e. Storm Water quality facilities inspected prior to and after every rain event and
cleaned as necessary (twice a year minimum); media inserts replaced as
recommended by the manufacturer; with a contingency for emergencies. The
budget shall also include a monitoring program including sampling and
preparation of an annual report, when required by the City.
f. Establishment of a capital fund that will adequately cover the expected costs
associated with repairing or replacing the Project/complex's electrical system,
plumbing system and roof.
MISCELLANEOUS
54. Tie the boundary ofthe subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (NAD '83).
55. Submit copies of the final map, grading plan, and improvement plan in a digital format
such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of the Final Map. Provide computer aided
Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations
and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal
in duplicate on 3 !h HD floppy disk prior to the approval of the Final Map.
14
Resolution No. 2006-
56. Submit a conformed copy of a recorded tax certificate covering the property prior to
approval of the Final Map.
57. 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.
58. Developer shall install and make operable the fire hydrants, emergency vehicular access
and street signs prior to delivery of combustible building materials, to the satisfaction of
the City Fire Marshal. Said hydrant locations shall be shown on the improvement plans.
59. Provide precise underground fire service plans prior to locating Fire Department
connections and post indicator valves, with placements to be approved by CVFD. All
Fire Department connections must not be any closer than three feet to the face of curb.
60. Provide a water flow analysis for the underground fire service utility. Show all
calculations on a point-to-point system. Provide proof that the most remote fire hydrant
can produce a minimum flow of 1,500 gpm for 2 hours at 20 psi.
61. All underground fire service installation is to be inspected by CVFD. Call 72 hours in
advance to schedule an appointment.
62. Provide contractors material and test certificate for underground pipe.
63. Design all dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45dBA and exterior noise
exposure over 65 dBA for all outside private yard areas.
64. Submit a detailed wall/fencing plan indicating color, materials, height and location of
freestanding walls, firewalls, "retaining walls, and patio and safety fencing to the Director
of Planning and Building for approval prior to issuance of the first grading permit. The
wall plan shall comply with requirements of the Notice of Decision of DRC-05-56, and
include details such as accurate dimensions, complete cross-sections showing required
walls, adjacent grading, drainage features, fire rating specifications, landscaping,
road/trail/sidewalk improvements, and the location of typical residential structures.
Materials and color of all walls or fences facing public or private streets, private parks or
pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative materials and shall be
compatible with architecture of the adjacent building. The Developer shall submit a
detail and/or cross-section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination
walls," which include retaining, firewall and freestanding walls, as part of said wall plan.
All required fencing designated as safety fencing, such as for detention basins, shall be
shown on the detailed wall/fencing plan. In addition to satisfying all safety requirements,
the safety fencing shall be constructed of decorative materials and be architecturally
compatible with other project fencing.
15
Resolution No. 2006-
65. Submit a phasing plan showing sequence of construction and occupancy of the project,
including installation of landscaping, recreation amenities, utilities, and fire protection
improvements.
78. Developer agrees to pay the all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and
Council Policy including applicable Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF)
and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees ("PFDIF").
79. Comply with all requirements of the Final Notice of Decision for Design Review Permit-
DRC-05-056 dated April 3, 2006.
80. If the approved Tentative Map conditions of approval conflicts or varies with Design
Review Permit conditions of approval, as determined by the Director of Planning and
Building, the Tentative Map requirements shall control and supercede, with exception of
design matters subject to the City's Design Manual.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the Developer shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and Developer have each
read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole
expense of the property owner and the Developer, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owner and Developer'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 Developer or Property Owner
Signature of Developer
XI. 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. The Developer shall be notified ten (10)
days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given
the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and
diligent time frame.
16
Resolution No. 2006-
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, provision, 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:
Jim Sandoval
Director of Planning & Building
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J:\Planning\casefiles\fy05-06\PCS-03-0 I \pcs03-01.Draft_ CC _Reso.(CC) doc
17
EXHIBIT A
A TT ACHMENT 4
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS
ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE, REZONING THE EASTERN 200 FEET OF A 2.06
ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH
DEL MAR AVENUE NORTH OF C STREET FROM R-l
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO THE R-1-P-6
(SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PRECISE PLAN, 6 DU/AC)
AND ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS FOR THE
ENTIRE 2.06 ACRE PAREL.
1. RECIT ALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of 2.06 acres located on North Del Mar Avenue north of C
Street ("Project Site or Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2005, a Rezone application (PCZ-05-03) was filed by Villas
Del Mar, LLC ("Developer") with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula
Vista requesting an amendment to the adopted zoning map or maps established by Section
19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code in order to rezone the eastern 200 feet of a 2.06-
acre parcel from the R-1- (Single Family Residential) Zone to the R-1-P-6 (Single Family
Residential, Precise Plan), and adopting Precise Plan standards for the entire 2.06 acre parcel
("Project"); and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, subsequent to consideration and approval of this project,
Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 2.06 acres into 12
residential lots and an 8,000 square foot private park; and
C. Prior Approvals
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee held a noticed public hearing on April 3,
2006, at 4:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after hearing staff
presentation and public testimony, voted 4-0-0-1 to approve the Design Review Application
DRC-05-56 for the Project, subject to adoption of the General Plan Amendment and this related
zone change, and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2006, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that
Initial Study IS-04-22 for the Project was adequate, and recommended adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Furthermore, on May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission also
recommended adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Ordinance
Page 2
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Department set the time and place for a hearing on said
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 ft. of
the exterior boundary of the Project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the Project on
May 10,2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted xxx to recommend that the City Council
approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Rezone, in accordance with the findings listed
below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project held on May 10, 2006, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and
E. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Project on June 6,
2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of
the exterior boundaries ofthe Project site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, after hearing staffs presentation and public testimony, the City Council
voted _-_-_ to adopt and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-04-22) and Rezone in
accordance with the findings listed below; and
F. Discretionary Approval of Ordinance
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Rezone was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista to receive the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
II. The City Council of the City Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
A. Certification of Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-04-22 in accordance with CEQA.
WHEREAS, based on the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator
has determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However,
revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-04-22.
Ordinance
Page 3
B. Independent Judgment of the City Council
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and
concurs with the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and Environmental
Review Coordinator's determination that Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS-04-22), in the form
presented, has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of
the City of Chula Vista.
C. Precise Plan Findings
I. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The City Council finds that the proposed precise plan standards contained
in attached Exhibit B will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to design a
project that is more compatible with the surrounding development. The
surrounding area includes multi-family dwellings on the north and west, single-
family homes to the east, and industrial complex to the south. Such standards will
allow the flexibility in establishing new development standards for density,
building types, height, floor area and setback regulations that will permit
construction of attached town-home dwelling units with garages, private yards,
and common open space, which is appropriate for an area which transitions from
single- family to industrial zoned areas.
2. That such plan satisfies the following principles for application of the "P"
modifying district as set forth in CVMC 19.56.041:
(a) The City Council finds that the property is unique in terms of its physical
characteristics, configuration, circulation, social or historic characteristics
requiring special design; because the site includes topographic constraints
requiring reduction in lot size in exchange for common open space, in a
manner that complies with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
(b) The City Council also finds that the site is adjacent and contiguous to areas
zoned Single Family and Multi-Family and that the adoption of the Precise
Plan will allow the project to be designed with single-family dwellings in a
manner that the development of the site will better coexist with adjacent uses
which might otherwise not be compatible.
(c) The City Council also finds that application of the "P" modifying district is
appropriate because the basic or underlying R-l zone regulation does not
allow the flexibility needed to achieve a project design that permits clustering
of development in a way that protects the steep slopes, and therefore a precise
plan modifying district is needed to allow a more compatible design.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying
zoning requirements shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose
Ordinance
Page 4
and application of the Precise Plan. Development of the lot using the
development standards of the R-l zone would limit the ability of the applicant to
propose a design which:
a) Meets the goal of providing single family homes with density allowed by the
zoning and consistent with the General Plan; and
b) Allow the site to be developed in a way that takes into consideration the
constraints imposed by the lot configuration and topography.
These requested deviations under the Precise Plan are warranted in order to
achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
4. The approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted
policies of the City Of Chula Vista.
The project has been designed and evaluated in accordance with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan, including the Residential-Low-Medium 3-6
du/acre) and Clustering provisions of the Land Use Element. The Precise Plan, as
described, will allow the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the General Plan, and the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
D. The rezoning provided for herein is consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, and the public necessity, convenience and the general welfare and good zoning
practice support the amendment to the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN:
A. The City Of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone the site as depicted in Exhibit "A"
from R-l (Single- Family Residential) to R-I-P-6 (Single Family Residential, Precise Plan).
B. The Precise Plan Standards as depicted in Exhibit "B" are hereby adopted and are
supported by the required findings (CVMC Section 19.56.041, as outlined in section II (C)
above.
II1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth
day from and after its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Ordinance
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this _ day of , by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
NAYS:
Councilmembers:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. _ had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December,
2005 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
_ day of , 2006.
Executed this _ day of
,2006.
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk
<J'
~
~
\
Ordinance #
Exhibit B (PCZ-05-03)
Precise Plan Standards - Modified R-I Standards
Development Standards Required Proposed
Lot Criteria
Lot Area (minimum) 7,000 s.f. 4,291 s.f.
(maximum) N/A 6.511 s.f
Lot Coverage (max) 40% 45%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 45% 70%
Lot Depth (minimum) N/A 69 ft
(maximum) N/A 103 ft.
Lot Width (minimum)
Measured at street frontage/PL 60 47ft
Measured at cul-de-sac 60 20 ft
frontage/PL
Buildin!! Setbacks
Front Yard Setback:
To main structure 15 10 ft
To garage (typical) 22 20
To garage (Lots 4 and 8 only) 22 13.5
Side Yard Setback: 10/3 5/5
Rear Yard Setback: 20 15
Buildin!! Hei!!ht 2 !h story/28 ft 3 story/38 ft
Parkin!!:
SFD: 2 spaces/garage 2 spaces/garage
10 off-street parking
Guest Parking: 13 spaces spaces provided off
of private road (see
narrative)
ATTACHMENT 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Villas Del Mar
PROJECT LOCATION: 160 N. Del Mar Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: APN #563-290-0400
PROJECT APPLICANT: Villas Del Mar Development LLC
Frederico Escobedo
CASE NO.: IS-04-022
DATE OF DRAFT DOCurvrENT: February 27.2006
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: March 6, 2006
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
April 4. 2006
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are denoted by underline.
A. Proiect Setting
The 2.06-acre project site is located at 160 N. Del Mar, within the urbanized area of Western Chula
Vista, (Exhibit 1- Location Map). The site is adjacent to N. Del Mar Avenue and near Vista Del Mar
Court and N. Third Avenue. Primary access to the site is currently provided off of N. Del Mar
Avenue through a private road easement shared by properties to the north. The rectangular-shaped
flag lot site is covered with naturally vegetated land, dry grasses and slopes from a gentle gradient to
steeper slopes towards the west. The entire project site has been partially disturbed with previous
uses including a single-family residence, garage and small accessory structures. The land uses
immediately surrounding the project site are as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Mobile Home Park
B. Proiect Description
The proposal consists of subdividing the project site into 12 single-family parcels. Access to the site
would be provided via a private road entrance off ofN. Del Mar Avenue. The project includes the
demolition and replacement of an existing single-family residence. The remaining 11 parcels are
designed for single-family residential development. Proposed on-site improvements include drainage
facilities, sewer system facilities, fire hydrants, retaining walls, fencing, improved paved areas, open
space and landscape treatments. The proposal includes a Design Review Permit for a Precise Plan, a
Rezone to change a portion of the property zoned Rl to RIP6, as well as a Tentative Map. The
project is subject to a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) permit in accordance with the City of
Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
1
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project site is within the General Plan LM (Low-Medium Residential Density/3-6
dwelling units per acre) and RI and RIP6 (Single Family Residentia1lPrecise Plan) Zone. The
proposal includes a rezone of the RI portion of the site to RIP6 area, thus creating an overall RIP6
zone. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the applicable site development
regulations and the General Plan.
D. Public Comments
On December 22,2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended January 4, 2006. Two verbal
comments were received during this period regarding traffic circulation, density and unidentified sand
fill materials on site. The issues regarding traffic and undocumented fill are addressed in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration sections below.
On March 1, 2006. the Notice of Availability of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the pro;ect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on March 30. 2006. A written
comment letter was received from the Sweetwater Authority. The issue included minor edits to the
Utilities/Service Svstems portion of the Initial Studv Checklist'Mitigated Negative Declaration. Other
comment letters were received bv the Planning Department but not addressing the adequacv of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist fonn) detennined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental
impacts however; mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts
to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with Section 15070 of the State of California Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Air Quality
Short-Term Construction Activities
The proposed project will result in a short-term air quality impact created from construction activities
associated with the proposed project. The grading of the site for future single family residential
development and worker and equipment vehicle trips wi1l create temporary emissions of dust, fumes,
equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction activities. Air quality
impacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-tenn in duration.
In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold criteria
contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air
Quality Analysis were used.
Table I below provides a comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission
thresholds of significance for each criteria pollutant. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS
2002 model. The addition of emissions to an air basin is considered under CEQA to be a significant
impact. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 1 contained in Section F below would mitigate
short-tenn construction-related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures
are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2
Table 1.0
Project Estimated Construction Emissions 2006/2007*
Pollutant
Mitigated
Construction
equipment and
adin
Significance
Threshold I
Exceed
threshold
ROG is used in the Air Quality Model and VOC is used in the SCAQMD Threshold Criteria.
this analysis, ROG is used in this model.
CO
(lbs/day)
ROG
(lbs/da )
NOx
(lbs/day)
S02
lbs/day
PMIO
(lbs/day/total)
82.19
59.51
59.06
.31
7.39
550
No
75
No
100
No
150
No
150
No
For the purpose of
Combined Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts
In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively
considerable, the project's operational emissions were quantified. The proposed project once
developed will not result in significant long-term air quality impacts. The minimal project generated
traffic volume would not result in significant long-term local or regional air quality impacts. Through
project design, emission-controlled construction vehicles and efficiency building product, no area
source or operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds;
therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Refer to Table 2.0 below.
Table 2.0
Project Estimated Area and Operational Emissions 200612007*
Pollutant CO ROG NOx S02 PMIO
Mitigated (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Vebicle 15.04 1.23 1.49 0.01 1.36
Emissions
Area Sources 0.52 1.08 0.15 0.01 0.00
Total 15.56 2.31 1.64 0.02 1.36
Significance 550 55 55 150 150
Threshold)
Exceed No No No No No
Threshold
*SourceSCAQMD CEQA Handbook Air Quality Model 1993
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District/Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Biological Resources
A Biological Resource Analysis was prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., dated
January 19, 2006, to assess the potential biological resource impacts of the project. A biological
reconnaissance survey of the project site was conducted on May 11 and June 2, 2005 to identify
existing vegetation on the site. On-site surveying included zoological assessment conducted by a
qualified zoologist on May 19, 2005. The biological resource analysis is summarized below.
3
The 2.06-acre project site consists of 0.11 acres of developed land and approximately 1.844-acres of
disturbed habitat. The site is located in an area designated as a urban/development area under the
City's Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. The surrounding land to the
west, north, east and south are currently developed with residential uses. A portion of the northern
property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The already disturbed site contains Eucalyptus trees,
urban/developed land, non-native grassland vegetation and portions of earlier salt marsh vegetation,
specifically lmown as Cismontane Alakali Marsh community.
The project site is located within in the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan boundary in an area
designated as a "Development Area." Under the Subarea Plan, the proposed project is subject to the
requirements under the Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance. In accordance with the
HLIT Ordinance, those projects that are greater than one acre, contain sensitive biological resources,
and are located outside of the "Covered Projects," must demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance
and obtain Take Authority from the City of Chula Vista for impacts to Covered Species. The
following is a summary of the findings and impacts contained in the updated biological report as
required by the City's HLIT Ordinance, Section 17.35.
Vegetation Impacts
The biological report detennined that the development of the project would result in impacts to 1.14
acres of Non-native Grassland (NNG) habitat. According to the MSCP Subarea Plan, NNG is
designated as Tier ill (common uplands) habitat. Impacts to this habitat must be mitigated in
accordance with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan. This can be accomplished by providing evidence
that the NNG or equivalent credits in a offsite mitigation preserve bank has been acquired to the
satisfaction of the City's Planning and Building Department Director. Implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce
identified indirect biological impacts to a level below significance.
Salt Marsh Vegetation Community
Along the northwestern portion of the project site, a tidal marsh that was once part of the Sweetwater
River Estuary was identified. Early history records indicated tharihe construction of the flood control
levees and SR 54, eliminated any tidal activity. TI1is area is dominated by non-native grasses and
shaded by eucalyptus trees. According to the biological resource study and concurred by the City's
third-party Biological Resource consultant, there are no hydrologic conditions that support the
Cismontane Alkali marsh vegetation, and those that were discovered were likely leaching out of the
existing alkaline salt area. The federal and state agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands and
associated areas are not likely to consider this Alkali marsh renmant to be significant under their
jurisdiction, and would not be considered a jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers subject to 404 Take Pennit regulations. This area is being avoided through project design,
as it is located within the l5-foot setback along the north boundary of the project site. This feature
does not function as a wetland nor as a salt marsh vegetation community.
In order to ensure avoidance of the habitat, prior to the issuance of any clearing, grading or
construction pennits, orange biological fencing will be installed around the renmant marsh area
within the I5-foot property line setback, near Lot IO, in accordance with the development plans and
to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The City's Mitigation Monitor will
conduct periodic site visits to verify the placement of the biological fencing and to ensure that all
construction activities remain within the approved limits of grading. Implementation of the mitigation
4
measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce potentially
significant biological impacts to a level below significance.
Animal/Wildlife Species Impacts
The Non-native Grassland habitat, open space areas near the site, and the eucalyptus trees along the
northern boundary could be used as foraging habitat by common raptorial sensitive species of the
area. These species include Red-shouldered Hawks, Cooper's Hawks, and Red-tailed Hawks.
Impacts associated with clearing and grading activities upon raptor nesting are considered potentially
significant. Therefore, a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors will be required. A copy of the
preconstruction survey results and recommendations must be submitted to the City's Environmental
Review Coordinator for review and approval.
In addition, the applicant will be required to provide evidence that the impacted area of NNG has
been properly mitigated in an offsite mitigation bank to the satisfaction of the City's Planning and
Building Director. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section F of this
Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a level below
significance.
Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HilT) Permit
Due to the impacts to the Tier III habitat, Non-native Grasslands, the applicant will be required to
meet the Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) fmdings and obtain a HUT Permit from the City of
Chula Vista in accordance with the City's HUT Ordinance (Section 17.35 of the CYMe).
Landscape Treatments
Based upon remnant Alkali Marsh vegetation identified on the project site, any proposed landscaping
must not contain invasive vegetation that has the potential to infiltrate this habitat. In order to ensure
that this existing area is protected from invasive vegetation, prior to the issuance of a grading pennit
the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a fmal landscape plan/palette to the City's
Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval. Implementation of the mitigation
measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce potentially
significant biological impacts to a level below significance. This measUre is included as part of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F).
Geology and Soils
To assess the potential geological/soils impacts of the project, a Geotechnical Investigation evaluation
was prepared by Geocon Incorporated/Geotechnical Consultants, dated November 18, 2003. The
study indicated that there are no known active faults existing on the project site or in the immediate
area. The closest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 4.7 miles west
of the project site. The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be low due remedial grading
recommendations, the presence of shallow and dense materials and the lack of shallow groundwater
over a majority of the project site. The groundwater level will fluctuate with seasonal rain and local
soil absorption. No significant geological or soil impacts would be created as a result ofthe proposed
project as conditioned.
The geotechnical study indicates that a small area in the mid/eastern section of the project site
contains undocumented fill materials. The geotechnical study includes recommended measures for
the removal of unsuitable or recompaction of any suitable fill materials to mitigate significant
geological impacts. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant will be required to comply with
5
all the recommendations presented in the study. Details of the llildocumented fill are disclosed under
the Hazards/Hazardous Materials Section below.
Submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of grading pennits to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would
mitigate potential geological/soils impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are
included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Site History
Information provided by the current owner, historic aerial photographs, historic records/zoning/land
use records and surrounding property owners indicate that the site has been mostly used for
residential purposes. Information provided by a nearby resident indicated that a previous owner has
deposited undocumented fill on the project site. Since that time, much vegetation, dirt, and debris has
covered the remainder portion of the site.
Phase l/Phase II
A Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated February 3,
2006, in order to assess the potential recognized environmental conditions or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products into building structures, ground soil, ground water, or
surface water of the project site.
On January 20, 2006, a total of 24 soil samples was collected from four borings within the middle and
eastern portion of the project site. In addition, a sample of sandy material was collected from an area
that appeared to be the disposal location of the sandblasting waste. The fill included sandblasting
debris materials consisting of sticks, bricks, and plastic sheeting. Geocon Incorporated confirmed
that no groundwater was encountered in any of the trenches excavated during their investigation.
Concentrations of high PCBs or other potential contaminants were not detected in any of the
composite samples. Based upon the comparison of the various sampling concentrations and the
limitations encountered during the sample collection of the sandy material, Geocon recommended
further assessment, proper excavation and proper disposal. None of the CCR Title 22 Metals were
detected above respective limits.
On January 2ih and 30th, 2006 approximately 30 cubic yards of undocumented fill/sandy material
was removed and taken to an authorized classified waste disposal facility. The material was
manifested as a non-hazardous waste solid due to its low concentrations as determined by the
analytical testing. After the removal of the sandy material additional commnation soils samples were
collected from the ground surface beneath the former pile. These additional soil samples were
analyzed and no PCBs or other contaminants were detected at or above the laboratory detection limit
in any of the additional soil samples.
According to the complete Phase II, the disposal of the undocumented filVsandy material and
underlying groundwater do not pose a threat to public health. No significant hazards/hazardous
materials impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project, therefore, no mitigation measures
are required.
6
In the event any additional areas of waste are encountered during the project development, those areas
should be assessed by a qualified environmental site assessor and handled accordingly. Evidence of
such analysis and necessary remediation or removal, will be submitted to the Environmental Review
Coordinator for review and detennination.
Lead and Asbestos
The project proposal includes the demolition of the existing residence, garage and accessory
structures. The potential exists for impacts to result from the demolition of structures that may
contain lead and asbestos. Therefore, prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered
asbestos and lead abatement contractor will perfonn asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in
accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation. The
mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential hazardslhazardous
materials impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are included as a part of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Septic Tanks
The project site is currently serviced by a septic tank system, below ground, located north of the
existing residence. Any equipment associated with the septic system should be removed and disposed
of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. In the event any suspicious chemical
odors, or other potential environmental concerns are encountered, a qualified professional will be
required to assess the areas of concern. Including the preparation and submittal of a WTitten analysis,
identifying the areas of concern with appropriate measures, to the Environmental Review Coordinator
for review. The mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential
hazardslhazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are included as a
part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The existing site drains from east to west, running from North Del Mar Avenue to Third Avenue.
The drainage on North Del Mar Avenue remains in the right-of-way, peaking at the connection point
to the proposed Villas Del Mar Court. Drainage from the lots along the south property line is diverted
by existing ditches and discharged onto Third Avenue to the west. The'drainage flows from the lots
to the north, in a northwesterly direction, away from the subject property. The drainage system for
the subject site is designed to handle flows generated from the site plus a portion of the existing
residence.
The proposed drainage improvements include an underground detention system within the park/open
space area of Lot A, detention discharge control structure, private drainage easements, rip rap and
filtration system at the western comer of the project site. No offsite grading or construction activities
for any infrastructure improvements is proposed within the northern 15 foot property setback near the
alkali marsh vegetation area.
According to the Engineering Department, the proposed improvements are adequate to handle the
project stonn water runoff generated from the site. Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs)
included as part of the project design consist of a stonn drain inlet protection system, rip rap outlet
protection, protection of access and perimeter containment measures including open space and
landscaped treatments throughout the project site.
As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of
the project grading plans. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site
7
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, compliance with required NPDES
regulations and BMPs will reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. These
measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (See Section F).
Wastewater Management Services/Sewer System
The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater services area. The
existing area sewer facility system includes sewer lines along Bayview Way and along Vista Del Mar
Court. There are currently no sewer mains abutting the property that would allow for gravity-type
flow. Therefore an off-site main extension through the Third Avenue right of way, and an 8" PVC
sewer main up to the southwest comer of the subject site and into the proposed project court cul-de-
sac are proposed to service the residential lots. The applicant will be required to submit a final sewer
plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant is required to grant an easement to the
City of Chula Vista wastewater services for the purpose of maintenance of the proposed sewer lines.
No significant impacts to the City's sewer system are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Quality
1. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and
building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless
approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave pennanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust.
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if
available.
. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site
prior to public road entry.
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads.
. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on
unpaved surfaces has occurred.
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public
roads.
. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling.
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
8
Biological Resources
2. To avoid any impacts associated with construction noise, construction must occur outside of
the breeding season for nesting raptors (January 15 through July 31). If construction must
occur during the breeding season for these species, prior to initiating any construction-related
activities (including clearing of vegetation, grubbing, and grading), pre-construction surveys
must be performed by a City-approved biologist to determine the presence or absence of
nesting raptors within 500-feet of the construction area. The pre-construction survey must be
conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of which must
be submitted to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval prior
to initiating any construction-related activities. If nesting raptors are detected, a nOIse
mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator prior to initiating any construction related activities.
3. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including clearing, grading or
construction permits, temporary orange biological fencing shall be installed around the
existing renmant Cismontane Alkali Marsh plant area and reflected in the grading plans.
Fencing must be constructed in accordance with the development plans to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Review Coordinator. The City's Mitigation Monitor will conduct periodic
site visits to verify the placement of the biological fencing and to ensure that all construction
activities remain within the approved limits of grading.
4. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including clearing, grading or
construction permits, the applicant obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) Permit from
the City for impacts to Tier III habitat (Non-native Grasslands) in accordance with the City's
HUT Ordinance, Section 17.35.
5. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including clearing, grading or
construction permits, the applicant shall submit evidence that 1.14 acres of Non-native
Grassland or equivalent credits have been permanently secured in a mitigation bank to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a fiIiallandscape
plan/palette to the City's Environmental Review Coordinator for review and approval to
ensure landscaping at the rear of Lot 10, within the propertY line setback, will be non-
invasive and compatible with the existing alkali marsh vegetation.
Geological
7. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City
Engineer that all the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated November 18,
2003 have been satisfied.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
8. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement
contractor shall perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all
applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
9. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, any equipment associated with the septic
system shall be removed from the project site and disposed of in accordance with the
applicable County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Services regulations. If
any chemical odors or potential environmental concerns are encountered, a qualified
9
professional shall assess the area and submit a written report to the Environmental Review
Coordinator for review.
Hvdrology and Water Quality
10. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, the City Engineer shall verify that the final grading
plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region Order No. 200 l-O I with respect to construction-related water quality best
management practices.
11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in
conjunction with the preparation of the final grading plans. The City Engineer shall verify
that the [mal grading plans comply with the provisions of California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-0l with respect to permanent, post-
construction water quality best management practices (BMPs). If one or more of the
approved post cons1ruction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of
construction. Compliance with said plan shall become a permanent requirement of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices
shall be installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent
sediment from entering the stonn drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the
grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
G. Agreement to Implement Mitigation Measures
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator 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 posting of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the
Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
~ n (7' C
~Ct(f(~(..v 'f!J(.(/br~~c:-
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
(or authorized reP7~ntative) ~
/J/ / / /
/ /// ,/, ,
Signatrlre <f'Ap~ttcan~t' Lx-
(or autho~ed representative)
AI;", J"
/
v
~/z 7 /0 ~
Dale I
Z/z7ft{
rYcLte I
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
10
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn Ponseggi, Planning and Building Department
Marisa Lundstedt, Planning and Building Department
Steve Power, Planning and Building Department
John Schmitz, Planning and Building Department
Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department
Glen Laube, Planning and Building Department
Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department
Jeff Steichen, Planning and Building Department
Richard Zumwalt, Planning and Building Department
Sohaib Al-Agha, Engineering Department
Frank Rivera, Engineering Department
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
Alex AI-Agha, Engineering Department
Beth Chopp, Engineering Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department
Jim Newton, Engineering Department
Ben Herrera, Engineering Department
Gary Edmonds, Fire Department
Lynn France, Conservation Coordinator
Krista Rhinehardt, Building and Park Construction
Others:
Dee Peralta, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Sweetwater Authority
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 2005 (as amended).
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, EIR No. 05-01,
December 13,2005.
City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Biological Resource Analysis for the Vinas Del Mar, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.,
January 19, 2006.
Preliminary Lotting and Grading Study/Earthwork and Drainage Statement for Villas Del Mar,
Chula Vista, Tri-Dimensional Engineering Incorporated, January 19,2004.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for 160 North Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, Geocon,
Incorporated, November 18,2003.
11
Phase 1/Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Villas Del Mar, 160 North Del Mar
Avenue, Chula Vista, Geocon Incorporated, February 3, 2006.
Historical Evaluation of 160 North Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, Scott A. Moomjian, January
30, 2004.
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based Oh the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chu1a Vista, CA 91910.
lr~/t?/T~~ .
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi I
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date:
~/~/~?
{ /
J:\Planning\MAR1A\InitiaI Study\ViIIas De1 Mar\IS-04-022MND.doc
12
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING
LOCATOR PROJECT .
C) APPLICANT: Villas Del Mar Development LLC.
INITIAL STUDY
:g~~~~: 160 N Del Mar Av.
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER:
No Scale 15-04-022
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request Proposing DRC for 12 single family dwelling's on individual lots.
NORTH
Related cases: PCS..Q4-D6; PCZ-QS-Q3. DRC-OS-S6
J: Iplanninglcarlos\locators \is04022. cdr 02.28.06
CY'LJ ID II I
'-
~-~-----~
~~.,J_
'~:':'.;....t:. :~_:.
.. :j:".::
';~ ~ ;;;.~:
--
~-,~_:~'.:f
:.1. ^-
.. ~:j: -.'.
:.,!" ;"" .
I 2:~........-._ .)!.
---':,~~r',J.<>1~ ~,
" .!~i UJ '-x- ~~i~
., I I' j,--_,~...J.,i :~,~~ ._
' I':;;' "S ,.
J. t ~.~ :" n Lll..._J
I I"",
rol"~1
'''', 'I;"
1"(' ~ ~.
~! j
1"- < _
' i" '-j ~ ~-=--' ~ "'i
' '"If;' " " '~u_'_', "
~,,,cH , _ 'l ._ ____, :;, '-.~A ~
' !;:' iH ~'"I:'~ ,;.' '0_ -- 'r-o--"'I~
";~t 'Ii 1:~']tI ~" 'j ,:~ 0 ' , il':",~
""'-. "I -". ',1 , ..,!. '." ".~- '-~"_'I i, r- ';..
:,\, 1:):'\ <',':i: r 3 t ii! I. '3 i ~
',;,\. .; ';'.~ 'e '~\. Ii; i ",-', ~ , . I: ~ J ~, II,
-\~'>:~~PL!":, ;ji ___~
. '\;.{ ~< ~.., .
J,.<"" ):'~ ">>i:.,.l.:::i_,'::;_= L~~~),!~, _
" '-.' ._~ , ',-." .. - ".., " " Q
".,~, ~~:H~c'
, ;:; A;-otj i" ' X 1;::1: ~'l:\i
~1:i:J f Jj .... ::0 io,Lhr;;.~ti;
J~~;;~mj=ji:!!
'''">, - I " .~.,.~:) -Hi f'
W, ,J ~f':'\\V>~~z1ftr'
- , r ",' U'''", '''t!
eJt:", ' ,/~;;?~i:~----
", I Ki '~'" \..' ~-;'. " "~
~' r-=;:' '..:::" ,:''6. ~i, /, . ,. '~
\ ~ ;. '...j, 'It ',-''''''''''''''''- \11
Ii ~: .* I;i'., , \ ~. <,",.,! 'r{
" I L . ,/, ..)"'.J....~' .....
-----'-'\, ~ r'.~ f \;"1/:,' ""~..,..';...
I if-" I~ . '. " e;:. :,~ '8 ;".1,
;. ' !; ,a ~.. j.:;;, '! " .. , ,,:- ~ i _'+~
~i '- ,J .-.J . 0+~~r- \:~, ,ilil
'0 ~ .' " \, '.. ) """""'--.r II'
!.'~, \./ \,' J 'I't'i:
-tJ I, ~I' /:\."\.. . A;..,.." I~
i~:::',! .' "l-~'!j L..II:
II .~~ ":' /. ~ _ ,- ! I' !."UI:
<i Q ~ ,-! / I ' IT ii,
' i-, (/ --- "---"'"L~, l' 1,"
! i if" - ~, '-.. -. ~ ;J;T",:~
--~l ~.,,1 ; "! l....".j;:," . i "I ,I',
il ? ..;/q"~ . .:-1tf' ;:; ~.~ i/i "1:1 ~"
'f'::~//I' .:' ~ i f::; ~ : '~..lt' "
J. ' : (, ;: " " I ." G , J.';~ " .
" <. ( - ~." , 7, 'f~"'I"" ,',
' ,; 1-;';' / i 3..l :'" "', "-....~, ~,Jji' .' _ '::
' 12/-" ,-, --L-O=<:,*l,,~~c.-
'4 .. '-- ~- "..:.~~~~'" . '-:.o:~ "t _ ".
i~l~'4~;;~~:~~G;~~~)~' ,--
---'--
':1
"
:.i-
'.!-
-.......-..--
. .~
-
:..
*;{
~"{
..
;-;-1
I .~.~
' '''J'
J',
I .~: _.;
,I.~ ~.
V
J
-
~;
'-.':;..;;
.j! ;$ ~
..4!",
, ,
,
,
-.
.-...-
"
[]
r
I:
La
----. -
,,'
li'
~'X~ I
{~b-
~j 7
i
\"-.
..........
~
~
r:
~
-.
..
"
~
-
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
VILLAS DEL MAR - IS-04-022
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Villas Del Mar project. The proposed project has been
evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-04-022)
The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are
implemented. and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts( s):
1. Air Quality
2. Biological Resources
3. Geological
4. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written fonn confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-04-022 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-04-022, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
J:\Planning\MARlA\Initial Study\VilIas Del Mar\lS-04-022MMRPtext.doc
E
rn
....
c
.;::
~
c
o
2
c
o
~
:;;
~
T""
Q)
..c
~
I-
UI
"E
CD
E
E
o
u
"C "*
.; 0
Q.
g ~
U 1;
:E
~
a:::
t')
o
a:::
a..
t')
z
i=
a::
o
a..
w
a:::
c
z
~
t')
z
a:::
o
!::
z
o
:E
z
o
i=
~
t')
i=
:E
CD
::c
'iij >.
J::1::
o C':I
c.o.
UI
CD
a:
CD
...
:::s
UI
C':I
CD
~
I:
.2
-;
C)
~
>-
N ~
N ::J
0 ~
I
7 :J
0 a
ch a::
<(
rn I: ci
2
a; oZ
::: CD
0 C':I ...
C):::s
'" .- In
~ =::ca
~CD
:> ~
UiU;
00
Il.u X
J:: "'''':
- t: III
o .2 'C't:
::I 0
01-; !:IU X
I: tJ
's !E .. in
i=:U a: t:
> 0
U x
::0
~
_I:
00
~=
o ~
.c: '-
Q)~
~CD
>
0)
c:
!1
>,'5
.?;- <3~
l) en~ c: c:
:;:"SCDrn<D
c:(jjEO)E
~ <D -;::.5 t::
=.5 rn C:rn
f5:~ar.ffi ar
~WOo..O
2
U5
:>2
u c:
<D 0
...c;:
l)U
c: CD
rn5i"
-c:
0.._
<D
..cUI
rorn
.c:m
m c:
m.!:!!
"Ea. Q)
<D en :g.
~ ~ iri :J
'S3~ E
CT .c 0.
~ -g 2
c:rno.
gCig-
~.S <D
._"'0 en
.-= rn .~
Eo,<D
>'<D.c:
~:Co
~.~ ~
I..-"Q.I.-
'(ij g- o.
en_ m
.5 ro 2
3: c: 0
..QoC:
'Oc:m"
';~2
~{i~
~
'0
c:
o
~.
... m
<D""
0.C:
o :J
m"E
:J '"
o E
~o.
rn'S
~o-
E <D
._ c:
m 0
CD:;:::;
N U
._ :J
E--=
._ m
c: c:
~8
C ro
CD U
E tj
0. rn '0
.~ C. ~
~ ~ 3:
.2 g,
U Q,
2 .S
en (5
c: m
o rn
U 0>
0) _0
E
'E
q>
c:
rn
:2
'0
0.
3:
..Q
CD
m
:J
.
. . .
c
CD
E
0.
'5
0-
CD
c:
.2
1:5 c:
2 .2
en 1:5
c: :J
o '0
U ~
ro
U
.;::
1:5
CD
-ai
CD
m
:J
.::1
~.....;
-c:
rn CD
roE
Uo.
~ 'S
:Jar
'0
CD
(jj
3:
o
'?-
-ai
UJ
.~
'0
.2
"2
ro
~
en
c:
~
C:
o
:;"E
a3 CD
:S-g,
~ 'S
:Jar
.
CD
N
'E
'c
'E
.9
2:-
'(ij
'0
CD
U
]
ro
~
ro
c:
.2
1:5
2
(jj
c:
8-.;
CD :J
.c:"C
-CD
Q) .~
-ro""
5:.2'
.
.9 .9
CD CD
::a ::a
"Cij 'Cj5
m UJ
o 0
0. 0.
m m
co co
>, >,
32 32
U U
's 's
0- 0-
m UJ
co co
m . m
~ en ~
ro-5 e
'0 CD
<D.:::
'0""
roO)
0,2
<D CD
N.t:!
:3.S
co c:
iij'E
. .
c
CD .
c:(jj
co :::s
E'O
... CD
CD N
0.._
CD E
> "c
co .-
0.. E
-
>.
ro
o
0.
E
2
'0
'0
~~
-..c
~.!:!!
.;;; '(ij
2~
0_
0.'-
"'Ci
Q) c:
~!1
0. '5
E..c
00)
~ .S:
~:S
'(3 '0
E~
U 0
~ro
CD ...
~ ~
:J~
rou
c:=
.....c
CD :J
"Eo.
=0
0-
~ 0
CD ._
CD ...
_0.
a <D
o~
~m
-c:
m 0
co .-
~13
.c: 2
~Ci)
> c:
ro 0
o.U
... ro
o c:
"':.c
CD_
N .-
= 3:
~:5 ~
_ro_
m 0. c:
>,_ CD
o.~-g
~~ e
.
.
o
.~
c:
e
0.
rn
'0
<D
>
rn
0.
CO
..9.
_ m
C:'O
'" CO
U 0
rn ...
:cu
rn=
..c
m :J
Qjo.
.c: c:
tn 0
~~
- c:
:E <D
.c:CD
3:<3
=:.c
rn CD
(jj >
E.s
.
~
:c
:J
0.
'0
<D
-aicri
> U
~~
0:::;
E8
::;~
00
~tn
~2
~.E
:cE
';no
.;;: cry
>'.S
C:.c:
ro""
CD 3:
E;.i!J
~ ~
a::(jj
'0
'0
c:
<D
CD '0
..c:CD
->
-rn
rno.
- c:
.f: ::I
o c:
0.0
tn_
m Q)
CD >
u rn
u ...
rn;
c:-
0.::1
:;:: ..c
u CD .
:J>'O
.=>.~
tn c: ...
f5 C1] B
~~g
.c:rntn
-'Orn
..c:~..c:
en 0 en
~ 3: ~
aJ-5~
>rn:J
><Dtn
.
.
o
bO
'"
0...
c
Q)
>
'"
C.
..9
g-2
c: rn
8 e
15,g
.- ..c
m:J
00.
Qj 0
...-
25
CD_
.S .~
<62
o.rn
cE
CD>'
'(3 ==
t~
ii5 0
<D::;
'00
'>~
e rn
0..3:
'0 -g
>
m rn
CD 0.
""5 c:
c:ci:J::J~
-c:c::J
N=OO
.,....:='I_..!:
... rn 11> "-
m..c:>CD
~~jg;
.- 'i:: u Q)
('O::IC:==
c:'OcoE
19:981{")
.== ~ ~ ~
E ..Q -e :E
o ~ ~ ~
U .- CD
~-5~.gJ
2 ~ 55.s
-0=3:
S;(t]~
CO..."'Ocn
..croCQ)
'- 0 Q,) U
iJJ ..c 0. rn
> <D UJ 't:
OQ)::1:J
U-l=(j)rJ)
.
. .
E
rn
'-
c:
.;::
~
c:
o
2
c:
.2
ro
:;::;
~
.....
ell
..c
C'J
I-
en
UJ
U
a::
::::>
0
en
UJ
a::
--1
N <{
N U
0 (5
..;. 0
0 --1
ch 0
co
rn
2
(i3
0
'"
~
:>
0)
c:
'c
c:
m
>- i'L
G O)~ ~c
~ .S: Q)'- Q)
C:wE;gE
~Q)-e::3t
:=.S:mCDm
2:~g.-g g.
<{UJOmO
u;u;x
o 0
Il.u
01",
<:: <II
.~ a x
QU
'" <II
c: 5 x
U
:;:
t-=
2
en
:'-2
u c:
Q) 0
..c:=
U u
Q)
C:a.
m '"
i'L,s
OJ- ~~"'OE g>
~g", S~~~~ Q)~o~u ~~
m Q) DO........_Q).............
crn~c~ciEQ) -t~>~ ~'E
g~~~~~~~Q)~S~~~Q)~';
ts 0);:' Q) 0 .c 't: ",..c: E '" Eo' (/) -0 -
::3.5~oo=~OJQ)-~~~~~~~~
~",~~oc:g~~Q)~~OJ~~o~co~
Q) C:o"'CijumCi.c.
t::\...~::o~c:-.cQ)w~-Q)c2 -o.io..
8.c~Q)c.Q~~~oo~~~~iroB
~Q)o~8~::3Q)6g~oo~c~~~
_..c:~.c -EC:o-a.~ooQ)C:-
~=eQ)~&(/)~~~(/)Euu~mE .
"D 0 = = co Q) >. 05.S .E ~..c:: ~ ~-o ~ g ~
2~~~o~~~5~~.~~ro~=OE
~~~~~O~-o~~~j~~m~~~
g::3~~ro~~oOOUu~QJ;~~~u
oooro"DE.Ec=-~coOCroo~3ro
~-~_croo~Bo.~~mE~~~~
mB~B~Q)ts~a.Q)m=c.smQ)a::2
~uJu-u~Q~~u~OJo-.c-ro
u 0 ~ 0.... .... 0 r- 0 E - 0>= m-
CIJ....... rn........Q g>Ci.i:a g' .~ ~ c: - c::~c ~
a.E~~~~~~"D;m.5Q)o~~~W~
.- E a.E .~ u Q) gJ ~:5:5.= c.Q) c: E.Q
>. ro ~~Q)> .- >_Croc-
c:c-c~c~o~C:~~~~~Eeg
ro g OJg ~ ~ a 0.. 0:2 -0 go. c'S;.b
~u.5u~rn_~Q)uSu~-rnoC~
~2~2rn.~0)~u202~~.~;W8
~Ci.i~0~3~~~Ci.i~~Oro5~~U
06-aQ)~~U~aaaQ)~~~~~
~uSu~roO)rorouou=roroEoro
N
0)
c:
'c:
c:
m
>- i'L
G OJc:~ ~c
~.- Q)'- Q)
C:wEgE
g.~1ffi~~
2: ~ g.-g g.
<(UJOmO
x
x
x
2
i:i5
:;:
u c:
Q) 0
..t:::;:::;
OaJ
C:c.
m '"
i'LE
c
Q) -
~ -o..c:g'E~g g:
E ",' ~ ~'O ~.9:! -g ~ ~.s:
Q;~l]2~Q35;O-:;:::;~
=~~=LL~a::~02o
c:::Q)'-CIJ "'C-=--_
Q)a.Q)~uiQ)l9~ai~o
Ec:.c<(~..c:C:""EO(/)
~,g~~C.:;;E,gQ)~'E
- u.c CO 0)- c::: c::: U(ij'_
~ 2 00_ c::'~ 0 o~_-
Q)U; ~~:a Q)'5:2 a.~~
-0 ~'O E ~ g c: ~~- iJ
-g U c:::.~ O)roW:;::;- ~ C
ro I- 2 U Q)"E G) ~.Z:" :J 9
-;. o_roE:; o:5:~.~ ~ CIJ
~ ~.S1 ~.s: 8'0:2 > Q)~
-:a 8' E -0 ~ c: ,'" .8 .8 ~
o mo Q)2.- 0 >-"'-0'-
G) 0,'- I- u-c:g~::: c:::.t=
U ..c 0) Q) Q) 00 t).fQ co:::
~ a> Q).S1I5 t51i; Q) > 0)3
:J.S ga; I- 2:;:::;.cB.~.S
en!.... 00.-"'0..... 001-.- U 00
.~~o~fd~U)~~a5E
~u:>,~ en 8~.8:a~ ~
-~ro-~Q)~~.~~rn
.9.- 0 -0 ro ..c - '- Q) .- ~
a~ o.5ccn ~~ o..Q:~
'c:uEom~mo2o-
Q.. .S: 2 ~ c. E c.O 'Cij ij ~
'"
..
0)
c:
:g
'S ~
CD~
z'-ou
.- c: ~ 0)'-
OmC:c:C:
~ Q).-Q)
C:O)Ea>E
~,St: Q)t
:=C:m.S:m
2:~ g- ~ g-
<(Q..OUJO
x
x
x
2
en
:;:
u c:
Q) 0
..c:=
UU
Q)
<:: Cl.'
m",'
i'L,s
Cij
Q) = '"
:5Q)..a~
~ tn- 7d ~ U
'E'E!:::= Q)
!....I-CUI-..c:
O>Q)_Q)-
2-o..~t=2
ai5:E1.8~
Ets's$23
g-~~~~
Q) (/) 0 a.-o
ii)~--1.So .
"O~I9o~~
-oo:.o-m,....:
~O)ro.2:'.E~
-;,.S: I G ti) g
ffi~~JE-g~
'0 ~~ E ~ ~
Q)OJ.co'" ,
g'E~'::: ~ ~
mmCii=(9c:
~~{d~~~
.~ ~c:~~~
.8:a~~70
C5 .=! '6. ':i ~ t:
;t.~ g-E.~I!
-<t
0)
c:
:g
'5 >-
CD~
>- -0 0
~C:~O>-
~mai.s:ai
C:O>EwE
f3 .S: t cD 1::
'-C:mC:m
8:~ g.'~g-
<(Q..OUJO
x
x
x
N
'"'
00
'"
c...
2
en
:'-2
u c:
Q) 0
..c:=
UU
Q)
C:a.
m '"
i'L,s
en Q) C:
~..c:o
E -.Z
Q)~oc: c5
a.E",Q)Q)_
cQ5~~=g
Q)a.uQ)o..!:::
Ec:m>:;o
ffg~~~g>
~g~~..a32
Q) ~ 0; a5 a'S
"'Oc::-5I-:.;::;Q)
-g 8 Q)~~-o
19C5gai:E~
>- Q) Cii E 0>
~ ~~.~ m.S
'0 :a Q) 5-E 2
~~Q)'"CCtS
~o>E""Q)i'L
C -..0 0 !....
m O)~-O B~
:J.EcncQ)_
Cl)ro=rocn-
.~ G) ~ Ui >- 0
Q)C3cn~~a
.t=0}-1-Q)'-
-;c:~(9c:13
::~g~E~
0_ 0.:= 1-=
cl:.sg-[g~m
Lri
c
.;::
g
c
o
2
c
.2
ro
~
'-
ro
:2
Qj
o
(/J
~
:>
.....
Q)
..c
ItS
I-
0)
<=
'2
"5 >.
CD;::
-c'OU
G <=:;:;, 0)-
:;:, ro a5.!: a5
<=O)Ea;E
~ .~ t: Q) t
= <= rn.!: rn
2:~ at~at
-<a...OWO
U;~X
o 0
D.u
c>...:
<: "'
'i: <: X
::I 0
cu
",iii
... <: X
D. 0
U
::iE
~
.2
en
?2
u <=
(I) 0
.c,.,
UU
<=~
rc '"
is:E
I
=;ij~-g -g
.c-C1I C1I
~.93:6(1)<=
~ 2 .~ :: .~ g "__
u - :> 0 rc C1I ,"
:::~ ~-J ~Q) .."_'-
~[OO'I 0)
cuc:':rog~
(I).!!! 0 (I) <=.c
~o.rn~Q)~
_- Q) C Q)..c rn
'E ~'E = == E I
'- U 0 rn 3:'- I .
~"'00) ,eij
'OU<=13:!!:
~ ~ 3: '0. rn rn I ".
'--Q)rn.QO) I
-g rn"s; t) Q) .E
,-cQ)~(I)a;
0> <+= a::: c: Q)'X
rnrneij.!!!.!:(I)
oEC:~~~ ...J
CD..cQ)::JI---- <{
U ::J E "'~:S u
c::: rn c: C 0'- _
~'Oo(l)'-3: Z
en <=.: 0 o.aJ ":c
en en ::> ...... Q) - ~ 0'.
'- (l)W<=eij.cg <=W
0,- >-rn::)
- rn en 0 <= o.EOI-
o atz.o..=5 E E
it 0..0 ~.~ 8 8 ~
~
c
o
~
CJJ
W
U
a:::
::J
o
CJJ
w
a:::
--J
-<
U
a
o
--'
o
CD
c.ci
. .
0>
<=
'2
'S >.
CD;::
:>0'0 U
;:: <=:;:;, 0)-
g rc a5 .!: a5
<=O)Ea;E
~.s t Q.) t
'a, ~ ~.a ~
a..!!! (I) <= (I)
-<a...owo
,
U;~X
00
D.u
CI-....:
c en
.~ ex
::I 0
CU
...:
'" "'
c:' 2; x
u
::iE
t-=
2
(jj
?2
U <=
(I) 0
.,. B't5
<=~
rn en
.... is: E
.
ii
c(l)
rJ :S r:::;-
'a,=;ij,g
0._ <1] .
rn rn 01'0
Q) ..c:;:: Q)
..c::~i+=
- Q) :>.5!2
..' en' ~ r:::; ro
=:: ._ ::: en
EO><1]<=
Q;Jj.~~
a. :>o.c: .0
c:::: 0 OJ
.Q U .s :>
ua>orc
::J.cQ).c
""-CD,,,
~.9 Q)25
omEN
uuc: ~
_ c._co
OCDcn~
Q,):2c'-
u :> 0 Q)
<=(1),.,.0
rnQ)rcE
::J'O'O Q)
(rJ._ c >
.~ e; (I) 0
o,-Ez
::~E-o
0-0Q)
.t::~a5ro
Q..cnl....'"C
r-:
OJ
<=
'2
'S >.
CD;::
:>0'0 U
;:: <=:;:;, 0)-
Urn<=<=<=
~01E'~E
~ .S 't: Q) 't:
.- <= rn <= rn
8:~ at'~ at
-<a...OWO
X
.'
X
X
2
(jj
?2
u <=
Q) 0
.c,.,
UU
(I)
<=0.
.' rc en
-<=
a..._
Cii
..c -L-.....
~~~<(.E
.9 C-c >'"'0
CjWQ)-'-
". -g f:! E - 5.gJ
rnc2-g0<=
'OornrnUJ3
(I) u.o (I) OCJJ
~c~ro ~ I
~ .~ E'~Ui_o~
-< - (I) 0.- <= ......
a: rnro'O rJ rn,...:
W en-.o (I) 0 CJJ to
~ .91 rn ~a; ~~
~ 3-g-'?~:aS c
't5.B1"Cu.2a:::o
~ cn"O~~gt5~
g .2 ~ -g ~.~-~ e;
a::: '3.9 rn=;ij [50 a5
~ E ii1.9:5~oa:::
~ OJ.!:) CI).--..=""C
I 'OenQ)3:6><=~
_ :>0 rn.o (I) (I) 0
(/') t::-otnu,-Uc
o rnQ)rn<='O<=.Q
a: .92 E-E ffig~
~ o.~.g 8 "'~ E
:.:{ .;::01(I)Q)u3:0(l)
I a... '- c.rn.!!!a...O
cri
0>
<=
'2
"5 >.
aJ='=
:>0'0 U
(3 <=:;::, 01-
:;:;, rn a5.!: a5
<=01Ea;E
~.St:: Q)t
= <= rn.!: rn
g;~ at ~ at
-<a...owo
X
X
X
<"")
X
OJ
0()
'"
a..
2
(jj
?2
U <=
(I) 0
..c:;::;
uu
<=~
rc '"
-<=
a..._
<=
:>0(1) 0 '02
C,C Q) Q)~,-
rn= (I) :;::3:,2
~~.SO _~t"lJo
EE '0 ~ ii1.~ 0-='= ro
(I) (I)"C(J).~c rnJS.!:
D.Ci) ~~ ~2"O~~"E
<=:>000(1)0(1)"'0
.Q '" 0..?;>(J) c. a;"C 0
u.2.~ C.c 0..... c:U
::Jc."C::J~ 5rn3:
zQ)"t:)arn~OracD
~",<=UQ)ou~'>
0(1) rn(l)I'O <=rnQ)
u:S2:aCii..::(I)(])1!:
~..c:'cn~"E ~ ~~rn
rn == U 'a, (l)E '-E rn en c
_3:Q)c. CJ)CJ)(])
o'O'O'rn[5~E~E
~"*c.~'5u8~5
c'u Q)..... c= ~a='=
~o:S:SWrnurnE;
~ ~ E'~'O:!::Ciii5w
.- en 0 Q)..... . 'E co cD
~"E..:uffi~Q)c=
-c; (I) a; ~.s,g ~'~..9
::: ~:>"E (ij.!!! e "'t:: 3i
.Q'S ~ 8 a. 6> '> -E 8.'~
Qg~~~~~o..~~
c;
E
~
"E
g
c:
o
:2
c:
o
~
~
N
N
o
,,;.
o
ch
~
cc
:2
a5
o
CI)
cc
:>
.....
Q)
..0
ra
I-
OJ
C
:E
"3 >.
CD;;:
>--0 U
B c~ OJ-
~roa5.Sa5
COJEQiE
~.5 1:: Q) t::
=cro.Sro
8:~ g- g g-
<(a..OUJO
~~x
00
!l.u
e>..:
c: en
Oi: ex
::I 0
au
Qliii
Jl:5x
u
~x
I-
~
CI)
:>2
U C
Q) 0
..r:=.:.;;:
ug
Co.
ro <n
a:.s
>-
J-
:J
<(
::J
o
er::
UJ
~
$
o
z
<(
>-
CD
o
....J
o
er::
o
>-
I
.s
-6: g '3
Erne;
o '" ,
>-uOe;_
B~Qi~~
Q)~rn ..0
.s o.$~.~
- OJ_ rn
E.5~a;::J
CD ~.2 "E ~
o.~~02
OJrner:::5 ~
:5~.~'a""O
rawE<DQ)
01.c.EC!:-rn
ca~~ g~
o=~-~guj
Q) >-00= ~
g~~~gt5
ra>oCf.),,::~
~-'Cii ~CI)Cl.
.~ ~ "S: "E a "E
aJcne25uaJ
.sQio.~~~
.9Q)~ot.)O)
1.....5--..::(1)00
o OLe c: D. c:
;ttTI~8~E
o
~
01
c:
:E
'S >-
CD='=
>--0 U
:::: c:::=t en +-'
~ ro a5.s a5
c01EQiE
~.st: tDt
"_ c: ro c: ro
~ ~ g-'g g-
<(a..OUJO
x
x
x
2
U5
:>2
u c:
Q) 0
..c:;:::
ug
C:o.
ro <n
-c
a.._
fD8 __
01= ~ 0 C
CUro"i:: Q)~Q)""C
.5co~~ffi .c.......c::"(tj
~ Q.=.QU) ::nf-; ~ Q)
"'C ~ ca~_~jO 0 ~- :::::::-E
"'ffi a....c ~ \--c;; Q)__i;:) 3:--
C:(Dcn\-rot5Q)I...U~ 0
ti=-cQjo.OQ).Qo2ra ~"""E
ro- Q) <DCC o.>-EU; o.Q) C ~ f::!
-:5 c..c- en:=: '- I ~:5 ro E OJ
+-,._.__owctjocc. == 0
'ES:OJ.s::",,~"'Q)o Oo.<D~
'- c~:=: a:5 at: c:: Q):: E.=a..
~.Q >- s: u '3 Qi 0 .!!J :: .g 8 5- OJ
Q)t5::::2:">.,!,,""-:= rnro 0. ~.5
C C U 0.;;: 0 ro . a.. .s:: ~ . _ t
'6.2,<D Ern~ S:U;-;2 <n Q):5 c: 8.
roC.s::O"'oc:a..ccCQ)=<DQ)
~ OJ- UOo.Q;2 c.!!1.S u ~er::
at.) en I-C'\tu 00.0)::;) E
roE en ~2 . :J~:;o..Jj~ ,--g
'0-0 ~c.ro~~ ~ g:2 >-:5 ~ro
Q) ~ "C.. 0)$ 10.... c u ..:: CD:::: u ro 0)
U'S C:-QJo:;:::rJ)c:U_ C
c:: 0" g>:s ~ "E" Y U 5 ,9 Q) 0 Q) 'i::
~ ~=a ~.QOU) [Ut5:5"E fjg
~Q)~0)~c&-(j)20Eua
'a;~~~er::.@,--~ 8.~ C Q)~:2
.s::roro<;::roQ)cE-ooou=c
~~~ G)'Eel: ~ &~ tt~ ~~g
- >,0) :; 0 0 ra ra 0 en ~ E en co
a-a=--~ C>>E c: :s..o.!a E c:.Ql
&~Q5~B ~E g-~~ 8-5.~
'"'"
~
OJ
c:
:E
'S >.
CD;;:
g-g~ OJ-
S5ro~c:c
<=OJE~E
.~.~~ ~~
~~ g-g g-
<(a..OUJO
x
x
x
2
U5
:>2
u c:
Q) 0
.s::=
UU
Q)
Co.
ro <n
-c
a.._
OJ
,s C
.roc'6
~-o'ro~>.
~19 E-c ~B
o~.9E:5a>
0..- en 0 c:5
E Q) ~_._-
QJ..oQ)"'-oo
-=>G>2c
-~roQ):5uo
'E ~ ro 01 ~ 13
!o.... cQ5ro
Q) ~-o.i::::!o....-
o.uQ)2Q)~
OJ -:;:2 c:..o ro
cQ)>a>-rn
'6-oeErnQ)
~o C.o-5i5
~~~::~.9
o8~a5~~
~:5~'~~~
C:'en <n -g QJE -
rooQ)<n C
55Qi'~c~E
.~-oQ)Q)<DQ)
Q)c""C>..c>
:5ro~~J-e~
o g= 0. E. 0. ~
-:~~.9 a>.~.S
.g.~e~~-g g>
a..-oa..'s<nroUJ
N
~
,
7
<!J
bQ
~
c...
u
o
""
:c
~
::E
::E
N
N
o
.J
o
ia
..,-
OJ
::E
03
Q
'"
~
~
'"
"'g
en
]
:;;:
C2
-<
~
.~
~
?
~! It..
-..-
~
--
ENVIRONl\1ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
Villas Del Mar Development, LLC
Federico Escobedo
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
160 North Del Mar Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 420-4101
4. Name of Proposal:
Villas Del Mar
5. Date of Checklist:
6. Case No.:
February 20, 2006
IS-04-022
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 .0 0 II
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 II
but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 II
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
o
o
o
II
1
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-b )The proposal includes the development of twelve single family residential units with site
improvements in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and Design Review
Guidelines. The proposed landscape improvements would enhance and improve the aesthetic
quality of the surrounding hillside and neighborhood street, Del Mar Avenue. The proposed
project would not damage any scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state
scenic highway. The project site contains no scenic vistas or views open to the public. The
development layout is designed not to block any private vista views from the existing and
proposed residential units.
c) The proposal is an infill residential development project. The proposed project will not
substantiaIIy degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent
residential surroundings. The project site is planned for residential development according to the
General Plan Land Use regulations.
d) The proposal wiII be required to comply with the City's mllllmum standards for roadway
lighting. The project will be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section
19.66.100) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMe). Compliance with these regulations will
ensure that no significant glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the
surrounding residential neighborhood area.
Miti!!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide hnportance (Fannland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
III
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
II
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFarrnland, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
II
2
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a-c)The project site has been previously rough graded and surrounding properties have been partially
developed. These properties are consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and zoning
designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated fannland. The proposal would
not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-
agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be created as a result of the
proposed proj ect.
Miti2"ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
ill. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
regIon IS non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
II
o
II
II
II
o
o
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
(a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti2:ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant air quality impacts to a level ofless than significance.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proj ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department ofFish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
o
II
o
o
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
o
II
o
o
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 II 0
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 0 II 0
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 0 II
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
4
Issues:
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
a-f} See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti1!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
II
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No
Impact
o
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant biological resource impacts to a level ofless than significance.
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines 9 15064.5?
b). Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines 9 l5064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
II
II
II
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 &I
Issues:
Comments:
a) In order to assess potential historic resources located on the project site or surrounding areas, a
historical evaluation study was prepared, dated January 30, 2004. The following details summarize the
results of the study. The existing residential structure was not associated with any important events or
individuals in terms of local, state or national history. The residence or site does not qualify as a
historic resource under national, state or local register criteria. The proposed project will not cOIlStitute
a substantial, adverse change to the significance of an historical resource as the residence has been
detennined by the analysis not to be historically or architecturally significant within the project impact
area. Therefore, no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Based on the level of previous site disturbance, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes
to archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated.
c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited amount of additional
grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic
features are anticipated.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
o
o
o
II
11.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
o
o
o
.
lll.
Seismic-related
ground
failure,
inclucling
o
o
o
I
6
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significan t Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
liquefaction?
IV. Landslides? 0 0 0 11
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 II 0
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 II 0 0
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial 0 0 II 0
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 0 0 II
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant geological impacts to a level of less than significance.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine 1ransport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
o
o
II
o
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
o
o
..
o
7
Issues:
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
II
II
Ii
II
II
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a and b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (Hazards/Hazardous Materials).
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. The proposed project site is located within one-
quarter mile of an existing school located on Second Avenue. The proposed project will not emit
acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the
schools within the surrounding area.
d) The proposed project is not located on a site included on the hazardous list pursuant to the
Government Code Section 65962.5, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the public or the
environment.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to adverse
safety hazards.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would
not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards.
g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency
evacuation requirements. The proposed fire improvements include an emergency turning radius and fire
hydrant. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is anticipated.
h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fire service requirements. No
exposure of people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death due to wildfires is anticipated.
Mitie:ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level ofles,s than significance.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
o
II
o
o
9
Issues:
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land us'es or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration ,of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorpo!,ated
0 0 II 0
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
II
o
o
.0
.
o
o
o
II
Issues:
Comments:
(a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti!:!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hydrology/Water Quality impacts to a level ofless than significance.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proj ect:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
11
o
o
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
II
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is surrounded with single and multi-family residential, including nearby industrial land
uses. The proposed residential infill project would be consistent with the character of the immediate
surrounding residential area and would not disrupt or divide an established community; therefore, no
significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project.
b) The project site is located within the Rl and RIP6 (Single-Family ResidentiaIlPrecise Plan) Zones and
RLM (Low-Medium Density) General Plan land use designation. The project is required to rezone the
existing R16 parcel section to RI for comprehensive compatibility. The project has been found to be
consistent with the all-respective zoning regulations, General Plan guidelines and regulations,
therefore; no significant land use impacts are anticipated.
c) Refer to Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction noise/raptar
nesting and biologically sensitive impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Section, under Biological Resources.
Miti~ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Land Use/Planning impacts to a level ofless than significance.
x. 1\11NERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
II
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
o
o
o
II
12
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing single-farnily'residentialland use. The
proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the
region or the residents of the State of California.
b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral
resource protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the
proposed proj ect.
Miti!!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
13
o
o
III
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
o
II
o _
o
II
o
o
o
o
II
o
o
o
II
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a-d) It is anticipated that on-site workers and adjacent residential population may be exposed to
construction noise associated with short-tenn construction activities. However, the project will be
required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, due to the minimal construction
activities associated with the project, impacts to surrounding residential properties related to
construction noise levels are not expected to be significant. The proposed residential project is not
located within the Health Risk Assessment Area (HRAA), within 500 feet of any adj acent freeway or
highway. The project is not anticipated to potentially violate the noise limits of the City's noise
control ordinance.
The project site contains eucalyptus trees and according to the Biological Resource Study, there is
potential for raptor nesting in eucalyptus trees. Potential short-tenn construction noise/raptor nesting
impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, under Biological Resources.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proj ect:
a) fuduce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
..
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
III
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
II
14
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project is surrounded by existing residential development and involves the removal and
replacement of one single family residence. The proposed project does not involve the extension of
public facilities that would induce substantial growth. Future residential development of the site for
the proposed 12 single-family residential units is consistent with the General Plan and would not
exceed the regional or local population projections. The proposed project would involve the partial
rezoning of the R1P6 to R1 Zone to be consistent with the adjacent single-family residential
properties to the north, south and east. The proposed project would not involve displacement of
existing housing or individuals.
Mitie:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other perfoTIIlance objectives for any public services:
a. Fire protection? 0 0 II 0
b. Police protection? 0 0 0 II
c. Schools? 0 0 0 .
d. Parks? 0 0 II 0
e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 II
15
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the
site. The applicant will be required to comply with the Fire Department policies for fire hydrant
placement, fIre truck turnaround and new building construction. The City's Fire performance
objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant
effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City's
Police perfonnance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District letter
dated January 5, 2006, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees
for the proposed residential construction or an alternative financing mechanism such as participation in
or annexation to a CFD is recommended.
d) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill
project. However, the applicant shall be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees
(pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council on January 6, 2004.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public inITastructure.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
o
o
II
o
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
o
o
o
II
16
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill
project and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant will
be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees (pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No.
2945 adopted by City Council on January 6,2004.
b) The project does not include the cons1:i1lction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is
not plarmed for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment.
Miti2ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
xv. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
17
o
o
II
o
o
o
o
II
o
o
II
o
o
o
o
II
o
D.
o
Ii
Issues:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 II
0 0 0 11
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
(a,b,d,e) According to the Traffic Engineering Department, the proposed residential infill project is not
anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or emergency access impacts. The project
generated traffic trips are minimal, approximately 120 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) that is not considered
to be a sugstantial increase ini either numbr of vehicle trips, volume or capacity. In addition, the project-
generated trips .will not exceed the level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, will not create significant traffic
operations impacts along North Del Mar Avenue and surrounding residential or collector streets.
c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
f) The proposal includes garage space including pull out spaces and 10 parking spaces on Villas Del
Mar Court in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code. The proposal meets ADA requirements
for accessibility and parking.
g) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation
programs. There are no bus turnouts or public transportation systems along this portion of N. Del
Mar Avenue.
Miti!!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment reqllirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
q
o
o
II
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
o
o
II
o
18
Issues:
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stonn
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project :trom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a detennination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
II
o
II
o
o
No
Impact
o
m
o
.
II
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems.
According to the Engineering Department, no exceedance of wastewater requirements of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board would result from the proposed project.
b) According to Sweetwater Authority correspondence dated February 22, 2006 and March 28. 2006. an
existing 6-inch water main is located on the east side of North Del Mar Avenue with one existing water
service to the site. The proposed improvements will include a new water main extension witilln the
proposed private road that connects to the existing Authority water main in North Del Mar Avenue. and
terminates in the proposed cul-de-sac. This would include new separate laterals and meters, as well as the
installation of reduced pressure principle backflow devices and check valyes on any individual fire
protection systems. for each parceL Should anv of the proposed residences be required to have a building
fIre sprinkler svstem, then each water service shall be equipped with an approved backflow protection
device that would be owned and maintained bv the property owner. As the water facility improvements
are designed in accordance with water authority standards, no signifIcant impacts to existing facility
systems will occur as a result of the proposed project.
See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E (Hazards/Hazardous Materials and Hydrology/Water
Quality) for details regarding the existing septic tank and new wastewater service systems for the proposed
project.
c) The proposed project will result in the construction of new stonn water drainage facilities and expansion of
existing facilities. The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could impact the stonn
drain system. Appropriate erosion control measures will be identifIed in conjunction with the. preparation
of [mal grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project is subject to the
NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and shall obtain permit coverage and develop a Stonn
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of grading permits. In addition, the project
shall be conditioned to implement construction and post-construction water quality Best Management
Practices (BNfPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSNfP). No signifIcant impacts to the City's storm drainage facilities are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
d) The project site is within the potable water service area of :the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to
correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced from the 6" -water main on N.
Del Mar A venue and the applicant will need to install a service main to service tills site. The proposed
project will be required to construct expansions to existing water facilities as described in Section b above.
e) See XVI.a. and b.
f) The City of Chula Vista is 'served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs
of the region in. accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid
waste.
Mitigation: See Section E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality and
Hazards/Hazardous Materials Sections. The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration would mitigate identified storm water/storm drainage and wastewater impacts to a level of less than
significant.
20
Issues:
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A) Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the Jtme 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and Emergencv Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
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. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with :treeway ramps
are exempted :trom this Standard.
21
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significan t
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
!iI
II
II
II
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 E
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/l,OOO population east ofI-805.
F) Drainage 0 0 !J 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 Planes) and City
Engineering Standards.
G) Sewer
o
o
II
o
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water
o
o
o
II
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.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
22
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to horary facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or res:uIt in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold
standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) According to the Fire Department,. adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project,
the project will contrIoute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, the surrounding street segments and intersections including Third
Avenue and Del Mar Avenue will continue to operate in compliance with the City's traffic threshold standard
with the proposed project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's traffic threshold standards would occur as a
result of the proposed project.
e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill project and
would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant shall be required to pay
Park Acquisition and Development Fees (PAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council
on January 6,2004.
f) Based upon the review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant
issues regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. The proposed drain system includes
improvements to existing drainage culverts to handle 100-year stonn events, a series of inlets, private catch basins
and culverts, underground detention systems, discharge controls, and filtering systems. No adverse impacts to the
City's drainage threshold standards will occut as a result of the propos~d project.
g) The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater services area. The existing area
sewer facility system includes sewer lines along Bayview Way and along Vista Del Mar Court. There are
currently no sewer mains abutting the property that would allow for gravity-type flow. Therefore an off-site main
extension through the Third Avenue right of way, and an 8" PVC sewer main up to the southwest comer of the
subject site and into the proposed project court cul-de-sac are proposed to service the various lots. The applicant
shall be required to submit a final sewer plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant is required to
grant an easement to the City of Chula Vista wastewater services for the pUIpose of maintenance of the proposed
sewer lines. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a
result of the proposed project.
h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to correspondence
ITom the Sweetwater Authority, the project may be serviced ITom the 6"-water main on N. Del Mar Avenue and
the applicant will need to install a service main to service this site. No significant impacts to existing facility
systems or the City's water threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
23
Issues:
XVIll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
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 project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
II
o
o
EI
o
o
o
o
.
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term 'construction noise/raptor nesting
and biologically sensitive impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E, illlder
Biological Resources.
b) The project site has been previously disturbed with a similar residential land use and site improvements.
No cumulative considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified.
c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as the
proposed project has been mitigated to lessen any potential significant impacts to a level of less than
significance.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant impacts to a level ofless than significance.
24
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration
18-04-022.
xx. AGREElVIENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator 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 below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall
indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval
and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
<;f J ( .~ C J ~S {c)bt r1(J JAb.t1 t1
Printed Name and Title of Applicant {
(or authorized representative)
S' ~n14
Igna ,ure fY pp lcant
(or authorized representative)
0;/& ?
Dat
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different rrom Applicant)
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different rrom Applicant)
Date
25
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.
o Land Use and Planning DTransportation/Traffic
o Population and Housing II Biological Resources'
1'1 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral
Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Agricultural Resources
II Hydrology/Water
IIHazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Noise
o Cultural Resources
. Air Quality
o Paleontological
Resources
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
26
xxn. DETER1'ffi~ATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
~1!~~'
Environmental Review Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
~/7'/jI~
Datel
J:\PJanning\MARlA\Initial Study\ViHas De] Mar\IS-04-022draftCheckIist.doc
27
o
II
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT 6
March 17, 2006
Case Number:
Project Description:
DRC-05-56
Site Address:
Design Review for 12 unit planned residential development
known as -Villas Del Mar-
160 North Del Mar Avenue
Project Planner
Planning Dept.
Bldg. 300
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Attn: Jeff Steichen
I am a property owner in the surrounding area of this proposed development.
I am concerned about the environmental impact that this project will have mainly
with traffic.
I am suggesting that the existing road, North Third Avenue. west of this project, be
used as the main access road for the residents of the new homes in this development.
North Third Avenue is already designated for utility use for trash and sewer for this
development.
Please have whatever issues for using North Third Avenue road be addressed and
resolved now. The map shows that there are undeveloped areas around this site.
These areas will probably be developed in the near future, and, they would also
benefit with the use this road.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
'"" J .
~;Z_
4- ~a(J@
Terrie A. Sapp
I~. . '.c.-'" '.'::~;j. 'r? r.J \"',7 !? 1\
Ir---,' t____,;; i? Ii r.Ji !? In\
I U~~-~:>" "~ ~ CI__ 'l' j \
lhll MAR 1 7 1006 J~
PL!L\Nt~J.1f~G
255 Shirley St.
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
280 Shirl'ey St.
O1ula Vista. CA 91910
To Chula Vista City Council and Planning
April 3, 2006
Subj: New houses west ofDd Mar between Nixon Place and Bayview
I strongly object to the placement of 12 new houses and a park on the 2 ~ acres ofland
proposed for the following reasons:
With access streets and sidewalks there are no yards for the houses. Chula Vista should
maintain its bedroom comInunity with nice houses and yards and not jam houses so close
together that neighbors can wash each others windows. Our neighborhood is zoned to
allow single family houses on a lot big enough to have a yard for families. It will ruin it
to jam houses on to little lots so small a park for all the houses must be built. A builder
will make his money and leave but we choose to live in our great neighborhood for many
years. Please do not destroy OUR NEIGHBOORHOOD OUR HO~'1ES OUR LIFE
STYLE just because someone wants to make a few extra dollars at our expense.
Proposed park will have problems with who does up keep, it will be used by
neighborhood kids even though it is private, who will be liable for any accidents.
The addition of 12 families with 2 cars or more will tremendously impact the traffic in
tlris~Drhood.
1', iI, r j1 /f.
;i,J.JUth7l )1174J/!~--
Richard t. :Batten6rlw """"'-
209 Nixon PI
Chula Vista, CA 91910
.?"'f.......
j<.:;
t~'#J:
~I
, "'Jj..,,.
-;/ /(j't:
/{;'/r(.c' ./sr;~:r--
l i/
; ;'
';4'"h~d
.,J...
j
//?:I,
//"7"/""";.3/C"
y ,,'- ',",NJ rl'Ji/'t:....
/1.,,_
./1 ~\j'>;'"
.- .
./1.Ji/;
I " /..'
,V!/t,l) /4:
y..
.;
J~~ lY} i!~
-/ .it',?
J -~.... ",J
';::01; -,;"
J:;:;.~
~}
'~ .'~ .J'.' ",;1,:?4
yv!fJn
" "f'.;? " ./
in}l~4t!'.t ~;1IJ/(J )1IJ~1
j ~ )'
"
, ,
j\f;1' j .t:!/... ,h d'lop. . . .;'"'"
,~<1'-'.;o i:-/1Y;9".,'!.,.~ J
,
/""._ ".",,;;'., '. 1./.., ',.c./->'
. //f.'1'~;- .,>""",;) ..~ .Arr!!..,r,
~ .".~... ,>y'~ t,... J4;~) J '~If" 'j't"".J
t->/ .J.. i.-./ ., ; . 'i"",/ \ p. /
7-J1frli~~ 7 ';1/1:- ?-/!rift4~ ~jf J
,50/NI5.' dAY' bi".'" tl1!I?'~J~iJ..f!;j
J . .' 1 ./
,I' #,~ ,~~ J.- '~I j?\iJ..1 ,:?
,)& i= '7 v f~J-i' j.?jo.Ji ~.r
.'- ... 'J-i.J ;};:J.~ J:.
J,V 7..1 ,,' j , .r, " I! l ~ 7.1'
//7. Ai.d' "'\ ..,,! 11 l I " Ii".:d ~ 1;, /.,_i:' .1.. "." /,YJ lL d!.. i .,t?', 0
:/'TJ fI~~ /1- {I "I:>,;) _,';IY'ijJJTj.'; ""if" ~ y ~9 ~ -- ~ '"
.CJ iJ ;e
I $S lj..~,5
AfJ i~
:r ,}.,.~ 1......
J-0,-
!#4~
:"" . .J.f-,.... l
;II! ,j1.'"J .:Ii J JO, /Y
)'~ ___ifr ':/"7 iJ. ~ .~
.
74'
f '~-#"l ,I '}.1
~..e' ..",l. 1 K..'~' A Ii.' 'J J-j1' /"
I. ',,", 1 if( . .'f'! T' ,
-a -Ii... j -i/r-:; ;J ~ ,"~'ri(.". ~" i::
?>i~_"':",,{, ,..
,) i'''~ ;~:.t-i ~
I /."" .J.:
fif";d,7!J}ytfr., jil'~i i ,::;)
>_if"7J_ynJJ . if,'
/.IJ#l;'~ (.; r9 hi!: c:;evc /Oo~el~ f/J,;gf E/vcly/,
;;.. '~~'::;::I. ., j
1';'(: ~"'d$ c/t lot tJ{ 4A:i.e' k.J /J.s w ~ /( it ,;f BHY Y~~~I/:
~ i
IF' /9 ~l~6-~i't /'h"'l $' ff/e~9~/t(cy S'Ht'r.t/d 171?.P~/'~ />//114' /<1,;1/
, , I ?
\...J/~",S' ;JII/ fhe Sf/f~;~T 0-< ,fO/J'I~f)">\JC W6'/~/';''''
,/
dAfJ i,;J;./;J d pj 8AY u;'~",v' #~ 7h~ t;n~~j6"/'/' 7' VEh iCl$l eou.la/ Plot
Ij ......-j;.l.f . /.~...L. I
yiEr;:;:v,. J //$ ;) i.(c:e:r C)/e l'J9 Vi! hJe.A[/ IS ]ijc iY.ff;(,j~ ,:)V!/'jo,,-v...V
/ ".
(C) ""'_' '''''. ' . ,?,,/ id':; '" . -? ..04' ."., .d. ,",,, 11-1---,l) ~jM ;- '7'f'I'/.fii2" .r ""..::'.t:"' " A n .- r'1" _,':;
.~d'~Y- '-07'1'" LhTV /"'17,;,),.... 7Tin,J'''.....~ 11 .!:;. .'''~''',.,) Flfl>J:- v~/6'",<i:
9~iJ wW I/JI-O rliE sl~f~f" /lp/& whcIVc!ll~~~Ke: /;'jt(/\El
IN heor,f of fh€" /7tJJ1'JcS jt} tE"t/,cN Vl/bi(S!E. We: b~/;'~f..,'E:.
r.h€ sf~J:.eis .fh~uldr be IYJ/ld.c S",kK bE~K6. ;rf".ree::
t;fFlffic !hottlc/ b~ ;:;I/(j 'w"~d .bv au ;/41#9 )"J1C;/'Cc ht:)l1"lC~
~I /. ./. ~ <I
J. .1IIr:( iiI/€' ,I j.~./hI;If.E &y J.;;Et~,/ J,v-/J$;t. !$<Cts Ii li:ALy N/f;t,;<~w/~
~E' C!lllt.d~E~/ iN fil/.J /I;fEr? /7I1V~ AI'" i/MG~ f~ ~/AY /
/- 01 I
"....+- 'i .'-'Y' .1 AI 'I" . I J.,.. !' -? I-
.c,KCC?1 t4$ J"'rKcErf. nf) $id~ WI?LXS Ole. J:: v EJ1/ Cq./R..O,5.
.-... J I' , /.. . I' l I C.
-L 0/21 lAid /7Rtc Td f~€ SolYl~ Kid y.cr Rq'" O{/E~ Pflr./-t:E
';t:d/cfh'l'/j Ii daN6> ~jr:..It !()OC/ L~J:. rf1- fAe:. s/iG,JflINN I.vffG#
.f~j,o(j?L Ii t9ar /INti rh~ lIds 1J1t~ 111 pLAY. IV~ l~iYlCVJ1j-r typ
/ . /
/ }r. 1 .-
111&1'/,5/' e/lrl p~ P,4}c:k ;? Li hE.
1/ .' .'
)v"Jt,.th D'5:{ #I/!/{
n(J:AA f.....",h ,).;..~
r; Wi Y ""JVV<;>. "-
~~~. ......~~u ,:f!
,Y. r'/ 7J V
. 0. '.' ;1';1"
. .'7 .~,tY" /1. "~,,.;... ,,/(" rJ'.
~~ :~ ;]', :i'F~;,;,;'!/::r ,j ~
---. . .
_ ~ '"'.-n""""__-._=. _
!.~' :i
~v1.AR 1 7 2GOtl
- - -- ~ -- .....-. --..--~....
;'-' !
J ~
- . - .
L~-__~u~,_.,.'=_...:~.__ ,.:=---~_._l
7D Wh6tn /I Iflay fo/7Cf2R/7)
03 - /7- 0(0
C();yernl~ +h.e frojPeJ, t[.+
j/po IV /Je/ mar ~
Cas-e # iJP..C! -OS--C(.p
---/-- ard' /YJf -fdfY7t1i le5/j~ ccf .230
Shi'rley S1-., ~ c2sf- you /Z? tl-eczs-e
. etJrJ5t'c!er. U51t19 A.l; 3rd fJ-ye. as QceeS5
---{;y- -{;fyre (es/c/errk h -/-Ire C{bove... ,1
5'{{. /c/ d-eve lof'tnef1.1. f/.J~ Q p~ .' C-D.I?C€r/r:d
a~cJf .k fro5fecltu€ frccfffc '-IAa-f--, U-J/IJ
~C()mMt'I\fl;, c/~ Shrrley 5f, ~ fave
TAree smai! ChI/fret:'. c(J7cl no :5/C.!eu.Jct!l:s
TUJic.e .t:l 4av; !Jur. cAr!tlrefJ/ OlS wet/aS J
severa! o/her -ramI J1t0/ (,;JC{! k Iv t:lf1-d
frOIY) fA~ .5;~~! bus' 5fop d_~ +Ae,
StLrn-f +,'ry)~ peof~ ~:-e Jrti.ve./{ rV.j 10
C6f1cl WOfV' wotZ!-: - ffclJr~ ,1'fUJ,e ti-a.ffrc
P, our ~~i wi (}, rq05-e.. ,ct -/err {h (~ ' .
r 15 J: ., -/::> -IN c h '/dref\ /11 C::VY (}ei1!Jorkd.
&U-€ t0€!Wme f)-f.W nf2(~'hb'Brs!
h+, please- / ? I~a~-e 'I eons/citY us :'00
IV 3rJ /1ve cx.u/ e 5/reef a5 i-A~
)/La r'n vtC~5S:h ;IIV- /7efAJ devr:l~(OJeJ
projecf, ~+ V-J'1JuW . be more <<~k
~ jo .~., ~ _ +tr " %-e . .n,t'kJ resJck/1,iS/
CofY\tr1<Jh/1:tTv A-e r /51/ 5 6f.rd g>cxf-L
free~/ aAcl wovh, a(fev(cvIe... '-IA-'<-
amfJu~T '. of frctffrc CO(Y7f'1!lntj '- d(JLvf\ ~
OOr ~u(ef a/mosT -frctM c/ -fi-~~ 5iree+/
Tknl-
(tnS/derfY
~ iEr hean;y <</le!
Our ftJ/-~+--- . CJj2 vJ'~.uJ,
jf:e IJ:: '
7k alflM~r[fj~
Chu/a VI5k (!if Y
9/91D
.~_..--- .... ..- -.- _.~
ATTACHMENT 8
)ft-
~.-
=- -:~
-- - -
P I ann
n Cf
b
& Building
Planning D5v~sion
Department
Development Processing
eflY OF
~HU[A VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX 8
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed: .
1.
List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
'0 i \ 1 iA.'J T\::\ A (). ( 'De\! i lOj1J..~V1+ I LLL (j J.,..0{ ;.1.
Lo:....\IC...>(V';'.:.. 1).... v~\':>,/.)~.:."~1T LLC- Gee; "-c;::><.A
i ~ / ~
\A "'-
'T 1\ & 1...-'-'\t'0~ i <:> _"l"-<. \
- -
:::- '^ 0( ~ \1 c" ~ " I ~
') :'.J
--. -\) .
-. ~c..x. ev'lL "-"
,~ i f\
-'r S. (. <.:) () c''y 0
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
12, (.......,.(,A ~,,() A. c c _~:-, c.-
~u b t' '-1 tlj, ~. c>, +- 6-
<.c. c.. = <-<0 A r:. ~ S ~ c::.- J.<: C).....u::.:, 0
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 matter.
'T e & e \\ c.. 0 'J ,S c: .:J bej-o
J,-, \rt '" C 0 f e= ~v
(' ...., \ I"
V\.{I~ 'vC\..\""'
5. Has C!ny person* associated with this contract 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-L
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? ,
2.76 Fourth Avenue
Chuia Vista
Caiifornia
9i9jO
(619) 691-5iOi
;i
.~!ft..
--.-
- --
~ -~
P I ann
n g
&
B u i Id:"t. n g
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CITY OF
~HULA VISfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official*'" of the City of Chula Vista in the
past welve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes No-/
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date:
.f /1t1/c'i
I I
Sig17iZ1.ctor/APp,icant
\J:\ \ I-t ~ Vi \ M c..v J)evt lO(J ~l( ''"'1~ L.Lc:.print or
type name of Contractor/Applicarlt
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 3. c.....
Meeting Date: May 10. 2006
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 01-01; Consideration of a Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan including Planned Community District
Regulations, Village Design Plan, Business Park Design Plan,
Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and
other regulatory documents on 1,187.3 acres of land in Villages
Two, Three and a Portion of Four of the Otay Ranch.
Otay Project L.P. has submitted an application for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
and associated regulatory documents for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four in the
Otay Ranch. Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four are located at the western edge of
the Otay Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway (Poggi Canyon), west of the future
extension of La Media Road, east and southeast of the Otay Landfill and north of the
future extension of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road. The project site is also bisected by
Wolf Canyon on the south side of Village Two, the north side of Village Four and the
eastern side of Village Three.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined
that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, a
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) has been prepared. Certification
of the Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) for this project will be
considered by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
· Resolution No. PCM 01-01 recommending that the City Council approve
the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan and supporting regulatory documents including the Village
Design Plan, Business Park Design Guidelines, Public Facilities Financing
Plan, Affordable Housing Program, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water
Conservation Plan, Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Fire
Protection Plan, and adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned
Community District Regulations in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions contained herein.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on April 17, 2006 to consider the Final
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) and voted 6-0 to recommend
certification of the document.
Page 2, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
DISCUSSION:
Baclu!:round
In October of 1993, the City Council and San Diego County Broad of Supervisors
adopted the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP)/Subregional Plan (SRP). The
GDP designated Village Two as an urban village without Light Rail Transit (LRT)
service, Villages Three as Industrial and Four as mostly low density single-family
residential. In 1997, the City annexed 9,100 acres of the Otay Valley Parcel into the City
and entered into an agreement with the County of San Diego to limit land uses within
1,000 feet of the Otay Landfill operation to non-residential uses. In a subsequent General
Plan and GDP amendments, the area within the "Landfill Buffer" in Villages Two, Two
West and Three was designated Light Industrial as indicated on the current General Plan.
Public facilities such as the Otay Ranch High School and the City's Fire Station No.7
were pioneered in Village Two because of need in the community.
On December 13, 2005 the City Council adopted the City of Chula Vista's
Comprehensive General Plan Update, which also included amendments to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The December 2005 amendments to the City's
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP increased the permissible maximum number of
units in Village Two from 1,719 (709 single-family residential units and 586 multi-family
residential units) to 2,510 dwelling units (709 single-family residential and 1,801 multi-
family residential units). These amendments also relocated the community park to
Village Four and relocated the Village Core's mixed-use area within Village Two. As
part of the General Plan Update, transit service was changed from LRT to Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) and service expanded with two additional lines. Since one of those lines
provides BRT service to Village Two, the 2005 GPU/GDP A also changed the multi-
family residential densities from 14 dwelling units per acre to 18 dwelling units per acre
to support the transit stop within the village. Village Three remains primarily industrial
serving as a transition from existing industrial areas to the Otay Ranch residential
villages. Village Four became the new location for the Community Park and the
remainder of the village is anticipated to be developed as low density single-family
residential units.
As previously discussed, the proposed Village Two SPA Plan reflects the proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP described in GPA-OI-
01 and PCM-01-01. Proposed amendments to the City's General Plan include an MSCP
Boundary Adjustment, an additional increase in the number of units permitted in Village
Two and a Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan Amendment. An
amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP's Resource Management Plan is also included. A full
description of the proposed project is as follows.
Page 3, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
Existine: Site Characteristics
Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four are located in the western section of the Otay
Valley Parcel in Otay Ranch on rolling hills that were previously used for agricultural
purposes. Village Two is approximately 775-acres and is bound on the north by Olympic
Parkway, on the south by Wolf Canyon, on the east by La Media Road, on the southwest
by the Otay Landfill and on the northwest by the Sunbow Industrial area. Village Three is
approximately 368-acres generally located south and southeast of the Otay Landfill.
Village Three is bound on the south by Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, Wolf Canyon
to the east, the East Main Street Subarea to the west and the landfill to the north. The
44.2-acre portion of Village Four is bound by Wolf Canyon to the north and west, La
Media Road to the east and the remainder of Village Four to the south. A City of San
Diego waterline runs through the Community Park site, Wolf Canyon and portions of
Village Two. The waterline is owned in fee; it would be maintained in public ownership
and left in place as part of this project.
General Plan. Zonine: and Land Use
The City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP designate the land within the Otay
Valley Parcel for urban villages based on the pedestrian friendly village concept. This
concept locates higher residential densities and a variety of mixed-uses within the
"Village Core", and then surrounds the core with a secondary area of lower density
single- family homes.
The General Plan identifies Villages Two and Three in the Western District of the Otay
Ranch Subarea and Village Four in the Central District. The General Plan designates
residential land uses in Village Two as Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per
acre). In addition, there is a Village Core located within Village Two that contains two
neighborhood parks (NP) and an elementary school (ES). Village Three is designated as
"light industrial" in the General Plan and the portion of Village Four included in this
project is designated as Community Park (CP).
The Otay Ranch GDP authorizes 2,510 dwelling units (709 single-family and 1,801
multi-family), and 87.9-acres of Industrial development within the Otay Landfill buffer
for Village Two, Industrial (I) development for Village Three and a Community Park for
the portion of Village Four included within this application. Table 1 summarizes the
zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation, Otay Ranch GDP Land Use Designation,
number of residential units and the existing use of the property.
Page 4, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
Table 1
VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF FOUR GENERAL PLAN AND
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USES
Chula Vista General Plan Otay Ranch No. of Units Existing Land
Municipal Land Use GDP Land Use Use
Code/Zonine Desienation Designation
Villaee Two
PC Residential Low Low Medium 709 Vacant
Medium (3-6 Village (3-6
units/acre) units/acre)
PC Village Core Medium High 1,654 Vacant
(11-18
units/acre)
Mixed Use 147
PC Neighborhood Park N/A Vacant
Park
PC Elementary Elementary N/A Vacant
School School
Villaee Three
PC Light Industrial Industrial N/A Vacant
Villaee Four (Portion)
PC Community Park Community Park N/A Vacant
Pro Dosed Proiect
The proposed project site consists of Village Two, Village Three and a 44.2-acre portion
of Village Four. The Village Four portion is designated for a Community Park with the
balance of the village south of the Community Park as single-family, which will be
implemented in a subsequent SPA Plan. Village Two consists of approximately 775 acres
and is proposed to be developed with 1,800 multi-family residences and 986 single-
family dwelling units. Village Two's core runs east to west along Santa Victoria Road
through the middle of the village. Village Three is approximately 368 acres and is
proposed to be developed as an industrial business park. A 1,000-foot buffer surrounds
the Otay Landfill and restricts the use of property within it to non-residential uses.
Portions of Village Two, Village Two West (west of Heritage Road) and Village Three
are within the Otay Landfill buffer and are planned for Industrial uses. The portion of
Village Four within this SPA Plan is 44.2-acres that are under the ownership of Otay
Project L.P. and is designated for a 70-acre community park when combined with other
parkland in Village Four under separate ownership. The proposed SPA Plan relies on the
approval of amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (as described in GPA-OI-01 and PCM-01-01).
Page 5, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
SPA Plan Analysis
A. Residential Land Uses
Fourteen single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed to contain 986 single-
family residences ranging from 2.9 to 7.7 units per acre on lot sizes averaging from
approximately 2,890 square feet to 18,938 square feet. Like Village One West to the
north of the project site, Village Two West is planned as a transition from typical
suburban and planned industrial development in Sunbow to the village concept of Otay
Ranch. Village Two West includes larger traditional single-family lots and industrial land
uses abutting the Otay Landfill in the 1,000-foot buffer.
Thirteen multi-family developments (including three mixed-use sites) provide an
additional 1,800 dwelling units, which range from 8.3 to 21.1 units per acre. These multi-
family developments will incorporate a variety of housing types including alley homes,
townhouses, condominiums and apartments. Each of the multi-family developments will
provide street frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience and provide a human scale.
In higher density multi-family neighborhoods, individual pedestrian connections to some
of the units will be provided as well. The following table is a summary of the residential
land uses within Village Two.
Table 2
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Neighborhood I Land Use Acreage Dwelling Units Target
Area DU's/Acre
ViIlae:e Two - Sin '"Ie Family
R-4 SF 41.5 160 3.9
R-6 SF 12.6 63 5.0
R-7 SF 9.4 44 4.7
R-8 SF 10.0 50 5.1
R-9 SF 13.3 101 7.6
R-15 SF 7.2 45 6.3
R-18A SF 11.8 65 5.6
R-18B SF 10.4 48 4.4
R-19 SF 10.8 83 7.7
R-20 SF 19.3 83 4.3
R-21 SF 22.2 64 2.9
R-23 SF 13.1 71 5.4
R-24 SF 7.6 41 5.4
R-25 SF 9.5 68 7.2
Subtotal SF 198.7 986 5.0
VilIae:e Two - Multi-Family
R-5 MF 15.7 130 8.3
R-10 MF 4.5 90 20.0
R-11 MF 9.9 144 14.5
R-12 MF 24.0 295 12.3
R-13 MF 10.3 149 14.5
Page 6, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
Neighborhood I Land Use Acreage Dwelling Units Target
Area DU's/Acre
R-14 MF 7.6 137 18.0
R-16 MF 3.5 74 21.1
R-17 MF 11.5 119 10.3
R-26 MF 8.8 75 8.5
R-27 MF 8.8 110 12.5
R-28 MF 5.9 85 14.4
R-29 MF 8.9 152 17.1
R-30 MF 10.2 180 17.6
Subtotal MF 129.6 1,740 13.4
Villae:e Two - Mixed Use
MU-l MU 1.1 10 9.1
MU-2 MU 1.4 12 8.6
MU-3 MU 4.3 38 8.8
Subtotal MU 6.8 60 8.8
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 335.1 2,786 -
Residential Land Use Analvsis
The single-family and multi-family residential components of the proposed SPA Plan are
designed to provide a variety of housing types, lot sizes and densities consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP as well as the Housing Element of the
General Plan. Lot sizes for single-family homes will range from 2,890 square feet to
18,938 square feet with densities of 2.9 to 7.7 units per acre. Village Two is designed
with a strong "grid-system" of streets to provide multiple points of access and disperse
traffic. Village Two implements the "village concept" by locating the highest density
residential areas near the village core and then decreasing densities, and creating larger
single-family residential lots, nearer to the edges of the village. Residential
neighborhoods with the lowest densities are located along the edges of Wolf Canyon in
the southern portion of Village Two.
The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations contain detailed requirements for the
Zoning Administrator Site Plan and Architectural Review for single-family homes, and
for the Design Review Committee review for multi-family and commercial projects. The
regulations will ensure that all of the proposed SPA Plan will be developed in accordance
with the principles and other criteria contained in the Village Design Plan.
B. Commercial Land Uses
Three mixed-use and one 11.9-acre commercial site are proposed within the Village Core
of Village Two. State Street (the westerly extension of Birch Road from Village Six) is
intended to provide a pedestrian friendly entry to the project. It will be fronted on the
north by a 4.3-acre mixed-use project with 38 two-story residential units (MU-3) and on
the south by the 11.9-acre (C-1) commercial site that may include a grocery store. Across
Santa Victoria, to the west of the C-1 site, is another mixed-use project that includes
commercial space with 12 residential units (MU-2) on 1.4 acres. The third mixed-use site
Page 7, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
(MU-1) is located near the western roundabout and the town square. MU-I will include
commercial space and 10 residential units on 1.1 acres.
Commercial Land Use Analvsis
The commercial and mixed-use areas along State Street will form the entry into Village
Two. With diagonal parking along both sides of State Street, commercial spaces opening .
onto the IS-foot Village Pathway on the northern side of the street and a transit stop,
State Street will serve not only the residents of Village Two but the residents of other
nearby villages as well. The town square theme, in the western portion of Village Two,
will orient the mixed-use (commercial/multi-family residential) development to the
public town square providing another pedestrian friendly feature.
The commercial and mixed-use parcels of the proposed SPA Plan are designed to
implement the Village Core Policies for Village Two of the Otay Ranch GDP as well as
the design principles of the Village Design Plan.
c. Industrial Land Uses
The SPA Plan includes nine industrial sites on 264.4 acres. The industrial areas will be
designed in accordance with the Business Park Design Plan. Three of the nine parcels are
within Village Two and within the Otay Landfill buffer. Portions of the remaining six
industrial areas are also within the Otay Landfill buffer and are located in Village Three.
The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations of the SPA Plan identify the
permitted uses and the development standards for the industrial lots and ensure the
implementation of the Business Park Design Plan. The following table is a summary of
the industrial sites within the proposed project boundary.
Table 3
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AREAS
Neie;hborhood/ Area Land Use Acreae;e
ViIla!!e Two/Two West
IND-1 Industrial/Business Park 51.5
IND- 2 IndustrialIBusiness Park 6.7
IND-3 Industrial/Business Park 29.7
Subtotal ViIlae;e Two 87.9
ViIlae;e Three
IND-I Industrial/Business Park 54.5
IND-2 IndustrialIBusiness Park 26.4
IND-3 IndustrialIBusiness Park 50.1
IND-4 IndustrialIBusiness Park 26.4
IND-5 IndustrialIBusiness Park 11.3
IND-6 IndustrialIBusiness Park 7.8
Subtotal ViIlae;e Three 176.5
TOTAL (PROJECT) 264.4
Page 8, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
Industrial Land Uses Analvsis
The industrial land uses in the SPA Plan are designed to buffer the residential areas of the
project from the Otay Landfill and other industrial uses. Residential uses are buffered
from the industrial uses with slopes, landscaping, roadways and in some areas a 30-foot
utility easement. A 1993 agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the County of
San Diego created a 1,000-foot buffer around the Otay Landfill in which only non-
residential land uses could be located. The proposed project is in compliance with that
agreement. The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations contain detailed
requirements for permitted uses in the industrial areas as well as development standards.
The regulations also identify development that may be approved by the Zoning
Administrator and those that must be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Overall, the industrial portions of the site have been designed to implement the goals and
policies of the Otay Ranch GDP and the SPA Plan's Business Park Design Plan.
D. Community Purpose Facilities
The Project is obligated to provide Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) pursuant to the
Planned Community (PC) Zone of the City Zoning Ordinance. The PC Zone requires
1.39 acres of CPF land per 1,000 persons. Based on the approximate population of 8,458
persons in Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, the CPF land acreage requirement
for the project is 11.8 acres. "Floating" CPF sites are typically planned and subsequently
fixed locations are established at the time the review of the parcels surrounding them.
The following table is a summary of the CPF sites proposed within the Villages Two,
Three and a Portion of Four project:
Table 4
PROPOSED COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY (CPF) SITES
Site Size (ac.) Use/Location
CPF -I 1.2 Private Recreation Facility with amenities that may include picnic and
play areas, a tot lot and sports courts. CPF -I is located adjacent to
Neighborhood R-7.
CPF-2 0.9 Private Recreation Facility with amenities that may include picnic and
play areas, a tot lot and sports courts. CPF-2 is located adjacent to
Neighborhood R-21.
CPF-3 1.7 Private Recreation Facility with amenities that may include a swim
club, a tot lot and sports courts. CPF-3 is adjacent to Neighborhood R-
15.
CPF -4 1.5 "Floating" facility in the Commercial Town Center (C-I) of the Village
Core may include community meeting space, social or human services,
senior, teen or child day care/recreation facilities or a place of worship.
CPF-5 0.8 "Floating" facility in the multi-family Neighborhood R-12 may include
a tot lot, sports court and passive recreation facilities.
CPF -6 10.2 "Floating" facility within the light industrial Village Three may include
an employment center, social or human services, senior, teen or child
day care/recreation facility or place of worship.
TOTAL 11.8 Acres
Page 9, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 10,2006
Communitv Purvose Facilitv (CPF) Analvsis
The proposed SPA Plan meets the CPF acreage requirements of the Planned
Communities (PC) zone by locating the majority of the CPF acreage (1 0.2-acres) in the
industrial Village Three. Staff believes that an additional 3 to 5 acre CPF parcel should be
located in the Village Core. Since the populations associated with residential
development generate the CPF requirements, it is staff s opinion that the CPF site should
be located near the residential portions of the project rather than in the industrial areas of
Village Three. The applicant has agreed to process a SPA Plan and Tentative Map
amendment pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for the SPA Plan to provide a 3 to 5-
acre CPF site in the village core.
E. Schools
A pedestrian-oriented design theme is the main component for the Villages Two, Three
and a Portion of Four SPA Plan (consistent with the goals and policies of the Otay Ranch
GDP). A IS-foot wide Village Pathway, wider sidewalks and a series of Promenade
Streets will provide pedestrian access to the elementary school site.
The 10.3-acre elementary school site is located within the heart of the Village Core in
order to provide close access from all locations within the village. The elementary school
is located adjacent to a 7. I-acre public park to provide additional common uses between
the school facility and the park. The school and park site are in turn surrounded by a
variety of residential neighborhoods. The school is planned on its own block, surrounded
by streets. This design provides superior access to the school.
Otay Ranch High School was pioneered in Village Two because of the community need
for the high school. It is not part of the SPA Plan.
Schools Analvsis
The proposed development of Village Two includes the provIsIOn of a 10.3-acre
elementary school. The proposed elementary school is centrally located providing equal
walking distances for students throughout the village. The provision of the school is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP and is consistent with
the facility needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
F. Circulation
Vehicular traffic is considered secondary to pedestrian traffic within the proposed project.
Design alternatives such as the grid system of streets, which were adopted with the Otay
Ranch GDP, have been implemented in the design of the proposed project. Streets are
designed to be narrower to reduce vehicular speeds, and the widespread use of dead end
cul-de-sacs is discouraged. In addition, 'traffic-calming" devices such as "roundabouts"
and "neck-downs" are alternatives to the typical vehicular street system found in other
Page 10, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10,2006
planned communities. On-street parking within the village core will also slow down
automobiles and help to create a pedestrian-friendly experience.
Connectivity in Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four as provided in the Circulation
Plan details the hierarchy of vehicular circulation within the proposed project. The
proposed project provides seven different points of access from Olympic Parkway to the
north, Heritage Road from the east and west, La Media Road from the east and Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road to the south. Six-lane Major or Prime Arterials (Olympic
Parkway, Heritage Road, La Media Road and Main Street/Rock Mountain Road) frame
the proposed project. A grid system of streets provides enhanced access and disperses
traffic throughout the village. Secondary entries into the village occur at Santa Victoria
(at Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road} and Santa Venetia (at Olympic Parkway and La
Media Road). State Street serves as the primary Transit Village Entry Street while a
number of residential promenade streets are located in and around the Village Core.
Industrial Collector streets will ensure circulation throughout the business park located in
Village Three.
Two major types of traffic calming devices are proposed for the project. "Neck-downs"
and "roundabouts" promote low speeds for vehicles and present a superior design
solution for typical streets. Vehicle speeds within the proposed project will have a
maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. In order to limit speeds and promote pedestrian-
oriented circulation, other street design alternatives are planned. Two roundabouts, which
are larger facilities than traffic circles, are located in the eastern and western portions of
the Village Core. Several neck-downs, which decrease the number of travel lanes at
intersections, or provide a mid-block crossing opportunity for pedestrians, are also
proposed to promote easy pedestrian circulation. These neckdowns are intended to lower
vehicle speeds and provide a shorter distance for pedestrians to cross the streetAlley
streets will also be provided in some of residential developments to promote pedestrian
orientation for small-lot residences.
Circulation Analvsis
The proposed Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan provides for seven
points of vehicular access to the project site along Olympic Parkway, Heritage Road, La
Media Road and Main Street/Rock Mountain Road. Internal streets provide connectivity
throughout the proposed project via a strong grid system design and all prominent
circulation streets connect to the Village Core. The use of cu-de-sacs is minimized to
those lots that overlook canyons (Poggi and Wolf Canyons) and to the larger lot
neighborhoods in Village Two West. The proposed project implements the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. Planning staff believes the
design of the roundabouts still needs some refinement to reduce pedestrian crossing
distance. Weare investigating other adopted standards by other agencies for a more
pedestrian friendly design.
Page 11, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
G. Transit
The General Plan Update extended BRT transit service to Village Two. The proposed
Transit Plan for Village Two consists of several levels of transit service that are included
in local and regional plans. A BRT line, and stop, is designed for State Street. The BRT
will enter State Street from La Media Road, stop at the transit station on State Street, then
circle back via the roundabout and exit Village Two. Chula Vista Transit (CVT) will
serve the Village Core with transit stops in the middle of Village Two, along La Media
Road near the Community Park (in Village Four) and in the business park in Village
Three. A Chula Vista Transit line is also proposed for Heritage Road from Olympic
Parkway south to Main Street/Rock Mountain Road. These bus lines will provide feeder
service for the BRT.
Transit Analvsis
Public transportation is an integral part of the Otay Ranch Community. A link to the
regional BRT is included on State Street and CVT serves the proposed SPA Plan with
bus service and stops in the Village Core. Multi-family densities in the village core have
been increased to support the transit station. The proposed Transit Plan is consistent with
the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan as well as the Otay Ranch
GDP.
H. Planned Community (PC) District Re2Ulations
The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations will be adopted by ordinance by the
City Council as the zoning regulations for the project. These regulations set the
development and land use standards for all property in the proposed project. They
establish setbacks, building height, parking, landscape, minimum lot size and sign
regulations. The pedestrian-oriented goals and design guidelines for the proposed project
are implemented through these regulations.
While earlier villages have been successful in implementing the pedestrian friendly goals
and objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP, staff believes that the proposed Village Two SPA
Plan will implement those goals better than those of the past. Staff has worked closely
with the applicant to include these elements and improvements during the design of this
plan.
Similar to recent SPA Plans (Villages Six, Seven and 11), the Village Two PC District
Regulations include pedestrian-oriented requirements for all development within the
proposed project area. Specific examples for single-family residential development
include: garages required to be setback from the street; porches on 66% of all units with
all others having strong entry features or other pedestrian-oriented features such as
French doors; and wrap around verandas on 66% of all corner lots. Building heights in
the single-family residential neighborhoods have also remained the same with a
maximum height of 35 feet. Three car garages will be permitted only on lots that are a
minimum of 60 feet wide and must be split (separate 2 and 1 car garages). Three car
Page 12, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 10, 2006
garages will also only be limited in the single-family neighborhoods. Maximum
permitted floor-area-ratios in the single-family neighborhoods will remain at 0.65. Design
review for single-family homes within single-family zones (SF2, SF3 and SF4) will be
conducted administrati vel y.
Multi-family residential development standards will be similar to those of Village Seven,
with the majority of the development standards being set during discretionary review by
the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission or the City Council. The maximum
permitted floor-area-ratio is a development standard that will be established on a case-by-
case basis for multi-family projects. Building heights will be a maximum of 45 feet to
60feet and comprised of three and four-stories.
One change in these PC District Regulations that differs from others approved so far is
the administrative review of alley homes that exceed a density of 8 units to the acre. In
the past the Design Review Committee reviewed the design of these homes, but under the
proposed PC District Regulations the review authority would be the Zoning
Administrator.
Planned Community(PC) District Regulations Analvsis
The proposed PC District Regulations implement the pedestrian friendly policies of the
Otay Ranch GDP by requiring pedestrian oriented features such as: porches; verandas;
garages setbacks; and windows that provide "eyes on the street" both in the front yard
and along the alley where applicable. The proposed PC District Regulations for the
Village Two SPA Plan will implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Otay
Ranch GDP as well as the objectives and policies of the City's General Plan.
I. Villa2e Desi2ll Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires that a Village Design Plan be prepared for each SPA Plan.
The Village Design Plan guides planning and development by defining intended
character and design elements of the villages. It provides guidance for developers and
designers in creating the villages and it will be used by staff to evaluate development
proposals. The design elements identified in the proposed SPA Plan reflect the policies
from the GDP but are more project specific. The GDP discusses the Village Concept for
Otay Ranch and establishes the following policies for the "Core" area at the heart of each
village:
· Master plan each village/town center consistent with the GDP/SRP goals,
objectives, policies and standards.
· Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village/town center
to meet the needs of the residents.
· Establish a unique character and sense of place within each village/town
center.
· Phase villages/town centers to ensure the provision of adequate facilities and
servIces.
Page 13, Item:_
Meeting Date: Mav 10, 2006
· Accessory units are permitted on single-family lots within Villages One
through 11, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3, Housing.
· Land uses, roads and buildings shall be designed and located to encourage
walking between uses and foster a pedestrian scale.
· Encourage a pedestrian-friendly village/town center environment through
the use of amenities such as: shaded trees; street furniture; on-street parking;
building fronting the street; narrow streets; reduced design speeds; visible
landmarks; entries and porches facing the street; commercial areas with zero
from yard setbacks; plazas and courtyards in commercial areas; and multi-
modal circulations systems.
Santa Barbara, California is the inspiration for the urban theme and character of the
proposed project. A "California" architecture design theme, defined as architecture that
responds to the climate and is derived from Spanish and Mediterranean architecture, will
be utilized throughout the villages. Residences in the proposed villages will be designed
around the Spanish Eclectic, Spanish Mission, Monterey, Craftsman and Prairie
architectural styles. The design themes are particularly applicable on State Street, the
main entry into the proposed project. State Street will be designed with arcades, outdoor
seating and gathering spaces. Design elements may include awnings, trellises and a
variety of street trees to define and highlight the spaces. A pedestrian friendly, and traffic
dispersing, grid system of streets and the abundance of parks and open space will make
the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan area unique among the villages
of Otay Ranch.
The Village Design Plan for the proposed project identifies important concepts and
design solutions for: village identity; village perimeters; entryways/identity; streetscape
design; non-vehicular circulation; village parks; walls and fencing; and lighting. The
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Village Design Plan offers more information
on design specifics.
Village Desifm Plan Analvsis
The proposed master plan has been designed to comply with the goals, objectives and
policies of the City's General Plan. A variety of housing types, including single-family
residences, alley homes, row homes with front doors on Santa Victoria and Santa Diana
Roads and attached and detached multi-family homes, will be available to the residents of
the proposed project. All single-family zones within the villages permit accessory units.
The proposed project is designed to promote walking through the use of heavily
landscaped promenade streets, the Village Pathway, a grid system of streets and a mix of
uses that will meet the needs of the residents of the villages. On-street parking,
commercial buildings with zero-yard setbacks and plazas and courtyards will greet
residents upon their arrival on State Street. A pedestrian friendly scale, the Village
Pathway running through the mixed-use area, frequent neck-downs and crosswalks
promote walking within the Village Core.
Page 14, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10,2006
J. Business Park Desh~n Plan
The portion of Village Two, Village Two West within the landfill buffer and all of
Village Three are planned for light industrial uses in a business park setting under the
proposed SPA Plan. A Business Park Design Plan was prepared to define the intended
character and design of these areas. The Business Park Design Guidelines set forth policy
that intends to: establish a distinct architectural style; ensure compatibility with
surrounding development; combine landscaping and architecture to create attractive,
inviting and imaginative site arrangements; encourage pedestrian activity; minimize
impacts of noise, light, traffic and visual character; and preserve and incorporate access
to views into the development proposals. Designers are encouraged to pull the building
up to the street and locate parking areas to the rear of proposed lots. Parkways with street
trees and on street parking along all streets within the business park will enhance the
walkability of the area. These policies are then implemented by the Planned Community
(PC) District Regulations as they apply to the industrial parcels.
The Business Park Design Plan details the use of landform grading to minimize large and
steep manufactured slopes and the creation of a pedestrian friendly road system with
eight-foot parkways between the sidewalk and the streets to encourage walking. Entries
into the proposed project are defined and buffer zones between industrial and residential
land uses is discussed. The Village Two Business Park Design Plan offers more
information on design specifics.
Business Park Design Plan Analvsis
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Pour Business Park Design Plan complies with
the objectives and policies of the General Plan as well as the Industrial policies of the
Otay Ranch GDP.
K. Public Facilities Finance Plan
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan includes a Public Facilities
Finance Plan (PFFP) for infrastructure improvements and demands for public service.
The PFFP also analyzes the proposed development with the City Growth Management
Program and Ordinance. The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four PPFP describes in
detail the public facilities that are required for the development of 2,789 dwelling units
for the project, and analyzes the phasing and thresholds for development. The intent of
the PFPP is to ensure that development phasing of the village is consistent with the
requirements of the City's General Plan for required public facilities and infrastructure,
as well as compliance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance.
Public facilities infrastructure such as water supply, sewer service, storm and drainage
systems and roads and streets are analyzed in the development of the project. The PFFP
also identifies timing for the construction of needed facilities. For example, Heritage
Road will be required from Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road when the building
permit for the 1,008 Equivalent Dwelling-Unit (EDU) is issued. The issuance of the
Page 15, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
1,276 EDU will require the connection of Heritage Road to Main Street/Rock Mountain
Road.
Other public facilities and services that are required for the village include: schools;
childcare facilities; police; fire and emergency services; and library and other social
services are also included in this analysis. The PFPP also evaluates the demands on
public facility services based on the estimated population and phasing of the
development. Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four will be developed in 11 phases,
which generally proceeds from the east to west as a result of grading operation plans and
existing access to the project site. Access to the site results in the development phasing
generally occurring from northto south.
Public Facilities Finance Plan Analvsis
The proposed project has been evaluated for implementation of public facilities, public
services and infrastructure through the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four Public
Facilities Finance Plan. The project has also been analyzed to ensure compliance with the
City's Growth Management Plan and the Growth Management Chapter (Chapter 9) of the
Otay Ranch GDP. Thresholds have been established to require the applicant to provide
infrastructure improvements as the proposed project is built out. Standards adopted by
City Policy require that the proposed project be analyzed to determine whether the
approval of the project, as conditioned, will have an adverse impact on the City's adopted
threshold standards.
The Village Two PFPP also includes a project based fiscal analysis that indicates that the
proposed project will have a negative fiscal impact, due to its primarily residential nature,
in its early years. Lower density single and multi-family residential development tends to
generate more costs than revenues, however, these impacts were anticipated as part of the
Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) Model that was prepared for the Otay Ranch
GDP in 1993. These short term impacts were anticipated until commercial projects in the
Freeway Commercial and Eastern Urban Center are completed. In addition, the
conditions of approval require the proposed project to participate in the Otay Ranch
Reserve Fund, which has been established to fund the update of the FIND Model and to
reduce any deficit generated by the development of the Otay Ranch.
A review of the EIR (EIR-02-02), the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four PFFP
and other supporting SPA documents provide evidence that the proposed project is
consistent with the adopted threshold standards of the City including the Growth
Management Ordinance and the Growth Management Chapter of the Otay Ranch GDP.
An analysis of thresholds is contained in the environmental document EIR-02-02 and the
PFFP for the proposed project.
L. Affordable Housin2 Pro2ram
As prescribed in the General Plan's Housing Element and the Otay Ranch-wide
Affordable Housing Program, the proposed project is required to provide affordable
Page 16, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
housing opportunities through the obligation of low and moderate-income housing within
the project. The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan includes a
Affordable Housing Program which requires a subsequent agreement between the
applicant and the City. The City of Chula Vista Housing Element and the Otay Ranch
GDP require that 10 percent of the total units be affordable to low and moderate-income
households. Of the 10 percent,S percent must be affordable to low-income households
and 5 percent must be affordable to moderate income households. The proposed project
requires that 278 units be dedicated to affordable housing. One hundred thirty-nine units
must be low-income and 139 units must be moderate-income affordable units.
Affordable Housing Program Analvsis
The applicant is required to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the City's
General Plan as well as those of the Otay Ranch GDP. The proposed 2,786 single and
multi-family residential units will generate the requirement for 139 low-income and 139
moderate-income housing units. This plan indicates that affordable housing sites are
located within or adjacent to the Village Core, in close proximity to public transportation,
parks, schools, retail commercial and community purpose facilities. "For sale" affordable
housing for moderate-income households may be provided within multi-family
development sites, while the low-income units may be provided in rental developments.
This plan complies with the requirements of the affordable housing requirements of the
City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. The applicant will be required to enter into
a separate subsequent agreement with the City to ensure implementation of the affordable
low and moderate-income housing units.
M. Air Quality Improvement Plan
The Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance requires that all major development
projects (50 dwelling units or greater) prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP).
As part of the City's Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan, it was recognized that the
City's effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new development was directly
related to energy conservation and air quality. As a result, the applicant may choose to
participate in the Chula Vista GreenStar Building Efficiency Program or evaluate the
proposed project using the Chula Vista CO2 INDEX model. The applicant for the
proposed project has chosen to participate in the City's GreenStar program. As part of
this program the applicant has agreed to exceed Title 24 (Energy Efficiency Standards)
on 50% of the units by 15% or more for at least 493 single-family and 900 multi-family
units.
Air Ouality Improvement Plan Analvsis
The applicant's proposal to construct 493 single-family and 900 multi-family dwelling
units to exceed the Title 24 requirements by 15% is in compliance with the City's Growth
Management Ordinance and the goals and objective of the Otay Ranch GDP.
Page 17, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
N. Water Conservation Plan
The City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance requires that all development
of 50 units or more prepare a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) as part of the SPA Plan.
This plan presents a review of presently available technologies and practices that result in
water conservation in residential development. The Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four Water Conservation Plan requires that residential development provide hot water
pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves and water efficient dishwashers. Together these
three measures save approximately 3,230 gallons of water per unit annually. Non-
residential development is required to provide hot water insulation and pressure reducing
valves reducing water consumption in those units by approximately 2,580 gallons per
unit annually. In addition to the above measures, the City of Chula Vista water
conservation requirements require developers to select at least one additional indoor and
one additional outdoor water conservation measure for residential and non-residential
units. The applicant has chosen to install dual flush toilets and evapotranspiration
controllers on all residential units and water efficient irrigation systems and
evapotranspiration controllers to reduce irrigation usage on non-residential units.
Water Conservation Plan Analvsis
The proposed water conservation measures outlined above, and identified in the Villages
Two, Three and a Portion of Four Water Conservation Plan comply with the City of
Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance and the goals, objectives and policies of
the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP.
o. Non-Renewable Enerl!V Conservation Plan
The Otay Ranch GDP requires the preparation of a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation
Plan to identify feasible methods to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy
sources, including but not limited to, transportation, building design and use, lighting,
recycling, alternative energy sources and land use. Transit-oriented development and
pedestrian friendly design of the Village Core are methods to reduce energy
consumption.
Village Two is also participating in the Gas Technology Institute's (GTI) study to
evaluate and identify building materials and methods to reduce the consumption of non-
renewable energy.
Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Analvsis
The preparation and implementation of a Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for
the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan is consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Otay Ranch GDP.
Page 18, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
P. Parks. Recreation. Open Space and Trails Master Plan
The SPA Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan identifies and
describes park, recreation, open space and trail facilities and their implementation in the
proposed project. This pedestrian orientation is connected through a network of parks,
recreation, open space and trails. A 44.2-net acre portion of a 70-acre community park
site will be the major park element in Village Four. In addition, a lA-acre Town Square,
7.1-acre neighborhood park adjacent to the elementary school site, and a 6.9-acre park
near State Street will be located within the Village Core. Three additional pedestrian
parks to be privately owned and maintained by the Master Homeowners Association
(HOA) are also planned for Village Two residents on Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
sites. A 1.7-acre facility (CPF-3) will be located in the southeastern portion of Village
Two, a 1.2-acre facility (CPF-1) will be located in the northern portion of Village Two
and a 0.9-acre private recreation facility will be provided in the southwestern portion of
Village Two.
The IS-foot Village Pathway will connect the Village Core area and residential
neighborhoods with the "Regional Trails" on Olympic Parkway, Heritage Road and La
Media Road and to Village One to the north and Village Six to the west. The Village
Pathway allows for pedestrian, bicycle and electric cart travel and will eventually connect
to most of the village cores in Otay Ranch.
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four project contains a wide variety of open
space areas to promote the overall open space element of Otay Ranch. The Village
Greenway, which provides a 75-foot average open space corridor, will connect Village
Seven with the Community Park site on Village Four. In addition, Olympic Parkway,
Heritage Road and La Media Road also provided 75-foot average open space buffer
along these arterial roadways.
Consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, the
proposed project must convey land to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The development of 1
acre of land in Otay Ranch requires the dedication of 1.188 acres of land to the Otay
Ranch Preserve with the approval of each Final Subdivision Map. Pursuant to the
requirements, the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four project obligation is 1,052.7
acres ofland to be dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve (see Attachment 5 - SPA Plan
Binder, Exhibit 40 - Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan).
Parks. Recreation. Open Space and Trails Master Plan Analvsis
The Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four project is required to provide
approximately 24.5 acres of parks based on the City's Parkland and Public Facilities
Ordinance. The proposed project includes a 104 acre Town Square (P-1), a 7.1-acre
Neighborhood Park adjacent to the elementary school, a 6.9 acre Neighborhood Park near
State Street and a 44.2 acre portion of the Village Four Community Park for a total park
credit of 59.6 acres. Based on the requirements for the proposed project only, the
applicant would have a credit of 35.1-acres, however then applicant has a residual
Page 19, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
obligation from Villages One, Six and Seven of 32.53 acres. The implementation of the
proposed project will give the applicant a park credit of 2.57 acres.
The requirement of land conveyance in the proposed project to the Otay Ranch preserve
is consistent with the requirement of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. The
system, which includes parks, recreation, open space and trails that are provided in the
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four project, complies with the policies, goals and
objectives of the Otay Ranch GDP and Resource Management Plan.
Q. Fire Protection Plan
The City now requires the preparation and approval of a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) with
every new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. In addition the California Fire Code
requires a FPP with all new development in the Urban Wildland Interface. The focus and
scope of the Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four FPP is limited to the perimeter
areas of the development exposed to Wolf Canyon (the Urban Wildland Interface) and
the remaining perimeter slopes surrounding the development. Area "A" includes the
Wolf Canyon perimeter and Area "B" includes the other perimeter slopes along the
arterial roadways. The areas are modeled and assigned specific "Defensible Space and
Brush Management Zones" in the FPP. Area "A" is assigned three 50-foot zones that
permit specific plant types and planting requirements. The 50-foot zones for Zone "A"
are typically measured from the Preserve edge in Wolf Canyon and in some cases include
private property on the edge of the canyon, portions of public streets, and/or portions of
the Community Park in Village Four. Zone "B" is assigned three 30-foot zones that are
measured from property lines abutting the perimeter slopes and have similar plant species
and planting requirements.
The SPA Plan FPP models and provides a fire risk assessment for portions of the project
that are either adjacent to Wolf Canyon or perimeter slopes along the arterial roadways
that surround the project. The intent of the FPP is to limit fuel loads along these areas in
case of fire and propose additional requirements for the protection of the public. The
proposed requirements include permitted plant species and planting requirements. For
instance, along Wolf Canyon (also the MSCP Preserve) trees are not permitted along the
top ISO-feet of slopes in Zones I, 2 and 3 and many drought-tolerant plant species are not
permitted next to the Preserve due to their flammability.
Fire Protection Plan Analvsis
Because of fire protection, landscape design, slope stability, erosion control, their
location adjacent to the Preserve and plant palette and placement requirements these
slopes will look substantially different than others within the City. Due to potential
conflict between these requirements, a condition of approval has been added to the
proposed SPA Plan to allow flexibility in these requirements with the approval of the Fire
Chief and the Directors of the City's departments of Planning and Building, Engineering,
General Services and Public Works.
Page 20, Item:_
Meeting Date: May 10, 2006
CONCLUSION
Within Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four, the proposed land uses and
development intensities directly implement the provisions of the City's General Plan and
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan as amended. The proposed project provides
all of the public facilities required by the Otay Ranch GDP. The development of a transit
village with a strong "grid pattern" of streets and zoning regulations that further
implement pedestrian-oriented policies is in conformance with the goals, objectives and
policies of the General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP.
Attachments:
I. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution (PCM 01-01)
3. Draft City Council Resolution
4. Draft City Council Ordinance
5. Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
6. Disclosure Statement
H:\PLANNING\scOTfD\PC AGENDA STATEMENT V2 SPA.DOC
PROJECT
lOCATION
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOQ)CATOR ~~~~I~~T: The Otay Ranch Company
PROJECT South of Olympic Pkwy and
ADDRESS: East of Otay Landfill.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale EIR-02-02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Village 2, 3 and 4 (Portion)
J :\plan ning\carlos\locators\eir0202 .cdr 02.28.06
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-OI-0l
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
INCLUDING PLANNED COMMUNlTYDISCTRICT REGULATIONS,
VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN, BUSINESS P ARK DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAM AND OTHER REGULATORY DOCUMENTS ON 1,187.3
ACRES OF LAND IN VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF
FOUROFTHEOTAYRANCH
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution _ and is commonly known as Otay Ranch,
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Pour ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to consider a new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on January 25,2005 by Otay Project L.P. and Plat Rock Land Company, LLC
("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Business Park Design Plan,
Public Facilities Finance Plan and Affordable Housing Program on 1,187.3 acres ofland in Villages
Two, Three and a Portion of Pour; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is also the subject matter of an amendment to the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council,
wherein the Planning Commission and City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said
amended GDP, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch General Development Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report 90-01, and the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
SPA Plan Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 02-02") (SCH#200 I 031120), the
candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and,
WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and
determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment, therefore, a
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch, Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-01-01)
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. May
10,2006, in the City Council Chambers located in the Administration Building, 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 a Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan for Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four (PCM-01-01) 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 practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM-01-01) including the Village Design Plan, Business
Park Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan and Affordable Housing Program and otherregulatory
documents and an ordinance adopting the Planned Community District Regulations on 1,187.3 acres of
land in Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four in accordance with the findings contained in the
attached City Council Resolution,
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of May, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
II\PL^NNING\OtaLRal1chlVillagc~II\VII~BSO_SPA_ PC~ REsndoc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) PLAN INCLUDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISCTRICT REGULATIONS, VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN,
BUSINESS PARK DESIGN PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
AND OTHER REGULATORY DUCMENTS ON 1,187.3
ACRES OF LAND IN VILLAGES TWO, THREE AND A
PORTION OF FOUR OF THE OTAY RANCH
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to consider a new Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department on January 25, 2005 by Otay Project L.P. and Flat
Rock Land Company, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the application requests consideration of a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) including Planned Community District Regulations, Village Design Plan, Business
Park Design Plan, Public Facilities Finance Plan, Affordable Housing Program and other
regulatory documents on 1,187.3 acres of land in Villages Two, Three and a Portion of
Four; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is also the subject matter of an amendment to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to be considered by the Planning Commission
and City Council, wherein the Planning Commission and City Council, in the
environmental evaluation of said amended GDP, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch
General Development Plan Program Environmental Impact Report 90-01, and the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments/ Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 02-02")
(SCH#200 1 031120), the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and,
WHEREAS, The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project
and determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment,
therefore, a Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) has been prepared;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch, Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan (PCM-OI-01) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten
days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely
6:00 p.m. May 10, 2006, in the Council Chambers located in the Administration
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Project and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council
of the City ofChula Vista on the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan, and
adopting the ordinance to approve the SPA's Planned Community District Regulations
for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four; 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 May 10, 2006, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Second- Tier Final EIR 02-02, would have no new effects that were not examined
in said Final EIR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the Otay Ranch, Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan including: Planned Community District Regulations;
Village Design Plan; Business Park Design Plan; Public Facilities Finance Plan;
Affordable Housing Program; Air Quality Improvement Plan; Water Conservation
Plan; Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Park, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails Plan; Community Purpose Facility Master Plan; Agricultural Plan; Preserve
Edge Plan; and Fire Protection Plan, on 1,187.3 acres of land in Villages Two,
Three and a Portion of Four based upon findings contained herein and is consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan, and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and zoning practice support their approval and
implementation.
IV. SPA PLAN FINDINGS
A. THE OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF
FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SP A) PLAN IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OT A Y RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL
PLAN.
The Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open
space and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan.
B. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A
PORTION OF FOUR SPA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERL Y
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan and Public
Facilities Finance Plan contains provisions and requirements to ensure the
orderly, phased development ofthe project.
C. THE PROPOSED OT A Y RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A
PORTION OF FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN
WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE,
RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The land uses within Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four SPA Plan are designed with an open space buffer adjacent to other
existing projects, and future developments off-site and within the Otay
Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area.
The project will provide a variety of housing types compatible with
existing adjacent land uses, as required by the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. A comprehensive street network serves the project
and provides for access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed SPA
Plan follows all existing environmental protection guidelines and will
avoid unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision of mitigation
measures specified in the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four SPA Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02).
D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES,
THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA,
LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY
AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE.
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan includes
Industrial development that is within the Otay Landfill buffer. The SPA
Plan also includes a Business Park Design Plan that addresses design of
the business park.
E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER
SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL
PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT
SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE
EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan includes schools,
parks and Community Purpose Facility (CPF) sites. These sites have been
located in areas that are protected from adverse effects from adjoining
development.
F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE
AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC
THEREON.
The circulation system depicted in the SPA Plan is consistent with the
Circulation system identified on the City's General Plan and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and contains adequate internal circulation
consistent with the policies of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
and the City's General Plan. Road improvements will be constructed per
the timing and threshold requirements outlined in the SPA Plan Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED
AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF
THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S).
The location of proposed commercial development area in the SPA Plan is
consistent. These commercial uses reflect the Chula Vista General Plan
and Otay Ranch General Development Plan and will provide needed
commercial services to future residents in the area as well as visitors.
H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE
PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL
COMP A TIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT.
The SPA plan is consistent with the approved plans and regulations
applicable to surrounding areas and therefore, said development can be
planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said
development. The proposed SPA Plan is consistent with the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan, as amended.
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated in the Project.
XI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right
to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, revoke or further condition
issuance of all future building permits issued under the authority of approvals
herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
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
James D. Sandoval, AICP
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 23rd day May, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of
May, 2006.
Executed this 23rd day of May, 2006.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
PROJECT
lOCATION
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOC)CATOR :~~~I~c;1T: The Otay Ranch Company
PROJECT South of Olympic Pkwy and
ADDRESS: East of Otay Landfill.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale EIR-02-02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Village 2, 3 and 4 (Portion)
J:\planning\carlos \Iocators \eir0202. cd r 02.28.06
Exhibit B
SPA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR OTA Y RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE
AND A PORTION OF FOUR
1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer(s) as to
any or all of the Property. For the purpose of this document "Developer" shall also mean
"Applicant" .
2. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
and/or seek damages for their violation.
3. Developer(s) shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City its agents, officer and
employees harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including
attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR #02-
02, for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in
connection with the Project.
4. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula
Vista including its General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Otay Ranch
General Development Plan; Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan; Overall Design Plan;
Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and all supporting documents including: Planned
Community District Regulations; Village Design Plan; Business Park Design Plan; Public
Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Program; Air Quality Improvement Plan; Water
Conservation Plan; Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Park, Recreation, Open Space
and Trails Plan; Community Purpose Facility Master Plan; Agricultural Plan; Preserve Edge
Plan; and Fire Protection Plan.
5. Prior to the issuance of the 588th building permit, the applicant shall process a SPA Amendment
and Revised Tentative Map to provide a 3.0 to 5.0 acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site
in the Village Two Village Core.
6. No rear yard retaining wall shall be greater than 4 ~ feet in height. If a second retaining wall
is to be utilized, the minimum horizontal separation between the two walls shall be 4 ~ feet.
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
7. The Developer(s) shall implement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building
all mitigation measures identified in EIR #02-02 (SCH No. 2003091012), the Candidate
CEQA Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Prior to any
activity that may potentially impact biological resources, such as clearing and grubbing, the
applicant(s) shall comply with all applicable requirements prescribed in the Village Two,
Three and a Portion of Four Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02; SCH No.
2003091012), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Page 2 of9
8. The Developer(s) shall comply with all requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch
Resource Management Plan (RMP) approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993, and
Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP2), including the Preserve Conveyance Schedule,
as approved by City Council on June 4, 1996, or as amended from time to time by the City,
and shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the first Tentative
Map for this Project, in order to implement the provisions of the Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan.
9. The Developer(s) shall convey fee title, or upon the consent of the Preserve Owner/Manager
(POM) and any lien holder, an easement restricting use of the land to those permitted by the
RMP, to the POM upon the recordation of each final map for an amount ofland equal to the
final map's obligation to convey land to the Preserve, as required by the RMP. Where an
easement is conveyed, the Developer(s) shall be required to provide subordination of any
prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first priority interest in such land.
Where consent and subordination cannot be obtained, the Developer(s) shall convey fee title.
Where fee title or an easement is conveyed, access to the satisfaction of the POM shall be
conveyed. Where an easement is granted, each final map is subject to a condition that fee title
shall be granted upon demand by the POM. The developer further agrees to maintain and
manage the offered conveyance property consistent with Phase 1 and 2 RMP guidelines until
such time when the POM has accepted the conveyance property.
10. The developer shall reseed areas classified as agriculture (7.11 acres) and disturbed habitat
(1.82 acres), proposed for inclusion in the Preserve, with native grasses for impacts to annual
grassland. The Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the project shall identify those areas to be
reseeded and include the proposed seed mix, all of which will be subject to review and
approval of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
11. The developer shall be required to retain a City-approved biologist to conduct pre-
construction surveys to identify the location of active burrowing owl nests. The results from
the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities (including
the removal of vegetation). If active nests are found, a relocation plan shall be prepared and
implemented to ensure that burrowing owl nests are properly relocated in accordance with
the approved methodology of the Wildlife Agencies. The relocation plan shall be submitted
to the City and the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities.
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
12. Prior to approval of the first "B" map for the Project, at the request of the City Engineer,
Developer(s) shall take all necessary steps to include the Project area within Improvement
Area "A" of the Otay Ranch Preserve Maintenance District (CFD. No. 97-02).
Page 3 of9
13. The Developer(s) shall obtain any necessary permits and comply with any applicable
requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, California State Water
Resources Control Board, U.S. Department ofFish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. If required, Developer(s) shall apply for and receive a take permit/authorization
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game or
comply with the approved City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan or other equivalent take
permit/authorization applicable to the Project.
14. Developer(s) acknowledge that approval of the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion
of Four SPA Plan does not constitute approval of the final lot configurations, grading, or
street designs shown within the SPA plan. Modifications must be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building, the Planning Commission or the
City Council during the tentative subdivision map process. The ultimate total number of
dwelling units for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, resulting from more specific
Tentative Map and Final Map planning and analysis, and/or the Site Plan/Design Review
process, may require a reduction in the number of total units as described in the Village Two,
Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
15. Street cross sections shall conform to those standards contained in the Village Two, Three
and a Portion of Four SPA Plan. All other design criteria shall conform to the Otay Ranch
Street Sections contained in the document entitled Design Standards and the Subdivision
Manual both as amended from time to time, ("City Design Standards"). Any proposed
variations from the City Design Standards, which are not addressed in the SPA Plan shall be
subject to approval by the City and indicated on the appropriate tentative subdivision map.
16. Prior to approval of the first final map for the Project the Developer(s) shall provide a Sub
Area Master Plan (SAMP) for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, as approved by
Otay Water District (OWD), which will also include an analysis of recycled water for open
space slopes. When said SAMP is approved, the Developer(s) shall provide the water and
recycled water improvements in accordance with the SAMP. The SAMP shall be consistent
with the SPA Plan. If the SAMP is inconsistent with the SPA Plan, the Developer(s) shall be
responsible for obtaining the approval by OWD of any amendment to the Village Two, Three
and a Portion of Four SAMP in order for the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
SAMP to be consistent with the approved SPA Plan prior to the approval of the first map for
the Project.
17. The Applicant shall comply with the Fire Department's codes and policies for Fire
Prevention, and the recommendations contained in the approved Fire Protection Plan, Urban-
Wildland Interface Area for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, as may be amended
from time to time. Prior to the approval of the first final map, a fire access and water supply
plan prepared by a licensed engineering firm, which has been determined to be qualified in
the sole discretion of the Fire Marshall, shall be submitted to for approval by the City Of
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
Chula Vista Fire Department. The plan shall detail how and when the Applicant shall provide
the following items either prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for the Project, or prior
to delivery of combustible materials on any construction site on the Project, whichever
occurs earlier:
Page 4 of9
a. Water supply consIstmg 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.
b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer of hard asphalt surface or
concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of 15 feet.
c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Temporary street signs
shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department. Locations and
identification of temporary street signs shall be subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer and Fire Department.
18. The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four sewer improvements shall be consistent with
the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Conceptual Sewer Study, dated January 2006
or a subsequent Sewer Study submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
19. Developer( s) shall comply with the provisions of the City of Chula Vista Parks and
Recreation Master Plan as adopted and as it affects facilities and other related requirements
for the Project's parks.
20. The Developer(s) acknowledge and agrees to comply with the provisions of the City ofChula
Vista Greenbelt Master Plan (September 16, 2003) as adopted and as may be amended from
time to time.
21. Developer(s) agree(s) at Developer(s)'s sole expense, including to but not limited to the
necessary above and/or underground utilities to accommodate the required street trees within the
street tree planting easement and parkway as determined necessary by the Director of General
Services and the City Engineer.
22. Developer(s) shall deliver parkland to satisfy (their) community parkland obligation(s) in a
manner consistent with Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17. The community parkland
obligation shall be located within Village Four. The location of the community parkland
obligation is subject to the approval of the Directors of Planning and General Services.
23. The Developer(s) shall install Chula Vista transit facilities, which may include but not be
limited to benches and bus shelters, in accordance with the improvement plans approved by
the City. Since transit service availability may not coincide with project development, the
Developer(s) shall install said improvements when directed by the City. The Developer(s),
separately and individually, shall enter into (an) agreement(s) with the City prior to approval
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
of each Developers' first map regarding Developer(s') funding of these facilities. Said transit
stops shall be designed in the manner consistent with the transit stop details as described in
the SPA Plan and Village Design Plan, and as approved by the City's Transit Coordinator and
Director of Planning and Building.
Page 5 of9
24. In order to satisfy their fair-share contribution for financing the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or
other transit system, the Developer(s) shall enter into an agreement with the City which states
that the Developer(s) will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit
assessment district formed to finance the (BR T).
25. The Developer(s) shall each enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to
approval of each Developers' first final map, regarding the provision of affordable housing.
Said agreements shall be a condition of approval of each Developers' first tentative map.
Such agreements shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch
Wide Affordable Housing Plan and the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Affordable
Housing Plan.
26. No final "B" maps may be recorded within Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four until
such time that one or more annexable Mello-Roos District(s), or other financing mechanism
approved by the elementary and high school districts to provide for the construction of
needed elementary, middle and high schools, is/are established.
27. If required by the City, the Developer(s), separately and individually, shall enter into
agreements with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval of each Developers' first final "B"
map within Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, in order to participate, on a fair share
basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the
Congestion Management Program (CMP).
28. If required by the County of San Diego, the Developer(s) shall equitably participate in any
future regional impact fee program for correctional facilities should the region enact such a
fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities. The Developer(s) shall enter into
an agreement, prior to approval of the first final map, with the City which states that the
Developer(s) will not protest the formation of any potential future regional benefit
assessment district formed to finance correctional facilities.
29. The Developer(s) shall fund the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program.
30. 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: (1) Fund a fair share of 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
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
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.
Page 6 of9
31. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate
the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure
consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project
manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not
limited to land use planning and architecture.
32. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch GDP,
the Developer(s) shall prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted
submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected
construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards,
and identifying financing options for necessary facilities.
33. The Developer(s) acknowledges that the Otay Ranch General Development Plan is based on
a village concept that provides for the construction of multi-family homes and commercial
uses along with single-family residential homes within Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four. The Developer(s) understands that it is the City's intent to require the Developer(s) to
focus development on the village core in order to increase the viability of the core and to
fulfill the objectives of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
34. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director of
Planning and Building and the City Engineer.
35. The Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four or
revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA
and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to
meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies a facility
phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the Project area. Throughout the build-out of Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four, actual development may differ from the assumptions
contained in the PFFP. Neither the PFFP nor any other Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four documents grant the Developer(s) an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or
limit Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four's facility improvement requirements to those
identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements
and market conditions, shall govern Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four development
patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition,
the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future
transportation phasing plan for the City of Chula Vista or amendment to the Growth
Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a
reVISIOn
Page 70f9
36. The Developer(s) shall enter into supplemental agreement(s) with the City, prior to approval
of each final map for any phase or unit, whereby:
a. The Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any units in
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four in order to have the Project comply with the
Growth Management Program; or, if anyone of the following occur:
(1) Regional development threshold limits set by a Chula Vista transportation phasing
plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached.
(2) Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the
adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then effective Growth
Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program and any amendments
thereto.
(3) The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan
(PFFP), or as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or
constructed to the City's satisfaction. The Developer(s) may propose changes in the
timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements
affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended after review and approval by the
City's Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. The
Developer(s) agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any of the
phases of development identified in the PFFP for Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and
a Portion of Four SPA if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as
amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. Public
utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water.
b. The Developer(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers and employees, pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act, from any
claim, action or proceeding against the City, its agents, officers or employees:
(1) To attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its
Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or
employees with regard to the Project, and;
(2) As to each Developers' respective subsequent development of their portions of the
Project, provided the City promptly notifies the Developer(s) of any claim, action or
proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
37. The Developer(s) acknowledge(s) its/their understanding that the City is in the process of
amending its Growth Management Program and Ordinance in order to establish updated
development phasing provisions necessary to ensure compliance with threshold standards. In
order for the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Project to be consistent
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
with the City's growth management provisions, the Developer(s) hereby agree(s) to comply
with the Growth Management Program and Ordinance, as may be amended from time to
time, in order for the City to approve this Project. Said provisions shall also be included as a
condition of approval of all Tentative Maps within Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four.
Page 8 of9
38. The Developer(s) shall submit electronic versions of all SPA documents, including text and
graphics, to the Planning and Building Department in a format specified and acceptable to
the Director of Planning and Building.
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
Conditions of Approval
Page 9 of9
Exhibit B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTA Y PROJECT, L.P. AND
FLA TROCK LAND COMPANY, LLC RELATED TO VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A
PORTION OF FOUR SPA APPROVAL
The Property Owner and the Developer(s) shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the Property Owner and Developer(s) have each
read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained in Resolution No. , and will
implement same to the satisfaction of the City. Upon execution, this document and a copy of
Resolution No. shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Developer(s), and a signed, stamped copy
returned to the City Clerk. Failure to return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded
document within thirty days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the Property
Owner/Developer(s)'s desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building
permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Attachment( s)
H:\PLANNING\scOTID\V2 SPA CONDmONS OF Al'PROV AL.DOC
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE AND A PORTION OF
FOUR.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Two, Three and a Portion
of Four ("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, an application to consider a new Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, including
Planned Community District Regulations, for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four was filed
with the City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department on January 25,2005 by Otay Ranch
L.P. and Flat Rock Land Company, LLC ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan, Planned Community District Regulations ("Project") are intended to ensure that
the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan is prepared in accordance with
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), to implement the City of Chula Vista General
Plan for eastern Chula Vista, to promote the orderly planning and long term phased development of
the Otay Ranch GDP and to establish conditions which will enable the amended Otay Ranch, Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four area to exist in harmony within the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch, Village Two, Three and a Potion of Four SPA Planned
Community District Regulations are established pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, specifically Chapter 19.48 (PC) Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the Otay
Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Land Use Plan of the Otay Ranch Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Planned
Community District Regulations establishes zoning regulation adjustments to the Single-Family
Two, Single-Family Three, Single-Family Four, Residential Multi-Family One, Residential Multi-
Family Two, Community Purpose Facility, Business Park One, Business Park Two, Mixed Use,
Parks, and Open Space Districts located in the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of
F our; and,
WHEREAS, the Property is also the subject matter of an amendment to the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) adopted by City Council by Resolution No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the Project was included in the environmental evaluation of said amended
GDP, which relied in part on the original Otay Ranch General Development Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report 90-01, and the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
SP A Plan Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 02-02") (SCH#2003091 012), the
Ordinance No.
Page 2
candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion ofF our Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (PCM -01-01)
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries 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. May
10, 2006, in the Council Chambers located in the Administration Building, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Project and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
ofChula Vista on the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan and adopting
the ordinance to approve the SPA Planned Community District Regulations for Otay Ranch Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four; 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 May 10, 2006 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the
proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the Second-Tier
Final EIR 02-02, would have no new effects that were not examined in said Final EIR
(Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance to the Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Planned Community District Regulations, finding that they are
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.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval, AICP
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
H:\PLANNING\scOTID\V2 SPA CC ORDINANCE.DOC
Ordinance No.
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 23rdday of May, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rdday of May, 2006.
Executed this 23rd day of May 2006.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
PROJECT
lOCATION
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOC)CATOR :~~~~c;1T: The Otay Ranch Company
PROJECT South of Olympic Pkwy and
ADDRESS: East of Otay Landfill.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale EIR-02-D2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Village 2, 3 and 4 (Portion)
J: \planning\carlos\locators\eir0202.cdr 02.28.06
~~(~
---.-
~..,;;;:-..,..- ....;:
""-- ........
"""" .........
p I ann
n g
&
Building
Planning Division I
Department
Development Processing
cm OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Jim Baldwin
Al Baldwin
otay project, L.P.
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
Jim Baldwin
Al Baldwin
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.
N/A
3.
Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
4.
Kim John Kilkennv Ranie Hunter
K~n~ nn~n T~Y w;";m~n
Rob Cameron
Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings ~th an official** of the City of Chula
Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No
5.
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.x.. Yes _ If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~~~
--.-
~~"" - ....,."
~ ......
P I ann
ng & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
cm OF
CHUIA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an officialo,* of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This 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 nature of item provided?
~JU~
Signature of Contractor/Applicant
Date:~anl!ary 25, 2005
Print or
type name of Contractor/Applicant
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit
o,*
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista I California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~~ft-
-.-
~~--::::~
~ --
P I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
CllY OF
CHUIA VISfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council,
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information
must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Flat Rock Land Company, LLC
2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
Otay Land Company, LLC
HomeFed Corporation
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 matter.
Jon Rilling Curt Noland
Kf'v;n HmATRon
Jpff 0' Crmnnr
5. Has any person* associated with this contract 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-XX..-
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? NoXX Yes _ If yes, which Council member?
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
~~~
-.-
~~= :;:~
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
P I ann
n g
& Building
Planning Division
Department
Development Processing
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement - Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.)
Yes No XX
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date: November 12, 2004
Jon Rilling
type name of Contractor/Applicant
Print or
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board,
commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista
California
91910
(619) 691-5101
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 4- ..
Meeting Date: 5/10/2006
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of application PCS 06-02;
for the proposed conversion of the existing 336-unit Missions at
Sunbow apartment complex to condominium units for individual
ownership - LDM Sunbow, LLC.
The Applicant, LDM Sunbow, LLC, has submitted an application for a Tentative
Subdivision Map (one-lot condominium map) to convert a 336-unit apartment complex to
336 condominium units for individual ownership. The 14.58-acre project site is located
at 825 East Palomar Street (see Attachment A, Locator Map.)
Environmental Status: The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the
proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 (existing facilities) categorical
exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further
environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution PCS-06-02, recommending that the City Council approve
the proposed Tentative Map in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The existing Missions at Sunbow apartment complex was constructed in 2003 and
consists of 336 apartment units and common open space. Tentative and Final Map
approvals are required to create the one-lot 336-unit condominium map, with final action
by the City Council.
Condominium conversion projects in Chula Vista may require Design Review. However,
since this project was approved for its original construction on December 18, 2000 and is
not proposing any exterior building upgrades or modifications as part of the Tentative
Map application, further Design Review is not required at this time.
Mr. Hamlin of the Lorna Corporation filed this application in J line 2005 on behalf of the
original developer, the Morgan Group. Subsequently the property was sold to Equity
Residential, but Mr. Hamlin was retained to continue processing the conversion
application. The Planning Commission was originally scheduled to consider this
application on March 8; however, shortly before the hearing date staff became aware that
the new property management for the apartment complex had sent out a notice to the
Page No.2, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
tenants that the complex was not being converted. The applicant explained to staff that
Equity Residential did wish to proceed with the conversion process, but the actual sale of
units would probably not take place for some time.
To eliminate confusion, the applicant agreed to a continuance to give staff time to send a
letter to the tenants explaining the conflicting notifications and clarifying that the
conversion hearings would indeed take place (see Attachment I.) In response to that
letter staff received several phone calls requesting clarification of the process. One
tenant brought another issue to staff s attention, namely that there is a deed restriction on
the property that would prevent the apartments from being converted to condominiums
units until the year 2013. Further consultation with the applicant revealed that this was a
private agreement between the seller and the buyer and does not restrict the City's ability
to proceed with the approval of this application. This restriction can be lifted at some
point by agreement between the new owners, Equity Residential, and the seller, The
Morgan Group.
Project Site and Setting
The site is a rectangular level, 14.58-acre lot with an existing apartment complex located
at 825 East Palomar Street. The existing uses adjacent to the site are listed in the table
below.
Table 1: Zoning and Land Use
General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
Site RMH Residential PC Planned Community: Multi-family
Medium High Sunbow II Residential residential (apts.)
Condominium (RC)
North PQ Public and Quasi- CO-Administrative and Sharp and Chula
Public Professional Office Vista Medical
Centers
East RLM Residential Low PC Planned Community: Single- family
Medium Sunbow II Residential residential
Single Family (RS)
South RLM Residential Low PC Planned Community: Single-family
Medium Sunbow II Residential residential
Single Family (RS)
West Parks & Recreation; PC Planned Community: Single-family
Retail; RLM Sunbow II Residential residential and 10-
Residential Low Single Family (RS); acre Park
Medium Sunbow II Open Space
(OS)
Page No.3, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
The project is less than a quarter mile west of Hedenkamp Elementary School, on
improved streets with sidewalks. Also, there is commercial development approximately
one block away from the project, to the west at East Palomar Street and Medical Center
Drive.
Project Description:
The complex consists of 32 three-bedroom units, 178 two-bedroom units, and 126 one-
bedroom units arranged into 21 three-story buildings, a 6,600 sq.ft. community clubhouse,
a pool, a tot lot, a fitness center, a private theater, a business center for residents, and 625
garage, carport, and open parking spaces. Unit Cl is 1,327 sq.ft., 3 bedrooms, 2 baths;
Units Bla, BIb, B2h, B2b, and B2c range from 1,111 to 1,172 sq.ft., 2 bedrooms, 2 baths;
and Units Alh and Ala are 724 sq.ft., 1 bedroom and 1 bath.
The units were originally proposed in 2000 as luxury apartment units and feature upscale
amenities. Each unit has 9-ft ceilings; designer kitchen cabinets and countertops; full
appliance packages (washer/dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, microwave ovens);
walk-in closets; oversized garden-style bathtubs; interior decorator finishes (crown
moldings and ceiling fans); individual unit intrusion security alarms; sound proofing
construction; private open space (patio or balcony) with exterior storage/utility closets
attached directly to the units; and some units with garages providing direct interior
entrances to the attached unit.
Storage space is provided in existing walk-in closets, laundry rooms, and utility closets
for all units, although not all units have the full amount of required storage. One hundred
cu. ft. of additional storage space is proposed to be added to each of the 184 existing
garages. Storage area is also provided through utilizing a portion of the patio and
balcony utility closets that also contain hot water heaters. The units are already served by
separate gas and electric meters, while water and sewer will be the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association.
No exterior structural changes or modifications are proposed, outside of minor repairs
and paint touchup where necessary, and no interior building upgrades are proposed. The
units were constructed in 2003 and are generally in excellent condition. The Applicant
intends to perform a thorough cleaning of each unit before sale to the ultimate buyer, and
also intends to replace worn carpet and repaint the unit interiors on an as-needed basis.
Staff has recommended a condition to repair and replace sidewalks and ADA ramps
where needed.
Page No.4, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
Table 2: Project Data
Assessor's Parcel Number: 641-122-07
Current Zoning: PC-Planned Community: Sunbow II
Residential Condominium (RC)
Land Use Designation: RMH Residential Medium High
Lot Area: 14.58 acres
REQUIRED: PROVIDED:
Parking: 625 Spaces total 184 "Tuck-under" garage spaces
1.5 space/l-BR unit x 126 = 189 spaces 170 Carport stalls
2 spacesl2-BR unit x 178 = 356 spaces 271 Open spaces
2.5 spaces/3-BR unit x 32 = 80 spaces 625 Total Spaces
(includes 12 handicapped spaces)
Lot Coverage: Subject to Site Plan Review 24.3 %
Setbacks: Subject to Site Plan Review
Front: 29.5 ft.
Exterior Side Yard: 48 ft.
One Interior Side Yard: Not applicable
Both Interior Side Yards: Not applicable
Rear: Rear: 54 ft.
Storage:
250 cu. ft. / 3-bedroom unit It is estimated that most, if not all, of the
200 cu. ft. / 2-bedroom unit storage requirement is met by space in
150 cu. ft. / I-bedroom unit existing utility closets and interior closets,
laundry rooms, and proposed new cabinets
in garages; however, provision of more
detail by the Developer is recommended as
a condition of approval.
Common Open Space: 136,960 SF 139,866 SF (excess of2,906 SF)
480 SF/ 3-BR unit x 32 units = 15,360 SF Patios/decks = 24,990 SF
400 SF/ 2-BR unit x 178 units = 71,200 SF Club/leasing area = 6,626 SF
400 SF/ I-BR unit x 126 units = 50,400 SF Usable landscaped open space = 108,250 SF
Building Height: 38' - 4" for Type I buildings
Subject to Site Plan Review 39' - 11" for Type II buildings
The Sharp Hospital site, located north of the project, is master planned to have additional
structures that will be constructed in the future. Staff has recommended a condition of
approval that directs the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to include
detailed text and map graphics to inform potential condominium owners of the hospital's
future plans.
Page No.5, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
Analysis:
Noticing Documentation
Pursuant to Section 66452 of the Subdivision Map Act, condominium conversion projects
must satisfy certain noticing requirements. The applicant has completed the tenant noticing
required by the State and by the Municipal Code prior to Tentative Map consideration,
including "Form A", the "60-Day Notice to All Existing Tenants of Intent to convert"; and
"Form B", the "Notice to all Prospective Tenants of Intent to Convert". Table 3 below
identifies the noticing requirements and when existing and prospective tenants should
receive them. The tenants have been aware of the condominium conversion project
proposal since Form A was sent in September of 2005, and will be given notice of having
the first option to purchase a unit. Sample notices provided by the Applicant are attached
(see Attachment E, Noticing Documentation).
Table 3: Noticing Documentation
NOTICE REQUIREMENT HOW LONG & WHEN COMPLIANCE
60-day notice to all existing 60 days prior to filing a 60-day notices were sent
tenants of intent to convert - Design Review and certified mail to existing
"Fonn A"* Tentative Map application tenants September 3, 2005.
with the City
Notice to all prospective tenants of Prior to acceptance of any Applicant has submitted a
intent to convert - "Fonn B"* rent or deposit from the current tenant list with
prospective tenant copies of signed fonns for
all new tenants.
lO-day notice to all existing lo days before or after lO-day notices of Public
tenants of an application of a submittal of the Public Report - "Fonn C" were
Public Report - "Fonn C" Report to the Department of sent certified mail to
Real Estate existing tenants September
3,2005
lO-day Notice to all eXlstmg Within 10 days of approval To be detennined/
tenants of Final Map approval - of the Final Map by the City Typically following Final
"Fonn D" Map approval
Notice to all prospective tenants of Prior to acceptance of any To be detennined prior to
option to purchase/tennination of rent or deposit from the approval of Final Map
tenancy - "Fonn E" prospective tenant
90-day Notice to all existing For a period of 90 days after To be fulfilled subject to
tenants of option to issuance of the Public Report City Standard Supplemental
purchase/termination of tenancy - from the Department of Real Subdivision Improvement
"Fonn F" Estate Agreement.
180-day notice to all existing 180 days prior to tennination 180-day notices were sent
tenants of intent to of tenancy certified mail to existing
convertltennination of tenancy - tenants September 3,2005.
"Fonn G"
Page No.6, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
HomebuverlRelocation Assistance:
The applicant will provide the following regarding assistance to tenants during the
condominium sales process (See Homebuyer Assistance letter, Attachment F):
1. All tenants in occupancy when the project sales office is ready to open will be
contacted and informed of their ability to acquire their unit. Based on current
price estimates, the Applicant believes that most if not all tenants will be able to
acquire their units (subject to lender approval) at an after-tax monthly cost
comparable to their current rental payment. Specific pricing and payment data
will be provided to tenants and a meeting held to answer their questions.
2. If tenants choose to purchase their unit, a discount from the "market" price will be
given to them to assist in their closing, in an amount from $2,000 to $4,000, and
will be offered to all tenants consistently.
3. Tenants who choose to not buy their unit but who wish to continue renting will be
allowed to remain in their unit, on a month-to-month basis until their unit is
required for sale to the public. Additionally, they will receive priority to rent
another unit in the complex, if one is available.
4. A referral list of available rental units will be made available to tenants prior to
their lease expiration. The list will be generated by the Community Development
Department (CD D) or, if not available from CDD, by the Applicant.
The applicant is not providing any relocation assistance to renters who choose not to
purchase their unit. Applicant has noted that due to Missions at Sunbow's current rents,
which are higher than most projects in the region, it is believed that few if any tenants
will have difficulty finding a new rental unit at a comparable or lower rent. Staff has
included a condition of approval requiring that the applicant provide evidence that the
requirements of the homebuyer assistance program have been satisfied prior to approval
of the final map.
Property Condition Assessment Report
Because the apartment complex was built under the 1998 Uniform Building Code, a
"Physical Condition Report" is not required; however, the Applicant did submit one, which
lists a recommendation to address fire sprinkler systems without annual inspection tags
posted (see Attachment G, "Property Condition Report - Executive Summary"). Staff has
incorporated this recommendation in the Tentative Map conditions of approval. Table 4
below lists the existing services utilities within the project and what is proposed under the
Tentative Map.
Table 4: Utilities
UTILITY
Air conditioning
EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION
Individual units and No change proposed.
thermostats.
Individual electric units and No change proposed.
Heating
Page No.7, Item: _
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
UTILITY EXISTING CONDITION
thermostats.
Water heaters Individual 40-gallon gas water
heater.
Gas meters Individual gas meters.
Electric meter Individual meters.
Water HOA
Sewer HOA
*Cable Individual unit.
* Telephone Individual unit.
*Not covered in the HOA
PROPOSED CONDITION
No change proposed.
No change proposed.
No change proposed.
HOA
HOA
No change proposed.
No change proposed.
The maintenance and monthly payment of the utilities would be addressed in the
project's CC&Rs. Staff is recommending that the project meet current Fire Code
requirements, including smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, and be inspected and
approved by the Fire Department.
Municipal Code Requirements:
A condominium conversion project must satisfy certain City requirements including
current zoning, which is PC Planned Community (RC Residential Condominiums per the
Sunbow II SPA), the Chula Vista Design Manual, and the Chula Vista Municipal Code
(CVMC) requirements, which include off-street parking, open space, and condominium
conversion regulations per City ordinance. The following sections discuss how the
project complies with these requirements.
Open Space -- Common Open Space:
CVMC Section 19.28.090 requires 480 square feet of common usable open space per 3-
bedroom unit and 400 square feet per 2-bedroom or I-bedroom unit; therefore, the project
must provide a minimum of 136,960 square feet of open space. This project provides
139,866 SF of open space, which is an excess of 2,900 SF. The existing open space
includes private patios or balconies on all units, a 6,626 SF common open space
comprising the club and leasing area, and approximately 108,250 SF of landscaped and
usable open space area.
Conversion of Dwelling Units to Independent Ownership (CVMC Chapter 15.56):
Pursuant to Chapter 15.56, Conversion of Dwelling Units to Independent Ownership,
apartments converted to condominiums for sale must address the following issues:
parking, adequate storage for each unit, common useable open space areas, and must
satisfy fire and Uniform Building Code standards before occupancy.
A. Fire Protection: The locations of existing on-site fire hydrants have the approval of
the Fire Department and shall not be relocated. The project must provide upgraded
fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. The project is also conditioned to comply
Page No.8, Item: _
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
with current fire protection requirements.
B. Uniform Building Code: The project was constructed in 2003 under the 1998
Uniform Building Code. The Building Department reviewed the "Property
Condition Assessment Report" prepared by Land America Commercial Services,
and found that the Project will satisfy the Building Code requirements if the
recommended improvements are constructed or put in place. These requirements
are generally described in the Property Condition Assessment Report Executive
Summary, and implementing conditions of approval specified in Attachment C, the
attached Draft City Council Resolution of Approval.
C. Storage: Section 15.56.020 requires adequate storage area for each unit. Three-BR
units require 250 cu. ft. of storage, 2-BR units require 200 cu. ft., and I-BR units
require 150 cu. ft. Existing and proposed storage space is provided for the project,
including interior closets, utility closets, and garages, although all units may not
have the full amount of required storage. The Applicant has provided some
information regarding the cu. ft. contained in each unit type (see Attachment D,
Unit Storage Areas), but it is not entirely clear as to what type of storage is
provided, i.e., the dimensions of the space and whether it's a shelf above the
laundry appliances, a portion of a laundry room or hot water utility closet, or a linen
closet. All units have hot water heater utility closets off their patio or balcony.
Because the project is relatively new (constructed in 2003), it is not proposed to
change out the water heaters; however, in other condominium conversion projects,
other developers have changed out to tankless hot water units, which frees up much
more space in the utility closets.
Per CVMC section 15.56.070, in considering tentative maps for condominium
development and evaluating the manner in which storage space is provided, the
Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve
departures from the stated standards after review of each proposal. Departures shall
be based on the merits of the individual project when good cause can be shown. In
this case, staff supports that the Planning Commission recommend such a departure
with a condition that for the Final Map the Applicant shall provide all cabinet,
shelving, and closet dimensions to prove that the storage meets all minimum
dimensioning requirements.
The merits of this project are that it provides excellent community amenities (a
6,600 sq.ft. community clubhouse that includes a "great room" meeting facility, a
game room with pool, shuffleboard, and other activities, a full kitchen for parties, a
swimming pool, a tot lot, a fully equipped state-of-the-art fitness center, a private
theater with 20 seats, and a business center with computers, copiers, printers, and
fax machines for residents). The individual units also have desirable amenities,
including 9-ft ceilings; designer kitchen cabinets and countertops; full appliance
packages (washer/dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, and microwave ovens);
walk-in closets; oversized garden-style bathtubs; interior decorator finishes (crown
moldings and ceiling fans); individual unit intrusion security alarms; sound
proofing construction; private open space (patio or balcony); and 184 units with
Page No.9, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
garages providing direct interior entrances to the attached unit. The project
proposes to add 100 cubic feet of storage to the 184 tuck-under individual garages.
Staff believes that the merits of this project, as listed above, compensates for the
possible shortfall of storage space in some of the units, meets the overall qualities
desired bY' the City in its condominium housing product, and will provide high
quality for-sale multi-family units desirable to the public.
If the Planning Commission and City Council are not comfortable with taking
advantage of CVMC section 15.56.070, it is suggested that a possible condition of
approval could be to change out the existing hot water heaters for tankless hot water
units, thereby freeing up more of the exterior utility closet space for the required
storage.
D. Housing Code: The Project is required to conform to Uniform Housing Code
requirements in existence at the time of the approval of the Subdivision Map. The
project has completed a housing inspection and is required by condition of approval
to correct any deficiencies prior to Final Map approval.
E. Protective Lighting Standards: This project went through Design Review in
December 2000 as part of the original development application. All the original
Design Review conditions regarding lighting were fulfilled to the satisfaction of the
City, including conformance with Section 17.28.030 and 17.28.040 of the
Municipal Code.
F. Off-street parking: Per the Sunbow SPA parking requirements, I-BR units need 1.5
parking spaces, 2-BR units 2 parking spaces, and 3-BR units 2.5 parking spaces.
The Project meets the Sunbow SPA parking requirement, providing a total 625
parking spaces, consisting of 184 parking stalls in the "tuck-under" parking
garages, 170 carport stalls, and 271 open spaces. Twelve handicapped spaces are
included in the total.
G. Design Guidelines: It has been determined that since this project went through
Design Review in December 2000 as part of the original development application,
no further Design Review is required. All the original Design Review conditions
regarding site design, architecture, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and other design
elements were fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City and any other applicable
agencIes.
H. Separate Service Meters: Each unit has individual electric and gas meters. A
Homeowners Association will be responsible for the water and sewer service utility
meters. The Applicant shall provide CC&Rs prior to final map approval showing
how this will be satisfied.
I. Housing Department Compliance Survey: The Applicant has completed a Housing
Code compliance survey and a condition of approval is included requiring the
applicant to correct any violations prior to Final Map approval.
Page No. 10, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
J. The applicant submitted a "Property Condition Assessment Report" for review by
the City's Building Official. The report concludes that the existing apartment
complex is in good condition, structurally and cosmetically. However, the
assessment identifies immediate repairs to address fire sprinkler systems without
annual inspection tags posted. Staff has included the report recommendations as
conditions of approval in Attachment C ofthe draft City Council Resolution.
K. CC&Rs: The Project is conditioned to provide evidence of declarations of
covenants, conditions and restrictions in conjunction with approval of the Final
Map.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 06-02
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map PCS 06-02.
Attachments
A. Locator Map
B. Planning Commission Resolution
C. Draft City Council Resolution
D. Half-size Sheets:
1. Tentative Map (3 sheets)
2. Site Plan (2 sheets)
3. Unit Storage Areas
E. Noticing Documentation
F. Homebuyer Assistance Program
G. Property Condition Assessment Report - Executive Summary
H. Disclosure Statement
I. Letter to Tenants from City
]:\Planning\Case Files\-06 (FY 05-06)\PCS\PCS-06-02 Missions at Sunbow\StaffReports\PC\PCS-06-02 PC
AGENDA STATEMENT]ina\.doc -
AnA-Cft M1:.~-r A
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-06-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP
TO DIVIDE INTEREST IN 14.58 ACRES AT 825 EAST PALOMAR STREET FOR A
ONE-LOT CONDOMINIUM CONTAINING 336 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (LDM
SUNBOW, LLC).
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2005, a duly verified application was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by the LDM Sunbow, LLC ("Applicant"), requesting
approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to convert 336 apartment units into individually owned
condominiums ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented on Exhibit "A", and for the general description herein consists of a
14.58 acre lot located at 825 East Palomar Street ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
proposed project qualifies for a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to
Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review or
documentation is necessary.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on May 10, 2006, as
set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain
findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCS-06-02 herein, and recommended that
the City Council approve the Project based on certain terms and conditions; 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 ofthe
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., May
10,2006, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission, and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the
Project in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy ofthis resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
A1T AC~ M~N\ e>
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of May, 2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO DIVIDE
INTEREST IN 14.58 ACRES AT 825 EAST PALOMAR
STREET FOR A ONE-LOT CONDOMINIUM CONTAINING
336 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - LDM SUNBOW, LLC.
I. RECITALS
A. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Tentative Subdivision Map was filed on
September 9, 2005, with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by the
LDM Sunbow, LLC ("Applicant") requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to
convert 336 apartment units into individually owned condominiums ("Project"); and
B. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", copies of which are on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as Chula Vista Tract No.
06-02, Tentative Subdivision Map, and for the purpose of general description herein consists
of 14.58 acres located at 825 East Palomar Street ("Project Site"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approval and Recommendations
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has received the following discretionary
approvals and recommendations: 1) Planning Commission recommendation of approval of
PCS-06-02, Tentative Subdivision Map for a 336-unit condominium conversion on May 10,
2006; and
D. Planning Commission Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
May 10, 2006, and after hearing staff s presentation and public testimony voted 0-0-0 to
recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions listed below; and
E. Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the public hearing on the Project's
tentative subdivision map application; and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project and its mailing to the
current tenants residing at 825 East Palomar Street, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on June 6, 2006, in the Council Chambers in City
Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to receive the
A1\ACtt MeNT C-
Resolution No. 2006-
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to
the same.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and
resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Project held on May 10, 2006, and the minutes and Resolution resulting there
from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that the proposed project
qualifies for a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301
of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus no further environmental review or documentation is
necessary.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and concurs with the
Environmental Review Coordinator's determination that the Project qualifies for a Class 1
(Existing Facilities) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
V. 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, as conditioned herein for 825 East
Palomar Street, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on
the following:
1. Land Use
It is the City's goal to accommodate diversified housing types. The site is designated
Residential Medium High (11 - 18 dwelling units/acre) and is located within the
Sunbow II Section Planning Area (SPA), where it is designated Residential
Condominium. Under the Sunbow II SPA, the project site was designated for 206
dwelling units, but through a SPA amendment (PCM 01-04) this amount was
increased to 336 dwelling units and developed at a density of 23 dwelling units/acre.
Density transfers are allowed with the SPA's planning areas; therefore, the Project, as
conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the adopted General Plan.
2. Circulation
All off-site streets required to serve the subdivision currently exist. No street
improvements are required.
3. Housing
2
Resolution No. 2006-
The Project is consistent with the density prescribed within the Sunbow Villas II
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (as amended by PCM-OI-04) and provides
attached condominium units for individual ownership. The conversion of 336
apartment units to 336 condominium units creates additional opportunities for
residential ownership.
4. Open Space
The Project includes adequate, existing on-site open space areas in the form of private
open space for each unit (patio or balcony) as well as landscaped common open space
areas and a 6,600 sq.ft. community clubhouse (including a meeting facility, a game
room, a full kitchen), swimming pool, tot lot, fitness center, private theater with 20
seats, and business center for residents' use.
5. Safety
The City Engineer, Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed
subdivision of existing apartments to condominiums for conformance with City safety
policies and have determined that the proposal meets the City Standards for seismic
safety and emergency services.
B. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site allow for a feasible setting for
passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code
Section 66473.1.
C. The site is physically suited for residential development and the proposal conforms to all
standards established by the City for such project.
D. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created
by the proposed development.
VI. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDOMINUM CONVERSION
REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.56 AND APARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL ZONE REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE
CHULA VISTA MUICIPAL CODE
Pursuant to Chapter 15.56, Conversion of Dwelling Units to Independent Ownership, the
City Council finds that the project meets the following:
A. Fire Protection: The City Council concurs with the Fire Marshall determination that the
project as conditioned will be in substantial conformance with current fire protection
standards.
B. Uniform Building Code: City Council concurs with the Building Division of the Planning
and Building Department's determination that the "Property Condition Assessment
Report" dated March 18, 2005, prepared by LandAmerica Commercial Services,
adequately addresses compliance with the Building Code if applicable permits are
submitted and approved and the recommended improvements set forth in the report are
constructed or put in place.
3
Resolution No. 2006-
C. Storage: Section 15.56.020 requires mmImum storage area for each unit. The City
Council finds that the merits of this project compensates for the possible shortfall of
storage space in some of the units, meets the overall qualities desired by the City in its
condominium housing product, and will provide high quality for-sale multi-family units
desirable to the public.
If the City Council is not comfortable with taking advantage ofCVMC section 15.56.070,
it is suggested that a possible condition of approval could be to change out the existing
hot water heaters for tankless hot water units, thereby freeing up more of the exterior
utility closet space for the required storage.
D. Housing Code: The Project will be required to comply with housing inspection
requirements.
E. Protective Lighting Standards: This project went through Design Review in December
2000 as part of the original development application. All the original Design Review
conditions regarding lighting were fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City, including
conformance with Section 17.28.030 and 17.28.040 of the Municipal Code.
F. Off-street parking: Per the Sunbow SPA parking requirements, I-BR units need 1.5
parking spaces, 2-BR units 2 parking spaces, and 3-BR units 2.5 parking spaces. The
Project meets the Sunbow SPA parking requirement, providing a total 625 parking
spaces, consisting of 184 parking stalls in the "tuck-under" parking garages, 170 carport
stalls, and 271 open spaces. Twelve handicapped spaces are included in the total.
G. Design Guidelines: It is determined that since this project went through Design Review in
December 2000 as part of the original development application, no further Design
Review is required. All the original Design Review conditions regarding site design,
architecture, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and other design elements have been fulfilled
to the satisfaction of the City.
H. Separate Service Meters: Each unit has individual electric and gas meters. A
Homeowners Association will be responsible for the water and sewer service utility
meters. The Applicant shall provide CC&Rs prior to final map approval showing how
this will be satisfied.
I. Housing Department Compliance Survey: The Project has completed a housing
inspection, and will be required to perform all corrections listed in the Apartment
Inspection Report prior to final inspection of a Condominium unit.
J. CC&Rs: The Project is conditioned to provide evidence of declarations of covenants,
conditions and restrictions in conjunction with the Final Map.
K. Open Space: CVMC Section 19.28.090 requires 480 square feet of common usable open
space per 3-bedroom unit and 400 square feet per 2-bedroom or I-bedroom unit;
therefore, the project must provide a minimum of 136,960 square feet of open space.
This project provides 139,866 SF of open space, which is an excess of 2,900 SF. The
existing open space includes private patios or balconies on all units, a 6,626 SF common
open space comprising the club and leasing area, and approximately 108,250 SF of
landscaped and usable open space area.
4
Resolution No. 2006-
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66451.3 AND 66452.5
Noticing Documentation
Government Code Sections 66451.3 and 66452.5 requires notification of a tenant's right to a
public hearing. The City of Chula Vista provided notices to tenants and surrounding property
owners of all required public hearings for the Project, and the Applicant has satisfied the
following noticing requirements at the time of submittal of the Tentative Map, which includes a
60-day "Notice oflntent to Convert", and a "Notice to Prospective Tenants oflntent to Convert".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve Tentative Subdivision
Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 06-02 as represented in Exhibit "B" subject to the general and
special conditions set forth below.
VIII. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
The Applicant, or hislher successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the
Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 06-02,
Missions at Sunbow.
IX. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL
A. The conditions herein imposed on the tentative map approval or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both to nature and extent of impact created by the
proposed development. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements
listed below and in Attachment G Property Condition Report as "immediate repair" items
shall be fully completed by the applicant or successor-in-interest to the City's satisfaction
prior to approval of the Final Map:
GENERAL / PLANNING AND BUILDING
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 Applicant
as to any or all of the property.
2. Applicant and hislher successors in interest shall comply, remain in compliance and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which
is the subject matter of this Tentative Subdivision Map and as recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006. The Applicant shall enter into an
agreement (Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Supplemental Subdivision
Improvement Agreement) with the City, providing the City with such security (including
recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures as the
City may require compliance with the above regulatory documents. Said Agreement
shall also ensure that, after approval of the final map, the Applicant and hislher
successors in interest will continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such
Plans.
3. Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Community
Development divisions to schedule a meeting with the current tenants to present
alternative rental housing opportunities and assistance in relocation in conjunction with
5
Resolution No. 2006-
the presentation of the schedule for the phasing of the conversion of the apartments to
condominiums.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Section 66427.1. Applicant shall submit evidence to the Director of
Planning and Building that the following City of Chula Vista noticing forms have been
delivered to the existing and prospective tenants per Section 66427.1 of the Subdivision
Act or a schedule detailing required future notifications:
a. 10-day notice to all existing tenants of an application of a Public Report - "Form C"
(If submitted to State Department of Real Estate prior to Final Map approval).
b. 1 O-day Notice to all existing tenants of Final Map approval - "Form D".
c. Notice to all prospective tenants of option to purchase/termination of tenancy -
"F orm E.
d. 90-day Notice to all existing tenants of option to purchase/termination of tenancy -
"F orm F".
e. 180-day notice to all existing tenants of intent to convert/termination of tenancy -
"Form G".
5. Submit plans and information to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall that proposed
condominium units meet current California Fire Code, including but not limited to fire
access, water supply, sprinkler systems, and fire alarms.
6. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter into hereunder shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
7. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's approved "Recycling and
Solid Waste Management Plan" to the satisfaction of the City's Conservation
Coordinator. The plan shall demonstrate those steps the applicant will take to comply
with Municipal Code, including but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the
State mandate to reduce or divert at least 50 percent of the waste generated by all
residential, commercial and industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract with
the City's franchise hauler throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the
project. The plan shall incorporate any trash enclosure re-design required for compliance
with the City's NPDES permit.
8. Applicant shall provide all cabinet, shelving, and closet dimensions to prove that the
storage meets all minimum dimensioning requirements.
DRAINAGE/NPDES
9. All onsite drainage facilities shall be private.
6
Resolution No. 2006-
10. The Developer shall comply with all of the applicable provisions of the Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 14.20 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code), the Development and Redevelopment Project Storm Water
Management Standard Requirements Manual (approved by Council Resolution 2002-
475), and the City of Chula Vista SUSMP to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(Engineering)
11. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, Applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Applicant 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, 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 Applicant, any agent or employee,
subcontractors, or others. The applicant's indemnification shall include any and
all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City.
c. 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.
12. Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Water Quality Study and Technical
Report including NPDES best management practices ("BMPs") to prevent discharge of
pollutants from the project site entering the city's storm water conveyance system, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any proposed changes that impact landscaped or open
space areas must be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Planner. The
WQTR shall address the following source control and treatment control measures:
Homeowner Outreach, Lawn and Gardening Practices, Integrated Pest Management,
Water Conservation, Hazardous Waste Management, Storm Drain Marking, Trash
Management, Street Sweeping, and Runoff Pre-treatment BMPs.
13. Intercept runoff from the project site and pre-treat said runoff prior to discharge to the
city's storm water conveyance system. Identify proposed best management practices
("BMPs") to be used to treat storm water runoff from the site as part of the project's
Water Quality Study and Technical Report. Said BMP facilities shall be inspected and
approved by the City's Stormwater Inspector prior to Final Map approval.
7
Resolution No. 2006-
14. Fully implement NPDES best management practices ("BMPs") contained in the Water
Quality Study and Technical Report.
15. Fully implement NPDES best management practices ("BMPs") to reduce the amount of
pollutants entering the city's storm water conveyance system, including but not limited
to:
a. The erection of signs near storm drain inlets and public access point along
channels and creeks; installation of efficient irrigation systems and landscape
design; employment of integrated pest management principles; and the creation
and implementation of inspection and maintenance programs for structural
treatment control BMPs and private sewer lines.
b. Providing storm drain system stenciling and signage; more specifically:
1. Provide and maintain stenciling or labeling near all storm drain inlets and
catch basins.
11. Post and maintain City-approved signs with language and/or graphical
icons that prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels
and creeks.
111. Such Applicant obligation shall be reassigned to a Master Homeowner's
Association or other appropriate long-term maintenance agreement subject
to the approval ofthe City Engineer.
c. Installing and using efficient irrigation systems and landscape design; more
specifically:
1. Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation.
11. Adjust irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water
requirements.
iii. Using flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to
control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines.
IV. Employing other comparable, equally effective, methods to reduce
irrigation water runoff.
d. Employing integrated pest management principles. More specifically, eliminate
and/or reduce the need for pesticide use by implementing Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), including: (1) planting pest-resistant or well-adapted plant
varieties such as native plants; (2) discouraging pests in the landscaping design;
(3) distributing IPM educational materials to homeowners/residents. Minimally,
educational materials must address the following topics: keeping pests out of
buildings and landscaping using barriers, screens, and caulking; physical pest
elimination techniques, such as, weeding, squashing, trapping, washing, or
pruning out pests; relying on natural enemies to eat pests; and, proper use of
pesticides as a last line of defense.
8
Resolution No. 2006-
e. Educate the Public. More specifically, the Homeowners Association, through
Property Management, etc., shall inform residents about the City's non-storm
water and pollutant discharge prohibitions. This goal can be achieved by
distributing informative brochures (some available free from the City of Chula
Vista) to new home buyers and dedicating sections of newsletters to storm water
quality issues, as applicable.
SEWER
16. The onsite sewer system shall be private. All sewer laterals shall be privately maintained
from each building and/or condominium unit to the City maintained public sewer main
within Medical Center Court.
17. The Developer/Owner shall establish a homeowners association to fund and oversee a
contract for the maintenance of the onsite private sewer system. The frequency of
maintenance of the sewer system shall be contained in the provisions of the Covenants,
Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works
shall approve the provisions of the CC&Rs regarding the onsite private sewer system
STREETS
18. Streets and driveways within the development shall be private.
19. Prior to the first Final Map, the Developer/Owner shall secure and replace all driveways
and pedestrian ramps within the right of way adjacent to the project to conform with the
Americans with Disability Act. Any work determined to be required shall be done under
a Chula Vista construction permit using Chula Vista Construction Standard CVCS-IA for
driveways. Driveway replacement shall be guaranteed prior to recordation of the Final
Map. In addition Developer shall replace an existing pedestrian ramp on Medical Center
Court per Chula Vista Standards Drawings 25-28.
CC&RS
20. Submit Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") as approved by the City
Attorney to the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building for approval prior to
approval of the first Final Map. Said CC&Rs shall include the following:
a. The creation of a Homeowner's Association ("HOA"), which shall, among other
things, be responsible for maintaining all common facilities within the Project
including, but not limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lightning structures, fire
sprinklers and alarm systems, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures, water
treatment facilities, recreational amenities and structures, landscaping, trees, streets,
parking lots, driveways, and private sewage and storm drain systems.
b. Language stating that the landscaping shall be maintained by the HOA in a healthy
and thriving condition at all times.
9
Resolution No. 2006-
c. A listing of all private facilities.
d. Language that indemnifies and holds harmless the City from any claims, demands,
causes of action liability or loss, including claims arising from the maintenance
activities of the HOA, including but not limited to private sewer spillage.
e. The City's right but not the obligation to enforce CC&Rs.
f. An insurance provision requiring the HOA to maintain a policy of comprehensive
general liability insurance written on a per-occurrence basis in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit. The policy shall be
acceptable to the City and nam'e the City as additional insured.
g. The City must approve any revisions to provisions of the CC&Rs that may
particularly affect the City. Furthermore, the HOA shall not seek approval from the
City of said revisions without the prior consent of one-hundred percent (100%) of the
holders of first mortgages and one-hundred percent (100%) of the property owners -
unless the Director of Planning and Building waives this requirement.
h. The HOA shall not seek to be released by the City of any maintenance obligations
without the prior consent of the City and one-hundred percent (100%) of the holders
of first mortgages and one-hundred percent (100%) of the property owners - unless
the Director of Planning and Building waives this requirement.
1. Implement an education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of
pollutants from all on-site sources into the storm water conveyance system.
J. The HOA shall maintain, in perpetuity, membership in an advance notice
service/system such as the USA Dig Alert Service and shall cause any private
facilities of the property owners or HOA to be marked out whenever work is
performed in the area.
k. The CC&Rs shall include NPDES provIsIOns for the perpetual and routine
maintenance of structural BMPs, private sewer and storm drain facilities for the
purpose of preventing and in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of non-storm
water pollutants to the public storm water conveyance system. The CC&Rs shall
include the requirement to maintain records for the past 10 years of BMP
implementation, inspections, and maintenance activities.
I. The HOA shall fund and oversee a contract for the inspection and maintenance of the
onsite private sewer system. The frequency of maintenance of the sewer system shall
be contained in the provisions of the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions, which shall
be subject to the approval ofthe City Engineer and the Director of Public Works.
m. Trash and Recycling program requirements shall be incorporated into the project
10
Resolution No. 2006-
CC&Rs to the satisfaction of the City's Conservation Coordinator.
n. Said CC&Rs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.44 of the Subdivision Ordinance,
and shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
o. Fire service lateral and water supply to buildings, including the on-site fire hydrant,
must be maintained and operational at all times to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshall.
p. Include detailed text and map graphics in the CC&Rs to inform potential
condominium owners that the Sharp Hospital site, located north of the project, is
master planned to have additional structures that will be constructed in the future.
21. Submit a Homeowners Association budget for review and approval by the City Engineer
for the maintenance of private streets and drives, storm drains, sewage systems, electrical
system, plumbing, and roof. More specifically, said budget shall include the following
provisions and maintenance activities:
a. Streets must be sealed every 7 years and overlaid every 20 years
b. Sewers must be cleaned once a year with the contingency for emergencies
c. Red curbs/striping must be painted once every three years.
d. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for service utilities including water
and sewer, and the billing and payment of these utility costs.
e. Storm Water quality facilities inspected prior to and after every rain event and
cleaned as necessary (twice a year minimum); media inserts replaced as
recommended by the manufacturer; with a contingency for emergencies. The budget
shall also include a monitoring program including sampling and preparation of an
annual report, when required by the City.
f. Establishment of a capital fund that will adequately cover the expected costs
associated with repairing or replacing the Project/complex's electrical system,
plumbing system, and roof.
EASEMENTS
22. All existing easements and irrevocable offers of dedication shall be shown on the Final
Map. A title report dated within 60 days of submittal of the Final Map shall be submitted
together with backing documents for all existing public utility easements and offers of
dedication. Developer shall submit evidence of noticing to all existing public utility
easement holders within the project boundaries as required by the Section 66436 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
AGREEMENTS
23. Payoff any unpaid balance for the 825 East Palomar Tentative Map Deposit account
DQ1252 and Project account CA314.
24. Applicant shall enter into an agreement wherein the Applicant agrees to:
11
Resolution No. 2006-
a. 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.
b. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of
drainage resulting from this project and spillage of sewage generated by the project
onto adjacent public or private streets or into offsite storm water conveyance systems.
c. Maintain storm water quality treatment measures in accordance with an approved
maintenance and inspection plan.
d. Implement and sustain in perpetuity, a source control storm water quality
management program as outlined in the Water Quality Technical Report.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
MISCELLANEOUS
25. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City assessment
districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary prior to approval of each
Final Map. Submit an apportionment form and provide a deposit as determined by and to
the City to cover costs. (Engineering)
26. Developer shall tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI
(NAD '83). Developer shall submit copies of the Final Map in a digital format, such as
(DXF) graphic file, prior to approval of the Final Map. Provide computer aided Design
(CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and
submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in
duplicate prior to the approval of the Final Map.
27. Applicant shall submit a conformed copy of a recorded tax certificate covering the
property prior to approval of the Final Map.
B. The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied pnor to sale of the first
condominium unit unless otherwise noted:
1. For any condominium unit in a structure containing multiple condominium units, correct
any deficiencies listed in Attachment G, Property Condition Report as needing
"immediate repair,"and correct any violations identified by the Housing Inspection, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
12
Resolution No. 2006-
2. For any condominium unit in a structure containing multiple condominium units, provide
in that structure type 2A-IOBC fire extinguishers every 75 feet of travel distance, and
smoke detectors for each unit, to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Fire Department.
3. All lighting shall meet the protective current lighting standards of the current Uniform
Building Code.
4. So as to ensure compliance with Section 17.24.40 and 17.24.050 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Applicant shall show that walls and ceilings meeting the current
Uniform Building Code standards regarding fire and sound attenuation have been
maintained between airspaces of the condominium units, to the satisfaction of the City
Building Official and Director of Planning and Building. If said walls and ceiling do not
meet said standards, then the walls and ceiling shall be modified to conform to the
Uniform Building Code.
5. Anyon-site sales or leasing office shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
6. Submit evidence satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Building that the Applicant
has complied with the approved homebuyer assistance program requirements for existing
residents who choose to purchase their condominium units.
X. 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. The Applicant shall be notified ten (10)
days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given
the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and
diligent time frame.
XI. INVALIDITY ; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
13
Resolution No. 2006-
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Jim Sandoval
Director of Planning & Building
Ann Moore
City Attorney
J :\Planning\Case Files\-05 (FY 04-05)\PCS-06-02 - 825 East Palomar/Resolutions\PCS _ 06-02 _ CC _ RESO.doc
14
NOTICING DOCUMENTATION
Sample Notification Letters to Tenants
Art ACttM~Nf -e-
Sep. E,. 2005 5:07PM
MISSIONS AT SUNBOW
.
MISSIONS at SUNBOW
September 2, 2005
ML Michael Panissidi 619/299-8181 facsim~e
Del Mar Padfic Group, LLC
3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite A-206
san DiegO, CA 92110
Re: COI1do Conwrsion Notices
Dear Mr. Panissidi:
N 0 2 " 2 7 P .~
ij L
.' " '.
;
...
'.
-' "-.
-. -
" \
,. ,
,.
.....-;~
... .,.-.,,/
This letter serves as conftJrnation that the 6O-day noticeS, 18O-day notices and the Notice of APplication
for Public Report that we received from your offICe were posted on all occupied units on June 4, 2005.
These notices were ~ivered by Missions at Sunbow ~ff member.; and posted on all applicable
front doors_
You may contact me at 6191628-8583 jf you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
~~
Miche4Je Sites
property Manager
825 L p<llom;;:Jr Street
Chula Vist;!, (A 919!J
P:(619)628-8S83
F:(619i62S-8584
W\\W_nlorgangrOlJp.com
LDM SUNBOW, LLC
June 4, 2005
Re: THE MISSIONS AT SUNBOW
Dear Tenant,
We are working with the current owners of the project to commence the process of
converting The Missions at Sunbow into condominiums. Owners are required by law to
provide tenants with various notices relating to the conversion process, so you may
expect to receive such notices in the next several months. The conversion process is
relatively lengthy and it could conceivably take a year or more to complete.
Enclosed please find the 60-Day and 180-Day notices, as well as the Notice of
Application for Public Report. The 60-Day Notice is simply a notice stating the owner's
intention to begin the conversion process with the City of Chula Vista. The enclosed
notice is not a notice to vacate your unit, and it does not change the terms of your current
rental agreement. We want to assure you that there is no intent to terminate your tenancy
due to the conversion process; therefore, we have also included the 180-Day notice.
We wish to ease any concerns you may have regarding the lengthy conversion process
and encourage you to please call either Sam Holty with Lorna Corporation at (619) 544-
9100 or Mike Panissidi with Del Mar Pacific Group at (619) 299-8100 to answer any
questions you might have.
Thank you for your cooperation.
LDM SUNBOW, LLC
NOTICE TO TENANTS OF INTENTION TO CONVERT TO CONDOMINIUMS
To: All Lawful Tenants of The Missions at Sunbow
Concurrently with this notice, we notified you that we applied for a tentative map with the City
ofChula Vista to authorize the conversion of this project to condominiums. We are required by
law to provide you with this notice at this time, and to inform you that if the condominium
conversion is approved you may be required to vacate your Unit. However, you will have a
minimum of 180 days from the date of this letter before you will be required to move.
Please note that this is not a notice of termination or cancellation of your lease. No units may be
sold in this building unless the conversion is approved by the City and until after a public report
is issued by the Department of Real Estate. You may continue to lease and occupy your unit
upon the terms set forth in your lease. Furthermore, during the mapping process, you will be
given notice of each hearing for which a notice is required pursuant to Sections 66451.3 and
66452.5 of the Government Code. You will have the right to appear and the right to be heard at
any such hearing.
Thank you for your continuing residency at this project. If you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact either Sam Holty at (619) 544-9100 or Mike Panissidi at (619)
299-8100.
LDM SUNBOW, LLC
Date: June 4, 2005
NOTE: In no event will your lease be terminated prior to its expiration due to the
conversion process.
60 Day Notice of Filing Tentative Map for Conversion
To: All Lawful Tenants of The Missions at Sunbow
The owners of The Missions at Sunbow, Chula Vista, CA 91911 plan to file a Tentative Map
with the City of Chula Vista to convert this building to a condominium project. You shall be
given notice of each hearing for which notice is required pursuant to Sections 66451.3 and
66452.5 of the Government Code. You have the right to appear and the right to be heard at any
such hearing.
No units may be sold in this building unless the City approves the conversion maps and until
after a public report is issued by the Department of Real Estate. Should the condominium
conversion project be approved, tenants may be required to vacate the premises.
In the event that the owner commences a sales program while you are still lawfully a resident at
the property, you will be given various notices and a right of fIrst refusal to purchase your unit as
required by law.
Thank you for your continuing residency at The Missions at Sunbow. The tentative map
application is just the first step in a lengthy process. If you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact either Sam Holty at (619) 544-9100 or Mike Panissidi at (619)
299-8100.
LDM SUNBOW, LLC
Date: June 4,2005
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC REPORT
Date: June 4, 2005
To: All Lawful Tenants of
The Missions At Sunbow
Chula Vista, CA 91911
We are writing to inform you that an application has been filed with the California Department
of Real Estate for a Public Report pertaining to the sale of condominium units in the Project. If
the owners receive the Public Report, a copy will be available for your review upon request.
Thank you for your continuing residency at The Missions at Sunbow. If you have any questions
or comments about this notice, or any other matters related to this process, please contact either
Sam Holty at (619) 544-9100 or Mike Panissidi at (619) 299-8100.
LDM SUNBOW, LLC
LDlVl SUNBO\V, LLC
June 4.2005
Re: THE MISSIONS AT SUNBO\V
. Dear Tenant,
We are working with the current owners of the project to commence the process of
converting The Missions at Sunbow into condominiums. Owners are required by law to
provide tenants \vith various notices relating to the conversion process, so you may
expect to receive such notices in the next several months. The conversion process is
relatively lengthy and it could conceivably take a year or more to complete.
Enclosed please find the 60-Day and 180-Day notices, as well as the Notice of
Application for Public Report. The 60-Day Notice is simply a notice stating the owner's
intention to begin the conversion process with the City of ChuIa Vista. The enclosed
notice is not a notice to vacate your unit, and it does not change the terms of your current
rental agreement. We want to assure you that there is no intent to terminate your tenancy
due to the conversion process; therefore, we have also included the I80-Day notice.
We wish to ease any concerns you may have regarding the lengthy conversion process
and encourage you to please call either Sam Holty with Lorna Corporation at (619) 544-
9100 or Mike Panissidi with Del Mar Pacific Group at (619) 299-8100 to answer any
questions you might have.
Thank you for your cooperation.
LDM SUNBO'V, LLC · .
COC\'DO:\llNfLyl CONYERSIO(\'$- FORl'v1 G
180-DAY
NOTICE TO EXISTING TEl'('L~'"T
OF L.'ITEYf TO COf\vTRT/TRRi'r:UN'ATION OF TEN.A..l'lCY
To the occupa!lr(s) of:
. .
~ ,1//1.1'.1'/445 Ar -S;,..,~~ c..V.
(address) 9/ <1,/3
(apartml:nt #)
The OW!l~r(s) of:Ll'-is buildmg. at ~(?It-JJII9..,r ~,kLJ~ C~ ~/3(adciress). have obtain::d
aU necessary appi-ovals from th~ City of Chula Vi~.:! and Depa...-cuJ.ent or Real Estate. ..<\frer the approve.l of
tb:: Building Pqmit, the owner C<4l begin th= constructica. process of converting the units into
cOlldominium, if 'changes are being proposed. The O""ll~ has the right w te::mii.:.are your lease or rental
agr~ement on or::ift~ 180 days of the date of this notice. P1eas~ vd::')r with the OVln~r or owner's agent of
the anticipateci. m~ve out d~te if you have not pYICb.ased Y01:r \1."11t. Te""....:2l"'_ts who hitve purchased their ur..its
may also be r~quiIed to tempora..-y move:: out du.rir!.g the consmlction. p~e_
~ - 1:--: t9J---
(dat~)
(S<::ctio~ 66427.1 (c}~fchc Gove=n:: Code)
CONDOlVlI?-t'1"UlYI CONV.:l~SIOKS- FORM A
60-DA Y
l'iOTICE TO EXISTIl'iG TEK-\..:."~
OF INTEl\"'T TO CO~"",,'ERT
To the OCCtlp :Jrlt(~) of:
Z4t;S'"" Af,UJ/D,5 #r ..f'&e'415J)~ t;JI. 9/911
(addres:;) (a.p~e::.t #)
, 1'/f/:1
The o~'D.erCs) of this building, at /M;S ~</~ J r4T S~~~ ()/ (address), pla.ns to file a.
Design Review and T~l:atiYe/Parcel Map application ......ith ~e City- ofChula Vista to conver. this buildirlg
to a :::ondomiriu.:n project. You shall be given notic::: of ea.ch hc~g to!' wInch notice is required pur:ruant
to SectioDS 664.51.3 and 66452.5 of the Government Cod:::. and you have the right to appear and t.~e right
to be he:J.rd at a.."1:y' such hearing. Tne own.e: or o"''''TIer's agent shall provide a. total of five (5) rufferent
!lotic::s throughcut:the approyal proc~s to each t~n~t prior to tIll: tcn.ant vacating tht: premises due to t.~e
conversion. The City of Chula. Vista will notL.:Y each t~ant of all th:r~~ (3) public he:uings
(Desigil R.t:vie'W Committ~, P1arming Commission. and City C61.l:lc:i.l) :or the ct zpprov 1
" --
( date)
. .
(SedGe 66427_1(;],) &: 66452.9 of t.b.c Govc:n.T.cn~ Code)
_LOMA
CIRPORATION
February 24, 2006
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
c/o Ms. Danielle Putnam
RBF CONSULTING
9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92124
RE: MISSIONS AT SUNBOW / RENTER RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
Dear Ms. Putnam:
Pursuant to your request, the following outlines the steps we are planning to take to assist the
tenants at The Missions at Sunbow during the condominium sales process.
1. All tenants in occupancy when the project sales office is ready to open will be contacted
and informed of their ability to acquire their unit. Based on current price estimates, it is
believed that most, if not all, of the tenants will be able to acquire their units (subject to
lender approval) at an after-tax monthly cost comparable to their current rental payment.
Specific pricing and payment data will be provided to them, and a meeting will be held to
answer their questions.
2. If they choose to buy their unit, a discount from the "market" price will be given to them
to assist in their closing. This amount will range from $2,000 - $4,000 and will be offered
to all tenants consistently.
3. Tenants who choose not to buy their unit, but who wish to continue renting, will be
allowed to stay in their unit, on a month-to-month basis until their unit is required for sale
to the public. Additionally, they will receive priority to rent another unit in the complex,
if one is available.
4. A referral list of available rental units will be made available to tenants prior to their lease
expiration. The list will be generated by the Community Development Department or, if
they do not have one, by the applicant.
It should be noted that, due to its new construction and high quality, The Missions at Sunbow has
current rents that are higher than most projects in the region. Therefore, few (if any) tenants will
have difficulty finding a new rental unit at a comparable, or lower, rate.
ATTACHMeNT f
...
750 B Street, Suite 2370 · San Diego, CA 92101 · Tel: (619) 544-9100 · Fax: (619) 544-0646
Ms. Danielle Putnam
February 24,2006
Page Two
We are confident these steps will ease the transition of the tenants at The Missions at Sunbow.
Hopefully, many will choose the option of ownership and will not have to move at all.
Weare available to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
LOMA CORPORATION
] AGENT FOR LDM, SUNBOW LLC
William R. Hamlin
President
\\iRHtj
896 wrh
...."... .~ landAmerica'
_ Commercial Services
Prepared For
DEL MAR PACIFIC GROUP, LLC
3990 OLD TOWN AVENUE, SUITE A 206
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
-
1[0)(-((; r~ ! W ~ ~~
~j SEP 0 9 2oo51u
L -,J
PLANNING
PROPERTY CONDITION REPORT
MISSION AT SUNBOW APARTMENTS
825 East Palomar Street
Chula Vista, California 91911
Date Issued: March 18, 2005
LAC Project Number 05-24702.1
A1\ACttMtN1 br
r....~ landAmerica"
_ Commercial Services
PROJECT SUMMARY
TOPOQraphy X
Storm Drain SYStem X
Parkino Pavement, Curbs & Gutters X
Sidewalks X
Utilities X
Landscapino X
Site Lightina X
Site & Buildina Sianaae X
~D~,..X
Foundations X
Structural System Including Floors X
Exterior Walls Patch & Paint X
Windows & Frames X
Exterior Doors & Frames X
Stairs (Interior & Exterior) X
Balconies & Upper Floor Walkwavs X
Roof Coverings X
~X
_lmaa1SIBt:!M~
HVAC X
Electrical X
Emeraencv Generator
Hol & Cold Water Distribution
System X NM
Water Healers X RR $21,000
-~
Common Area Finishes X NM
Dwelling Unit Finishes (Floors,
Appliances, Etc.) X RR $431,480
Interior Doors & Frames X NM
~J#I:~_.
Common Area Accessibility Including
Restrooms
X
NM
NM
RR
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
RR
$35,721
$12,200
NM
NM
RR
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
$201,600
RR
NM
NA
$22,400
X
NM
*Action: NM = Normal Maintenance, IR = Immediate RepairlReplaeement, RR = Replacement Reserves, NA = Not Applicable, HUn-inflated
Values, NA=Not Applicable
$1,500
$724,401 $886,985 $180 $220 Table 2
This table displays the estimated costs. The estimated costs are preliminary and are based upon LAC's
experience in conducting similar projects. The actual cost will be affected by factors such as project
duration, site access, market conditions, and other contingencies applied by the owner. This project
summary is not to be used alone. The attached report is intended to be read in its entirety.
PROPERTY CONDITION REPORT
LAC PROJECT NO. 05-24702.1
"". ~ landAmerica'
_ Commercial Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A property condition assessment was perfonned by LandAmerica Assessment Corporation (LAC) on the
Mission at Sunbow Apartments property located at 825 East Palomar Street in Chula Vista, California
(Subject Property). The assessment was conducted on March 1, 2005. The Subject Property consists of a
generally rectangular-shaped parcel that totals approximately 14.59 acres in size and is situated on the
north side of 825 East Palomar Street, approximately two miles east of Highway 80S. The Subject
Property is improved with 21 three-story multi-family residential buildings that contain a total of 336
apartment units and a net rentable building area of approximately 336,690 square feet.
General Description
Building pennit research indicates that the subject buildings were constructed in 2003. Current building
improvements include conventional wood frame structures constructed above on grade reinforced
concrete footings and slabs. Conventional floor and roof joist systems are employed on the three-story
apartment buildings. Each apartment building has "tuck under" garage parking spaces, which are
constructed of wood framed walls supporting wood beams and the second floor deck. Exterior walls of
the building are finished with stucco. Concrete tile shingles are employed on the buildings' roofs.
The Subject Property provides parking for 625 automobiles. There are 184 parking stalls in the "tuck-
under" parking garages, 170 carport stalls, and 271 open spaces.
Typical interior finishes include spray textured painted drywall walls and ceilings. Stained kitchen
cabinets with plastic laminate counter tops are standard throughout the rental units. Floor finishes include
wall to wall carpeting and sheet vinyl flooring in kitchens and baths.
-1I~~~:v';f?$""~~""''''~N",''.';:''~'rw:t:''!:,,-;~i(''7.1' Zq'~-~$!;?"""'~~"'~;:-~~"'~~'"<'r'?,'I"'!J"~-p'~n~'~
_.~Al~~,>:!ih~<1;" i ;r"~j( <-4...tr\';ilfYii'rt~f':;',~,;\'C""~ >f ,,~1 ~d>e}"~~~'J' ~,<;,.". ik^' .f4~-'< ",''II
~~~~c:~~~d~L1~~~~~ ~1{~~0) ~~~.~,c~:t"t~zJ
Bi~~ww="- cr= '='~~'-'-_.'''.."~"-~.~"'"'''''~=-~-- '~-~"'-"-" ~ ,---.-.. - _.~
;;;7"";"'_ ':"11 """ ~ 0' " ',0 %T;O>> ^ .,,~~'" . "'X ,... ; ',~;t',S:t{iiJ)~):'tj
~ t'i~~~~~
1-Bedroom/1-Bath
2-Bedroom/2-Bath
2-Bedroom/2-Bath
2-Bedroom/2-Bath w /
2-Bedroom/2-Bath w /
2-Bedroom/2-Bath
3-Bedroom/2-Bath
126
26
26
42
42
42
32
724
1,111
1,114
1,172
1,162
1,122
1,327
The Subject Property is zoned PC-RLM, Planned Community Residential Low-Medium Density by the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department. The subject improvements appear to be developed in
accordance with the designated zoning.
PROPERTY CONDITION REPORT
2
LAC PROJECT NO. 05-24702.1
..'....~ landAmerica'
_ Commercial Services
General Physical Condition
The Subject Property was observed to be in good overall condition. Adequate maintenance ofthe Subject
Property's major systems, components and equipment appear to be in place including appropriate
preventative maintenance.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Deferred maintenance items and physical deficiencies that are considered significant and require
immediate repair expense include fire sprinkler systems without annual inspection tags posted. Minor
deficiencies requiring repair/maintenance are discussed in the appropriate section within this report.
Capital replacement reserves over the term of this report will be required for items such as asphalt
pavement seal coating, parking stall striping, swimming pool/spa plaster liner resurfacing, swimming
pool/spa filtration equipment replacements, exterior painting, HV AC equipment replacements, water
heater replacements, carpet/flooring replacements and kitchen appliances replacements. These items are
identified in Table 2.
The structural elements of these buildings have performed adequately for the past two years. Assuming
the recommendations in this report in reference to the Immediate and Physical Needs over the Term are
made in an appropriate time frame; a preventive/remedial maintenance program is implemented
continually; and all site systems and building components are replaced as necessary with an acceptable
standard of care, this sites estimated remaining useful life (ERUL) should be at least an additional 40
years barring any natural disasters. This is based on the observation that the foundations, which has an
expected useful life (EUL) of 50 years plus, were observed to be functioning properly with no major
deficiencies. Other site and building elements are replaceable. However, as the property ages, the
maintenance program cost should be expected to increase.
LAC can make no comment on the marketability of the site's useful life. Any qualifications and
limitations in place for the property condition assessment as provided by LAC is applicable to the
summary comments mentioned above.
PROPERTY CONDITION REPORT
3
LAC PROJECT NO. 05-24702.1
II)
<>
<>
..
~
;;;
N NNOCO
~ N" f")
...n
...-
n
n
.. ..
~ ..5 .
~ QJl l!
~c("S.;.:e
~ .5~:~
~ J:! 0.0
2"5020
D-IDZOZ
IU
....
::>
o
IU
:>:
u
..
IU
N~
~gj
mIU
0(0::
1-1-
Z
IU
::E
IU
U
:5
D-
IU
0::
II)
...
e
G)
E
;Qj
0......
c(.b~
~CI)~
0"'"
.geci
::100
Cl)iiias
1ii~:i
ell)>
o as <<I
=~"5
:i~c3
~
.
0.
o
..
D..
~
.!~
:! :Jo
:J .-l;-
",,2,,,
N Z .. . c
<> . .. WI..
~ WI >::1 "
... ::I '" ",0
"f " ~~!
II) f
<> w"ii~
0
Z .2 ~ w ~..
~ oa:~
" "" w c:( ..'C
. - .:J
2' .....J..
. ::I ...::1"
D- C w wa:o
(\
;;; 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 .~ ~ 0 1; on
0 0 . 0 0 ., ., ., ... .,
~ U) ., ., 0 ., ., '" <> '" ., . 0>
on on i 1; :; II) '" ~ N ~ ~ N ... '"
(') ... .. ;;; .... N .,
.. .... ~ .. .. .. .. .. .... .,
.. .. ..
0 81 0 ~ .., ....
8 ~ 0 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 . ;;; ::! .,
N . .. .. 0 .... 0>
(') 8 .... ., .. ., 0 '" ., ~ 01 ~ ..: ~ '"
::i or; N or; ,..: ,..: ,..: ,..: ,..:' ::! '"
;;; ~ ... .. .. .. .. .. , .. N N .,
.. .. .. ..
0 ~ ID ....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 \8 ... 1; 8 on
.... '" ID
.... 0 0 ;Z 8 ;Z ;Z .... ., .; 0> ....
., ..
or; N or; ,..: ,..: ,..: ti ,.: ',"': ~ ~ ; 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. ;;; j .. .. '"
.. ..
10 0 ~ 0> ..,
0 0 .... 0> .... .,
.... 0 ~o .... ., (') ....
.... 0 0 .... ~ ., .,
or; ,..: i"': '" ~ .... '"
~ .. .. .. ..
1- ..
0 ~ i on
0 !:! ~ on
.... ...
. .... . ., 0> 0
or; .. ~ on 0>
... .. .. ..,
.. ..
~ ~ 8 (/;
IE 0 0 ....
~ ., ., 0
:i: . . .... ~ on M
,..: on or; to .,
;;; .. ~ .. (')
..
0 ~ 8 ...
0 !:! .... 0>
~ 0> II) N
., ~ :B ....
or; ~ ...
~ ~ .. N
..
0 ~ .... (/;
0 !:! ;!: ~
~ ....
i ~ .... .,
or; .... ~
~ .. ..
0 <> ~ .... N
0 0 ~ ID 0 ....
0 ., .., ... .,
.., 0 . . ~ ~ ;!: (')
(OJ 0 ;; ::!
.. ;; .. ..
0 ~ 0 ....
... ... ... ~
.,
. . . ,..: .,
~ ;;;
;;; ~ .... on
;;; 8 '" "
., .... ....
., . . . .... .; ~ ~
t: ;; ~ ... ..
..
0 '" a 0
... ~ ...
. ~
0 ~ 0 ~
.. g ..
. e
~
.... 0 '" ~ 0
..; I!! on I!!
N ::! ::! (') .., .., .... .... .... .... .... (') ;
- ..; ..; ~ .; .; .; .; .; .; .; .; .; :5 :5 :5
(') N N N N N N N N N N N N ... ... ...
..; z :;; ~ ~
N Z 1> .... ....
::> ..
... ~ 0(
~ 0 0 0 ~ on .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... C I-
0 on 0( 0 0
., '" g 0 ~ .... .... .... on .... fi: .... I- 0 l- I-
e .... .., (') .... (') .., .... ii
.. ;; .. ;;; .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ~ w
.. c:: ~
.E_
.... :5
0
'" .... N '" ~ on .... on ... .... .... .... ;Z ::>
..,
CD (') .., ... . . CD . .. . ::E
~ ::>
u
.., CD .... .... + ::! ~ ::! ~ ~ ::! + ~
00 ::!
.... N .... .... .... N .... N .... N .... .... ....
.... ~ .... .... ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
."
m .. ..
. Q. Q. "
(/) VJ VJ " "
;,. - ~.g ~ " C ..J = ..J 'D
'0 l . i> I! <( " .
C 0 > C <( ~
'> D-~ ~~ a: c .. " S " .. ~ 0 " ~ 0
'iij a: 0 :> ~ ~ Z 'D
.. .~3 0 VJ ~ C OC .2
11. .5 c ii: 11. 0 ~ ~ - .r; 0 <( 8 .. c
~ oc .~ i ~ " J: I-
m E ~ EO ~ C C :E .. :I: 0 U ..
w -5.1ii E.!! H 'C w 'C ~ :; 0 .. w ..
I- .~ .; .. I- 0 0 '" c 'Iii ~ w <( ~ c
Iii " 0 ~ ~ 0 0 .. .. 0 > ..J 0
<(0 VJIl. (/)u. W ii: ii: '" '" i5 0 ::!: J: W Z
~~
"'~
II
~
"
~ II)
!=~2
.5 wi co_ rot
~!~*
o
I-
"
..
... ...
~~=:o
c ~~;
::I~...
~.,.
o
I-
e
..
).. ~
It
~ 3-
~ .. ~
.. ..
.. ~ ~
II) .. .. ~
~ ~ .. .
.. ~ D-
ot
ffi .. ~
a: "E "E
II) '3 ::I ::I
iii ~ ~
0 .. ..
It I- D- o..
~{~
-.-
~-- ~
"",,-- - -
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Disclosure Statement
APPLICATION APPENDIX 8
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by
the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain
ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must
be filed. The following information must be disclosed: .
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
LDM Sunbow, LLC (William R. Hamlin - Contracted Buver)
Missions at Sun bow, LLC (Ric Shwisberq - Contracted Owner)
2: If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
William R. Hamlin (Missions at Sunbow, LLC)
Mark Panissidi (Missions at Sunbow, LLC)
Keith Horne (Missions at Sunbow, LLC)
Samuel Holtv (Missions at Sunbow, LLC)
3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of
any perSOR serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or b,eneficiary or trustor of
the trust. ,",;
N/A
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent
contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Hunsaker & Assoc. (Dan Rehm) Samuel Holtv
Phillip AlX>litt
William R. Hamlin
Mike Panissidi Mark Panissidi
5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City
of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes D- No I81-
-$
....
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial ipterest the official** may have in this contract.
-A/
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 0 Yes 0 If yes, which Council Member?
276 Fourth A6!tl~~J;:~~Ja I 91tl, (619) 691-5101
~~~
2~~
~~~~
--"""--
CIlY OF
CHULA VISTA
April 3, 2006
PLANNING & BUilDING DEPARTMENT
Current Tenant
Missions at Sunbow
Subject:
Application for Condominium Conversion of 825 East Palomar
(City ofChula Vista case numbers DRC-06-14 and PCS-06-02)
Dear Tenant:
This letter is intended to clarify the situation regarding conversion of the apartment units
in your complex to condominium ownership. An application to convert the Missions at
Sunbow apartments to condominiums was filed with the City's Planning and Building
Department on September 9, 2005 by the applicant, LDM Sunbow, LLC, for the
apartment complex's then owner MGI/Sunbow, LP. The applicant provided you
notification of that application.
Following the initial application, Equity Residential purchased the Missions at Sunbow
property in March 2006. Their new property management sent you a letter that
mistakenly stated that they "had no intention of converting the property to for sale
condominiums at this time." Actually, the application for conversion to condominium
units is still being processed by the City of Chula Vista, on behalf of Equity Residential,
as they do intend to create the option for individual condominium ownership of the
apartment units. However, the time frame for when they will offer the units for sale has
not yet been established.
We previously sent out a public notice of a March 22, 2006 Planning Commission
hearing date to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed
condominium conversion. Due to concerns that you as a tenant may have been confused
by conflicting information about this project, that hearing was continued and the Planning
Commission will now consider the project on April 12, 2006. A City Council hearing
will follow a few weeks later.
#
~
'rJ
Y
We hope this clarifies the status of your apartment complex. If you have any questions or
concerns after reading this, please contact project planner, Danielle Putnam, at (858) 614-
5054 or me at (619) 476-5367.
1=
(Jl
t
tV
y
f
11276 Fourth Avenue · MS P-1 00
Chula Vista, CA 91910
A1T Ac,ttMet'JT
I
~,,~
PRIDE
AT WORK
www.chulavistaca.gov
~~ Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
Cc: Bill Hamlin, LDM Sunbow, LLC, 750 B Street, Suite 2370, San Diego, CA 92101
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:~, .4
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Second Tier Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 02-02) for the Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a
portion of Village Four, Sectional Planning Area (SP A) Plan and
Tentative Map (TM).
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Second Tier EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
have been prepared for the Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Village Four SPA
Plan and TM (Project). This staff report discusses the content of the Final EIR, focusing
primarily on those areas in which the majority of comments were received. The Final EIR
contains responses to comments received during the public review period.
RECOMMENDATION:
· That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution EIR 02-02 recommending the City
Council certify that the final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) for
the Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Village Four Sectional Planning
Area Plan and Tentative Maps, has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; making certain findings of fact; adopting
a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) reviewed the Draft EIR on April 17, 2006. The
majority of the RCC comments generally focused on concerns related to the increase in the
allowable number of dwelling units, modifications to the Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP), traffic circulation and sewerage capacity. After reviewing and discussing the document,
the RCC found the document to be adequate and in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and voted (6-0-0-1) to recommend the certification of the
Final EIR by the City Council. Specific responses to the RCC comments are provided in the
Final EIR.
On April 19, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to close the public review
period for the draft EIR. Attached are the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes
(Attachment 1). Members of the public and Planning Commissioners raised concerns regarding
such issues as potential impacts to the adjoining MSCP Preserve, buffering between residential
Page 2, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
and industrial uses, and air quality. Comments received during the public hearing, as well as any
written comments received during the 45 day public review period, have been responded to in
the Final EIR (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION:
The Otay Ranch Company has submitted an application requesting approvals for a Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan and tentative map (TM) for the Project. The Project EIR evaluates the
environmental effects of the proposed project. The SPA Plan and TM propose development of
2,786 residential units on 335 acres ofland, and three industrial areas on approximately 88 acres
of land. Also called out in the SPA plan are community purpose facilities, schools, parks, and
open space areas.
The proposal calls for the amendment of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to increase
the number of allowable residential units from 2,510 units to a maximum of 2,786 units. The
applicant's proposal also includes a request to make various amendments to the Chula Vista
MSCP, as well the amendments to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP). All
proposed amendments to the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP, as well as the MSCP, are fully
described in the proj ect staff report.
CEQA Compliance
Because of the size, complexity of issues and extended buildout time frame of the Otay Ranch
Project, both the planning and environmental documentation associated with Otay Ranch were
tiered from the general to the specific. The first tier of planning and approvals included approval
of the Final Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01). The Final Program EIR for Otay
Ranch was prepared and certified jointly by the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego in
1993. The Program EIR for the Otay Ranch GDP was certified with the intent that the individual
SPA planning projects within Otay Ranch would be reviewed as "second-tier" projects pursuant
to Section 15153 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Under such
tiering principles, the proposed Village Two, Three, and a portion of Village Four SPA and TM
are analyzed at a second-tier level of review (project level).
The Project EIR incorporates by reference and serves as a second-tier EIR to the Final Otay
Ranch GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01) as well as its associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Comments on the Draft EIR
Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals:
US Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game
County Department of Planning and Land Use
Page 3, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
California Highway Patrol
Sierra Club
Chula Vista Elementary School District
San Diego Archaeological Society
Theresa Acerro
The letters and responses are included in the Final EIR 02-02 (Attachment 2).
Additional Revisions to Draft EIR
Minor typographical corrections and clarifications have been made to information contained in
the Draft EIR; the Final EIR reflects the corrected information. None of the corrections resulted
in modifications to conclusions regarding significance of impacts.
Findinl!s of the Final EIR 02-02
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that would result from the proposed SPA Plan and conceptual TM. Some of these
significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Other impacts cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible
environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed project, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is
included as a part of the proposed "Findings of Fact." Implementation of the proposed project
will result in significant unmitigated impacts, which are listed below and further described in the
attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 3).
Summarv of Environmental Impacts
The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR.
Project level and cumulative impacts are identified and divided into three categories: significant
and unmitigated, significant and mitigated to less than significant, and less than significant.
Significant and Unmitigated Impacts
The significant, unmitigable impacts identified in the Village Two/Three Final EIR are either
cumulative or regional in nature. Cumulative impacts are significant when the project is
combined with other projects in the subregion, whereas an impact that is regional in nature is
beyond the sole control of the City ofChula Vista.
The Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01 identified several significant and unmitigated impacts
associated with the development of the Otay Ranch. All identified significant and unmitigated
impacts associated with the Project described below, are consistent with the previously identified
significant unmitigated impacts in the Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01. The project does not
Page 4, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
result in any unmitigated impacts, which were not already identified in the Otay Ranch Program
EIR 90-01. Further, the project does not increase the levels of impacts already identified in the
Otay Ranch Program EIR 90-01.
Land Use (Project and Cumulative): Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to
the conversion of undeveloped land throughout the Otay Ranch area to urban uses. The overall
loss of open space associated with the conversion of the proposed project SPA and TMs, in
conjunction with buildout of the cumulative projects, would result in a significant, cumulative
and unmitigable impact.
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics (Project and Cumulative): Development of the proposed
project would contribute to an overall change in visual character of the region from rural to an
urban setting. The overall loss of the rural setting associated with the development of the Project
would result in significant, direct and cumulative unmitigable impact.
Biological Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed project would result in
significant unmitigable impacts to regional raptor foraging areas. These impacts would be
directly related to implementation of the proposed SP A/TMs.
Agricultural Resources (Cumulative): Development of the proposed project would contribute to
the loss of important agricultural lands throughout the Otay Ranch area. The combined
conversion of open space to developed land represents a significant, cumulative and unmitigable
impact.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access (Cumulative): Significant un-mitigated impacts have been
identified for area freeways. Since the freeway system is developed and managed by Caltrans,
the City has only limited ability to affect the level of congestion on these roadways, as such,
mitigation is not within the authority of the City ofChula Vista sufficient to avoid the cumulative
contribution to traffic on these roadways and the impact remains significant.
Air Quality (Project and Cumulative): Air pollutants will be generated during construction and
long-term operation of the project. Pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin exceed federal and state
standards, and the basin is therefore classified as non-attainment. The project's contribution to
regional air quality would represent an incremental increase in pollution, and is, therefore,
considered a significant cumulative impact. The regional impact of the proposed project cannot
be mitigated at the project level to a level of less than significant.
Water Supply and Facilities (Project and Cumulative):
Significant unmitigated impacts have been identified in the EIR relative to water supply for the
project. The EIR concludes that water supplies are available to meet demand for the San Diego
region, including the proposed project, under normal and dry-years over a 20-year horizon.
Based on information from water service providers (e.g., Metropolitan Water District of
Page 5, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/10/06
Southern California (MWD), San Diego County Water Authority (SDCW A) and Otay Water
District (OWD)), adequate water supplies are available to meet the water demands ofthe project.
However, as discussed in the EIR, the SDCW A relies, in part, on water transfers and other
agreements that are the subject of pending litigation. Although all these agreements remain in
effect despite pending litigation, it is possible that the identified water supplies may not be
available, or could be delayed or curtailed, due to the pending litigation. Because of litigation
uncertainties, the EIR concluded that a significant unmitigated water supply impact would result,
if the project were approved and if the litigation in some way reduced otherwise available water
supplies.
Significant and Mitigated to Less than Significant
Significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas. Mitigation
measures required in the EIR would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
· Biological Resources (project)
· Geology/Soils (project and cumulative)
· Paleontological Resources (project and cumulative)
· Agricultural Resources (project)
· Water Resources and Water Quality (project and cumulative)
· Transportation, Circulation and Access (project)
· Cultural Resources (project and cumulative)
· Noise (project and cumulative)
· Sewer Service (project and cumulative)
· Law Enforcement (project and cumulative)
· Fire Protection (project and cumulative)
· Schools (project and cumulative)
· Library Services (project and cumulative)
· Parks and Recreation (project and cumulative)
· HazardslRisk of Upset (project and cumulative)
· Public Health and Safety (project and cumulative)
Less than Significant Impacts
Less than significant impacts were identified in the following environmental issue areas:
· Housing and Population (project and cumulative)
· Gas/Electric Service (project and cumulative)
· Solid Waste (project and cumulative)
Page 6, Item:_
Meeting Date: 5/1 0/06
CONCLUSIONS:
At the time the Program EIR (90-01) was certified and adopted in October 1993, the City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors jointly determined that substantial social,
environmental and economic benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweighed the significant and
unmitigable impacts associated with the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the Otay Ranch project was approved. The proposed Villages Two, Three, and a portion of
Village Four SPAlTMs do not result in impacts beyond what were identified in EIR (90-01).
All feasible mitigation measures with respect to project impacts for the Villages Two, Three, and
a portion of Village Four SPAlTMs have been included in the Final EIR. As described above, the
project will result in unmitigable impacts that would remain significant after the application of
these measures; therefore, in order to approve the project, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 (see
Attachment 3, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section XI).
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, other than the
proposed project described in the Final EIR. CEQA requires the examination of project
alternatives that could reduce or avoid significant impacts even if the alternatives would not
accomplish the project objectives. The EIR evaluated four alternatives: the No Project/No
Development Alternative, and three reduced intensity alternatives (A, B, and C). The EIR
identified the No ProjectINo Development and the Reduced Density Alternative "A" as the
environmentally superior alternatives, even though neither of these alternatives would meet the
project objectives(see Attachment 3, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Section X).
The Final EIR meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and,
therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council find that the Final
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopt the Draft Findings of Fact, and
MMRP attached to this staff report.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Minutes - April 19, 2006
2. Final EIR 02-02 (Binder)
a. Comments and Responses
3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TRANSCRIPT
PLANNING COMISSION MEETING
April 19, 2006
6:40:14 PM Call to Order:
Members Present: Madrid, Felber, Bensoussan, Tripp
Members Absent: Nordstrom
1. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR 02-02; Close of public review of the Draft
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report for the
otay Ranch Villages Two three, and a portion of
Village Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
and TM.
My name is Marni Borg, I'm the environmental project manager for the Village
2, 3 and a portion of 4 Second Tier EIR. This evening we are here to hold a
public hearing for the purpose of closing the public comment period for the
Village 2,3, and a portion of 4 Second Tier draft EIR. The public review
period of the draft EIR will terminate at the close of the public hearing this
evening. All comments received this evening, including those made by the
Planning Commission will be considered and addressed as part of the Final
EIR. The Village 2,3, and a portion of 4 Draft EIR contemplates the
development of 2,786 single and multi-family dwelling units, approximately 59
acres of public and community park acres, 264 acres of Industrial Use, 119
acres of Commercial Use, 386 acres of Open Space and Preserve, 10 acres
dedicated to an elementary school, 6.8 acres for Mixed-Use Development
and 16 acres for Community Purpose Facilities. The remainder of the project
area would be dedicated for circulation improvements.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 day public review period beginning on
April 1st and tonight's hearing will mark the close of the public review period.
At this time, staff is requesting that comments be limited to issues related
specifically to the information presented in the draft EIR. Comments received
this evening will be responded to in writing in the Final EIR. A future public
hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the
project along with the Final EIR. Staff requests that any project-specific
questions be held until such meeting. No motion or vote by the Planning
Commission is necessary this evening. This concludes my presentation.
Vicki Madrid - Do we have any questions of staff. Seeing none, I'm going to
go ahead and open the public hearing and I see we have one request to
speak; Teresa Asaro.
Teresa Asaro - I'm Teresa Asaro at 3730 Festival Ct., Chula Vista. Again,
the Council is being asked to find overriding considerations for significant and
unmitigatable impacts of air quality, land use, land use alterations, aesthetics,
regional "rafter foraging?", and...this is getting to be really old; all of these
unmitigated things. I'm particularly concerned about air quality and improving
it not being a high goal considering the number of asthma cases in Chula
Vista.
I'm also kind of concerned about this change in the conveyance schedule and
the comment in Appendix 8 that the City condemn 465 acres of Otay Land
Company's land for the applicant. Does this mean the City is paying the fair
market value of the land and whatever the court costs are for determining that
are, or is the applicant paying those costs.
Certainly the City has the right to condemn land for the university, which is the
ultimate purpose of this land, but it just doesn't seem right that the land is
condemned by the City and handed over to the applicant if he's using it for
Otay Land Mitigation because that kind of makes the whole concept of this
mitigation very suspect.
The public was led to believe that 1.18 acres of Otay Ranch would be
preserved in exchange for every acre developed as mitigation and we thought
that meant Open Space, or I certainly did when I was talking to Mayor
Horton's Aide way back ten years ago, that that's what he's talking about, but
it seems that these 1.18 acres includes infrastructure and active recreation,
and those are separate obligations developers should have and shouldn't be
included in land that's being preserved. The whole agreement came about
originally I thought because people were upset about losing all this Open
Space in Otay Ranch.
The whole deal, it seems, we were kind of misled back then, and if you're
going to make an amendment now, it seems that the amendment should be
made to make the whole deal more honest and above the board instead of
just the opposite. That would be by eliminating infrastructure and parks from
the ratio.
What's going to be done about the fact also that in Appendix 8 it shows that
the current owners own insufficient land designated to be preserved in
relation to the land designated to be developed than what the ratio calls for. I
think its important that the land which other have brought for preservation
should not be part of the ratio at all; if Fish and Wildlife bought it or Fish and
Game that that's outside of the ratio because the whole point here is
mitigation for development.
Now, I'm not sure how this is going to be handled and I think that needs to be
clarified probably sooner rather than later and this would be a good way to
mitigate for the loss of habitat and the unmitigatable destruction of land forms
and aesthetic among other things.
Can I say one more concern I have and then I'll give it to you in writing.
Another concern is that there is no buffer zone between the housing in Village
2 and the Industrial and the current resource board has new guidelines out in
a handbook that require buffering from Industrial and Residential up to 800
feet actually from warehouses and things of that sort, and I think that should
be dealt with also. Thank you.
Vicki Madrid - Do we have any Commissioner.. .I'd like to go ahead and... if
I close the public hearing, at this point I'm technically closing the entire
review. How about if I ask if there are any Commissioner deliberation that we
need to take at this point.
Marilyn Ponseggi - Chair Madrid, I'm sorry, could I just make a clarification
that as you've done in the past, if the Commission as a whole would like to
make a motion to make specific comments, then that needs to be made in the
form of a motion after you've had your discussion and a vote taken on that
motion and if not all of the Commission comments are picked up by that, you
can then make individual comments either in writing or orally after you've
made you motion and those will be picked up as individual comments vs.
Commission comments.
Vicki Madrid - Would it matter to you if we make those before I close the
public hearing or after.
MP - You should wait until after you close the public hearing because with
the close of the public hearing, the public review period ends. So you'll want
to close the public hearing at the end.
Vicki Madrid - So I will take the comments prior to the close. Cmr.
Bensoussan.
Cmr. Bensoussan - I'd like to hear staff's response to those issues raised
by Ms. Asaro because they were very interesting and I'd like to hear the
response to them.
MP - Cmr. Bensoussan what we would prefer to do would be to respond to
all of these comments in writing in the Final EIR. I think there was some
confusion in what is being proposed; the conveyance schedule, the
amendment is quite complex and I believe that we can adequately respond to
that in the Final EIR, but in order to have complete responses that everyone
that looks at the final EIR, has the ability to look at, we would prefer to take
your comments this evening and respond to them in writing in the Final EIR.
Cmr. Bensoussan - I might want to make a comment about those issues,
but I feel inadequately informed and I feel that the staff presentation was
inadequate for me to feel comfortable even voting on this tonight and I would
particularly like to ask you about the buffer zone.
MP - What I would request that you would do, as we've had the discussion
before, the reason we don't give you a presentation on the project this
evening, is because this is really not the opportunity to comment on the
project. If you have concerns that an issues hasn't been adequately
addressed in the EIR; that's what this evening's hearing is for. I would say
that probably the best thing to do would be to provide a comment and then we
can respond to it.
I can tell you that in terms of the conveyance and that discussion; land that
has been conveyed, first of all has been paid for by the developers and put
into the conveyance and becomes part of the Otay Ranch Preserve. So
there's a little bit of confusion that I think would be much better if we could
respond to in writing in the Final EIR.
Cmr. Tripp - I just had two things that I wanted to disclose. I met with the
applicant yesterday for purposes of a briefing to acquaint myself with the
project and I was also informed that the City of San Diego owns an easement
within a portion of the property and I'm employed with the City of San Diego.
Vicki Madrid - Any other Commission comments? I'm going to go ahead and
close the public hearing and the public review period.
MP - If you're going to make comments as a Commission, you need to do
that prior to closing the public hearing.
Vmadrid - From what I understand, we don't have any more comments to
add to the review; is that correct.
Pbensoussan - I'm really confused by what we're doing tonight, I guess its
because this particular project has been going on for a long time before I
came to this Commission, so I haven't really gotten a handle on it and I'm just
not sure what we're doing tonight.
MP - What we're asking you to do this evening is to first of all take any public
oral comments on the EIR from members of the public who may not have
wished to write a comment letter. In addition, after your review of the EIR,
you feel there are things that have not been adequately covered, we'd like
you to bring that as a comment this evening to give us the opportunity to
respond to it. So its as if you were commenting on the EIR as if you were a
member of the public, we're just giving you the opportunity to do it orally
through this hearing this evening.
I
Pbensoussan - Well, then I would like to make a comment. The buffer
zone really bothers me and so I'd like to make a comment that the EIR would
be inadequate in terms of the buffer zones and impacts to the Preserve... I
mean, not the Preserve; the impacts caused by the proximity between
Residential and Industrial. And I guess that would be an individual comment.
Vicki Madrid - Okay, I'll go ahead and if there not any more comments
regarding the EIR...Cmr. Tripp.
Cmr. Tripp - I was just curious as to whether or not Mr. Kilkenny or Ms.
Hunter have any additional information to help allay any concerns that any of
us may have.
Kim Kilkenny - Commissioners, I'm Kim Kilkenny with the Otay Ranch
Company. Just an observation; I sense some confusion. The public
comment period of the environmental review process is required by State law.
Most jurisdictions close that at a date certain automatically without a public
hearing. The City of Chula Vista requires that it be done in a public meeting
before the Planning Commission, and then, according to State law all of the
comments verbally received or written have to be responded to in writing and
incorporated in to the Final EIR, which is later presented to you in a public
hearing with a full staff report on the merits of the projects and the merits of
the hearing and there is discussion and debate at that point in time. So this is
just repeating what staff said that this is just closing the period allowing the
public to verbally comment on an EIR in a public hearing; most jurisdictions
don't do that; Chula Vista in an abundance of caution to give the public a
chance to speak instead of the burden of writing does that. Staff, as required
by State law wants the opportunity to respond in writing to make sure there is
consistency in all of their responses. I'd be happy to respond to any specific
question that you may have for me, but it's the responsibility of the public
agency to respond in writing to all of the comments. If there's any specific
question that was raised tonight that you'd want me to respond, I'd be happy
to; I don't want to avoid that opportunity; its just that this process is a little bit
confusing because Chula Vista has an unusual additional step that most
jurisdictions don't have.
Cmr. Tripp - Is that helpful Cmr. Bensoussan.
Cmr. Bensoussan - I understand the process; its clear; we're just closing
the public comment period and I have no problem with that. The issues that
were raised concern me enough that I was hoping to get some kind of
information because I thought they were important. The applicant doesn't
have any comments to make on those issues that were raised, so I'll just wait
til the next round read the comments from staff.
MP - Commissioners, let me assure you that the comments that were raised
orally as well as the comments in the letter will all be responded to completely
in writing in the Final EIR, which you will have an opportunity to review prior to
the project coming to you.
Cmr. Felber - I'm ready to make a motion...
Cmr. Madrid - This item doesn't require a motion; unless you have another
comment to make.
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and the public
review period for EIR 02-02.
RESOLUTION NO. EIR 02-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SECOND TIER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 02-02) FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO, THREE, AND A PORTION OF
VILLAGE FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND TENTATIVE
MAP (TM); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR 02-02
WHEREAS, Otay Project L.P., submitted applications requesting approvals for a
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Tentative Map (TM), General Plan amendment, and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan amendment, for Village Two, Three and a portion of Village
Four ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR 02-02 was issued for public review on March 1, 2006, and was
processed through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
for Draft EIR 02-02 on April 19, 2006 to close the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
for the Draft EIR 02-02 on May 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 02-02) was prepared on the
Project SPA and TM; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 02-02 incorporates, by reference, the prior EIRs that address the
subject property including the Chula Vista General Plan EIR and the Final Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP Program EIR (90-01), the Project SPA Plan; the Project Public Facilities Finance Plan
as well as their associated Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project, dated May 2006 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in
Final EIR 02-02 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of
Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement
those measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the
project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program Section of EIR-02-02, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other
requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of
implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as
follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on Draft EIR 02-02 held on April 19, 2006 and May 10,2006, as well as
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, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section
21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code
921000 et seq.).
II. FEIR 02-02 CONTENTS
That the FEIR 02-02 consists of the following:
1. Second-Tier EIR for the Project SPA Plan and TM (including technical appendices);
and
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "FEIR 02-02")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT TO FEIR 02-02
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that FEIR 02-02, the Findings of Fact
and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy
which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14
915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
That the Planning Commission finds that the FEIR 02-02 reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate
as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the Planning
Commission of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form
set forth in Exhibit "A," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
identifying the specific economic, social and other considerations that render the
unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable.
C. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 02-02 and in the Findings of Fact
for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that
the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible
and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the
City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
D. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in FEIR 02-02 and in the Findings of Fact,
Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning Commission hereby
finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in FEIR 02-
02, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the
project objectives.
E. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set
forth in EIR-02-02. The Planning Commission further finds that the Program is
designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project
applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and
comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of
proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
(Public Resources Code ~21000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista finds that the FEIR 02-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines
(California Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures
of the City of Chula Vista, and therefore should be certified and further recommends to the City
Council that FEIR 02-02, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the
requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, ~21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California
Code Regs. Title 14 ~15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of
Chula Vista, and therefore should be certified.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this May 10,2006, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Vicki Madrid, Chairperson
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
'r
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
VILLAGES TWO, THREE, AND A PORTION OF FOUR
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AND COMPOSITE TENTATIVE MAP
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
May 2006
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
II. ACRONYMS 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7
IV. BACKGROUND 10
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 11
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA 12
VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS 15
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 15
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 16
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 68
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 75
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 87
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative
Maps Environmental Impact Report (EIR); SCH #2003091012; EIR #02-02.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the Villages Two, Three, and a
portion of Four Sectional Planning Area Plan and Composite Tentative Map (TM) project
addresses the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In
addition, the Final EIR evaluates four alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project
Alternative and three reduced development alternatives (Alternatives A, S, and C).
The Final EIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with CEQA Section 21094, and tiers
from the certified Program EIR prepared for the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (EIR
#90-01/SCH #89010154).
These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, 9 15000 et seq.).
II.
ACRONYMS
AAQS" means Ambient Air Quality Standards
"AASHTO" means American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
"AB" means Assembly Bill
"ADr' means average daily traffic
"AHP" means Affordable Housing Program
"ALUCP" means Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
"AQIP" means Air Quality Improvement Plan
"APCD" means San Diego Air Pollution Control District
"AST" means aboveground storage tank
"BACT" means Best Available Control Technology
"BMPs" means best management practices
"BRr' means Bus Rapid Transit
"CaIEPA" means California Environmental Protection Agency
"Cal/OSHA" means California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
"Caltrans" means California Department of Transportation
"Calveno" means California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels
"CARB" means California Air Resources Board
"CDFG" means California Department of Fish and Game
"CDMG" means California Divisions of Mines and Geology
"CCAA" means California Clean Air Act
"CCC" means California Coastal Commission
"CEC" means California Energy Commission
"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act
"CERCLlS" means Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
"CESA" means California Endangered Species Act
CGS" means California Geological Survey
CIP" means Capital Improvement Program
"City" means City of Chula Vista
CIWMB" means California Integrated Waste Management Board
CIWMP" means Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
"CMP" means Congestion Management Program
"CNEL" means community noise equivalent level
"COG" means council-of-governments
"COHWMP" means County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
"C02" means Carbon Dioxide
"CPUC" means California Public Utilities Commission
"CRA" means Colorado River Aqueduct
"CVESD" means Chula Vista Elementary School District
2
"CVT' means Chula Vista Transit
"CWA" means Clean Water Act
"dB(A)" means A-weighted decibels
"DEH" means Department of Environmental Health
"DHS" means Department of Health Services.
"DIF" means Development Impact Fee
"DMG" means California Division of Mines and Geology
"DHS" means Department of Health Services
"DOE" means Department of Energy
"du/ac" means dwelling units per acre
"DTSC" means Department of Toxic Substances Control.
"EDUs" means Equivalent Dwelling Units.
"EIR" means environmental impact report.
"EPA" means Environmental Protection Agency.
"ERNS" means Emergency Response Notification System.
"ESL" means English as a Second Language.
"FARs" means floor area ratios.
"Fed/OSHA" means Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
"FEMA" means Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"FESA" means Federal Endangered Species Act.
"FHW A" means Federal Highway Administration.
"FIRM" means Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
"FMMP" means Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
"GED" means General Education Development.
"GDP" means General Development Plan.
"GMOC" means Growth Management Oversight Committee.
"gpd" means gallons per day.
"GPS" means global positioning system.
"GSF" means gross square feet.
"HABS" means Historic American Building Survey.
"HCD" means Housing and Community Development.
"HCM" means Highway Capacity Manual
"HLlT' means Habitat Loss and Incidental Take
"HWCL" means Hazardous Waste Control Law
"IA" means Implementing Agreement
"ICLEI" means International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives
"liD" means Imperial Irrigation District
"IRP" means Integrated Water Resources Plan, 2003 Update
"IWMA" means California Integrated Waste Management Act
"JEPA" means Joint Exercise of Powers Authority
"JURMP" means Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
"LAC" means Local Assessment Committee
"LCP" means Local Coastal Program
3
"LEA" means Local Enforcement Agency
"LEED" means Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
"Lmax" means maximum noise level
"LMV" means low-medium village
"LOMA" means Letter of Map Amendment
"LOMR-F" means Letter of Map Revision-Based on Fill
"LOS" means level of service
"LRT' means Light Rail Transit
"LUST' means Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
"LUSTIS" means Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Information System
"LUT' means Land Use and Transportation Element
"MEP" means maximum extent practicable
"METRO" means Metropolitan Wastewater System
"mgd" means million gallons per day
"MHPA" means Multi-Habitat Planning Area
"MITC" means Multi-Institutional Teaching Center
"MSCP" means Multiple Species Conservation Program
"MSL" means mean sea level
"MW" means megawatt
"MWD" means Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
"NAAQS" means national ambient air quality standards
"NCCP" means Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
"NDFE" means Non-Disposal Facility Element
"NEIC" means National Earthquake Information Center
"NFA" means No Further Action
"NOP" means Notice of Preparation
"NOx" means nitrogen oxides
"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
"NPL" means National Priorities List
"NWR" means National Wildlife Refuge
"OVRP" means Otay Valley Regional Park
"OVT" means Otay Valley Trunk
"OWD" means Otay Water District
"PCC" means Portland cement concrete
"PFDIF" means Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
"PFFP" means Public Facilities Financing Plan
"PLDO" means Park Land Dedication Ordinance
"PM2,5" means 2.5-micron particulate matter
"PM10" mans 1 Q-micron particulate matter
"ppm" means parts per million
"QSA" means Quantification Settlement Agreement
"RAP" means Remedial Action Plan
"RAQS" means Regional Air Quality Standards
4
"RCC" means Resource Conservation Commission
"RCP" means Regional Comprehensive Plan
"RCRA" means Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
"RHB" means Radiological Health Branch
"RMP" means Resource Management Plan
"ROWs" means right-of-ways
"RTP" means Regional Transportation Plan
"RTIP" means Regional Transportation Improvement Program
"RTV" means Regional Transit Vision
"RWQCB" means Regional Water Quality Control Boards
"SANTEC/ITE" means San Diego Traffic Engineering Council/Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
"SBPP" means South Bay Power Plant
"SBWRP" means South Bay Water Reclamation Plant
"SCAQMD" means South Coast Air Quality Management District
"SDAB" means San Diego Air Basin
"SDCWA" means San Diego County Water Authority
"SDG&E" means San Diego Gas & Electric Company
"SDREO" means San Diego Regional Energy Office
"SDWA" means Safe Drinking Water Act
"SEIR" means Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
"SEL" means sound exposure level
"SFHA" means Special Flood Hazard Area
"SIP" means State Implementation Plan
"SLlC" means Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup
"SMARA" means Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
"SMGB" means State Mining and Geology Board
"SoCaIGas" means Southern California Gas Company
"SOx" means sulfur oxides
"SPA" means Sectional Planning Area
"SPL" means sound pressure level
"SRP" means Subregional Plan
"SRRE" means Source Reduction and Recycling Element
"SUHSD" means Sweetwater Union High School District
"SUSMP" means Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
"SVOCs" means semi-volatile organic compounds
"SWIS" means Solid Waste Information System
"SWP" means State Water Project
"SWPPP" means storm water pollution prevention plan
"SWRCB" means State Water Resources Control Board
"TACs" means Toxic Air Contaminants
"T AZ' means traffic analysis zones
"TC" means Town Center
5
"TCM" means transportation control measures
"TDIF" means Transportation Development Impact Fee
"TOM" means Transportation Demand Management
"THI" means Total Health Hazards Index
"TRIS" means Toxic Release Inventory System
"TSM" means Transportation Systems Management
"URMPs" means Urban Runoff Management Plans
"USACE" means U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
"USGS" means United States Geological Survey
"USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
"UST' means Underground Storage Tank
"VMT" means vehicle miles of travel
"VOCs" means volatile organic compounds
"WCP" means Water Conservation Plan
"WDR" means Waste Discharge Requirements
"WTP" means Water Treatment Plant
"WURMP" means Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program
6
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA Plan project presents a plan of
development for the Otay Ranch Investments, LLC, Otay Project, LP, the Stephen and Mary
Birch Foundation, and the Flat Rock Company ownerships within Villages Two, Three, and a
portion of Four of the Otay Ranch GDP area (SPA Plan). The SPA Plan allows for a total of 986
single-family dwelling units and 1,800 multi-family dwelling units. A minimum of 10 percent of
the total dwelling units within the SPA Plan will provide housing for low and moderate-income
households. Other land uses designated by the SPA Plan include an elementary school, a high
school, public park, community purpose facilities, open space, and roadways. The SPA Plan is
consistent with and implements the Otay Ranch GDP.
The land uses proposed in the SPA Plan include development of 2,786 dwelling units (986
single-family and 1,800 multi-family mixed-use units) on approximately 335.1 acres, three
industrial areas on 87.9 acres within Village Two and a 176.5-acre business park within Village
Three. The remaining 587.8 acres would be developed with non-residential uses, including
community purpose facilities, schools, public parks, commercial uses, open space, two
pedestrian bridges, and circulation rights-of-way. The proposed project includes a Composite
Tentative Map (Composite TM) for the development within Village Two and the park in a portion
of Village Four. The actual development of the other portions of the project will require the
future approval of TMs and grading plans for the allowable uses.
The action to which this EIR applies is approval of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM for
Village Two and the park located within Village Four. The SPA Plan also includes off-site
infrastructure improvements, which are needed to serve the proposed development within the
project site. In approving the proposed project, the City would allow for development of the
project site in accordance with the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP goals and policies.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (City) include
the following:
· General Plan Amendments;
· Otay Ranch GDP Amendments;
· Adoption of the SPA Plan and associated documents of the SPA Plan;
· Phase One and Two RMP Amendments;
7
. City of Chula Vista MSCP Boundary Adjustment; and
. Tentative Subdivision Map.
In addition, this EIR will be used by other responsible agencies to implement the proposed
project. Actions required by other agencies are discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIR.
The City Council will also determine whether the Final EIR is complete and in compliance with
CEOA and the CEOA Guidelines as part of the certification process.
The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency and has discretionary approval authority for all the
actions pertaining to the SPA Plan and Composite TM sought by the project applicants: Otay
Ranch Investments, LLC, Otay Project, LP, the Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation, and the
Flat Rock Company. The Final EIR is intended to satisfy CEOA requirements for environmental
review of those actions.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specified in the Final EIR, the objectives of this project include:
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
. Promote synergistic uses between the SPA area and the neighborhoods of adjacent Otay
Ranch Villages to balance activities, services, and facilities.
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan, and
particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the Otay
Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the Otay
Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
. Implement Chula Vista's Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public facilities are
provided in a timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and
benefiting from, the improvements.
. Foster development patterns that promote orderly growth and prevent urban sprawl.
. Develop, maintain, and enhance a sense of community identity.
. Establish a pedestrian-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce reliance on the
automobile and promote walking, and use of bicycles, buses, and regional transit.
8
. Promote synergistic uses between the SPA area and the neighborhoods of adjacent Otay
Ranch villages to balance activities, services, and facilities.
. Accentuate the relationship of the land plan with its natural setting and the physical
character of the region, and promote effective management of natural resources by
concentrating development into less sensitive areas, while preserving large contiguous open
space areas with sensitive resources.
. Add to the creation of a unique Otay Ranch image and identify which differentiates Otay
Ranch from other communities.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
. Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of the SPA Plan area in
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
9
IV.
BACKGROUND
Villages Two and Three and a portion of Village Four are a part of the 11 urban villages in the
Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, which was adopted by the City and County of San Diego (County) on
October 28, 1993, after an extensive planning and environmental review process. The Otay
Ranch is a master-planned community encompassing approximately 23,000 acres and includes
a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development. Civic and
community uses-such as libraries, parks, and schools-and about 11,375 acres preserved as
open space are also part of the Otay Ranch community. Each village is based on the "village
concept" that blends multi-family homes and shops with parks, schools, and civic activities in a
core area within each Village. The Village Core would be surrounded by single-family homes in
secondary areas. All are tied together by pedestrian facilities.
Both the City and County adopted the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP. In the City, the document is a
General Development Plan under Section 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. In the
County, the document is a Subregional Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP establishes goals and
objectives for the development of the Otay Ranch. As part of the review and approval process
for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, a Program EIR was prepared and certified by both the City and
the County. The only difference in the two adoptions was the plans for Village Three. The City
planned Village Three for Industrial land uses while the County SRP called for a residential
village.
In March of 1997, the City annexed 9,100 acres of the Otay Valley Parcel to the City. As part of
the annexation, the City entered into an agreement with the County of San Diego that
established the Otay Landfill Buffer 1,000 feet around the operating part of the Otay Landfill and
changed the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP to the nonresidential Industrial designation.
This designation was applied to portions of Village Two and Two West within the 1,000-foot
buffer. No changes in Village Three were necessary since the village was already planned for
industrial land uses within the city.
Under the implementation program for the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, SPA Plans are required to be
approved before final development entitlements can be considered. The proposed SPA Plan for
Villages Two and Three and a portion of Village Four will further refine the development
standards, land plans, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP.
The proposed SPA Plan is provided as required by the Otay Ranch GDP and pursuant to Title
19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
10
v.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
· The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the project;
· The Draft and Final EIR for the project (EIR #04-06), including appendices and technical
reports;
· All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft EIR;
· All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the proposed project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or
responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the
requirements of CEQA and the City's actions on the proposed project;
· All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and
public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the EIR for
the project;
· All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the EIR, up through the close of the public hearing;
· Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
· Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this project;
· All findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this
project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and
· Matters of common knowledge to the City, which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and including but not limited to the following:
· Chula Vista General Plan;
11
. Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
. Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP);
. Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP);
. City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan;
. Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Final EIR (EIR #90-01; SCH No. 89010154); and
. Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk
to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910.
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
proposed project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Councilor City
Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in
approving the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76
Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988)205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]. Other documents
influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to
the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the SPA Plan (see Pub. Resources Code,
section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browing-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose
(1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects."
(Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEOA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
12
or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to
state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects."
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081, subd. (a);
CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an
EI R for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd.
(a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency" (CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that
"[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEOA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in
a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another
factor: "legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del
Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 ['83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). "'[F)easibility'
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEOA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based,
uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore
equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term
is consistent with the policies underlying CEOA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
13
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or
measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect
to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147
Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not
all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes
of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less
than significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EI R identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will
nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR (FEIR).
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency
(CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, ~~ 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d
553,576).
14
VII.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City (or "decision
makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant and its
successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures.
These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the
project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the mitigation monitoring reporting program adopted concurrently with these
findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program
adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of
implementing the Otay Ranch GDP and through the process of constructing and implementing
the proposed project.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these
findings, also concurrently adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as
prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is
designed to ensure that during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible
parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. The program is described
in the document entitled Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA Plan Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project
mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance
period.
The monitoring program is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation
measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
throughout the project approval process. The monitoring program will serve as a dual purpose
of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The
15
program includes monitoring team qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting
system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures.
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") resulting from the proposed project. Some of these significant effects can be fully
avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated
or avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in
Section XII below. This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the project.
The project will resu~t in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues:
land use; ~andform alteration/aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and
soils; paleontological resources; agricultural resources; housing and population; water
resources and water quality; traffic, circulation and access; air quality; noise; and utilities and
public services (potable water, recycled water, sewer, integrated waste management, law
enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, schools, library service, and
parks and recreation) and hazards/risk of upset. These significant environmental changes or
impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR in Table 1-2, pages 1-11 through 1-35, and Chapter 5,
Environmental Impact Analysis, pages 5.1-1 through 5.14-360. No significant effects were
identified for mineral resources and gas and electricity services. The proposed project will result
in significant unmitigable impacts to land use, agricultural resources, air quality, landform
alterations/aesthetics, biological resources, and water supply.
Land Use
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM will result a significant change in
character of the site from undeveloped to urban uses. The overall change in the character and
use of the site from rural agricultural to urban will have a significant cumulative land use impact
as identified in the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01).
Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
While the proposed SPA Plan would be in accordance with the adopted Otay Ranch GDP and
consistent with adjacent and planned development, a significant visual character and landform
16
impact would result from implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM.
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM permanently alter the natural landform of
the site, through grading, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the SPA Plan
would have a significant impact resulting from field lighting and general illumination at the high
school stadium and baseball field.
Biological Resources
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would have a substantial adverse effect, both
directly and through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, and
special status species in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG and
USFWS. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats and other
sensitive natural communities identified in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and
by CDFG and USFWS. The project would have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including jurisdictional
waters and vernal pools.
Cultural Resources
One historic archaeological site was identified within the proposed project site. This site has
been tested and determined to be not significant under CEOA; therefore, the project will not
result in direct or cumulatively significant impacts to archaeological resources that have been
identified as significant. However, the proposed project could result in significant impacts to
unknown important subsurface archaeological materials that may be encountered during
grading and excavation activities for the project.
Geology and Soils
Potentially significant construction-related direct impacts to geology and soils at the site will
result from the presence of compressible and expansive soils and the potential for settlement
and landslides to occur. Additionally, the current conceptual design would require mass grading
above portions of the tunnel that contains the San Diego waterline. Impacts resulting from the
grading above portions of the waterline would be eliminated if the waterline were relocated.
Paleontological Resources
Grading activities associated with the development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite
TM may directly impact fossils and other paleontological resources potentially buried in the Otay
formation, Sweetwater Formation, and San Diego Formation.
17
Agricultural Resources
The proposed project will result in the direct loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land to urban uses. The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops
associated with the project will also contribute to the cumulatively significant impact identified in
the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment
of such agricultural resources.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Project implementation will introduce landscaping, impermeable surfaces, and urban activities to
undeveloped land, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and household
products, which will result in significant long-term, direct and cumulative impacts. Impermeable
surfaces will decrease the amount of infiltration occurring at the project site and will lead to
increased runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced to water sources.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts to traffic at the
intersections identified in the Draft EIR, Table 5.10-14. In addition, the Draft EIR, Table 5.10-15,
summarizes the significant street segment impacts of the project. The project also will
contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on 1-805. In addition, access-related impacts
would occur if appropriate lane configurations are not provided at the project driveways.
Air Quality
The proposed project will result in temporary and long-term cumulative air quality impacts, as
stated in the Draft EIR, page 5-263. The proposed project is not consistent with the growth
projections of the local regional air quality plan which is considered a significant impact.
Construction and grading activities will result in temporary emissions from equipment exhaust
emissions and short-term fugitive dust impacts. Operation of the project will result in long-term
direct and cumulative emissions from project-related vehicular trips. Once the project area is
built out, the project will contribute to long-term cumulative operational emissions, primarily from
vehicle emissions that will exceed SCAOMD thresholds. The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01)
identified significant direct and cumulative impacts on regional air quality from build out of the
Otay Ranch.
Noise
Construction activities would create short-term noise increases near construction areas.
Additionally, traffic-generated noise along Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, La Media Road,
Heritage Road, and several internal streets will cause a significant direct noise impact on
proposed residential uses within the project area. Noise levels from active uses associated with
18
the high school stadium and the proposed community park, and from traffic noise from the
industrial uses may exceed noise level standards and impact the adjacent residential uses.
Utilities and Public Services
Potable Water/Recycled Water: The projected water demand could result in significant direct
impacts on water service, if water facilities to serve the project are not constructed prior to
demand. The WSA V Report indicated that the increase in water demand is consistent with the
projected water demand included in the OWD 2000 UWMP and the WRMP. The same finding
can also be made under the OWD 2005 UWMP. The WSA V Report relied on water supply
forecasts based on the projected potable water demands supplied with imported water received
from SDCWA. However, as discussed above, the SDCWA relies in part on the liD water transfer
and other agreements that are being challenged in court. As a result, the assumption that the
liD water transfer and other agreements will be available is questionable due to litigation
uncertainty, and it is possible that the identified water supplies may not be available as
anticipated, despite the urban water management planning conducted by MWD, SDCW A, and
OWD. If the litigation were to invalidate identified and available water supplies, a significant
water supply impact would result.
Recycled Water/Sewer: The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use
of recycled water and place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The
increase in use of recycled water has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a
significant impact. However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities
would be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the development
phasing of the proposed SPA Plan outlines in the project's PFFP.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would result in an increase in
sewage generation. There is sufficient capacity in the Poggi Canyon and Wolf Canyon/Salt
Creek Interceptors to accommodate the proposed SPA Plan. The Poggi Canyon Interceptor
would adequately serve the Village Four community park on an interim basis.
The southerly portion of Village Two and Village Three cannot be developed until completion of
the Heritage Road sewer line and connection to the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Interceptor.
Law Enforcement: The proposed project will result in significant direct impacts to law
enforcement due to the increase in calls for service and the additional travel time required to
answer these calls.
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response
time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Village Nine of the Otay Valley
parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley parcel. These stations would help ensure
adequate service within the requirements of the GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and
19
emergency medical services would be significant if construction of these facilities does not
coincide with the project's anticipated population growth and increased demand for services.
Schools: Project implementation would result in a significant impact to schools unless
construction of facilities coincides with student generation and associated service demands.
Librarv: A significant impact would result from the development of the proposed SPA Plan and
the Composite TM if construction of new library facilities and provision of additional documents
does not coincide with project implementation and associated population growth.
Hazards/Risk of Upset: The project will result in a direct impact to public health and safety due
to soil contamination at the project site.
Parks and Recreation: Project implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM
would generate increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. A significant impact could
result if dedication of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project
implementation and project population growth.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
There is a.potential for agriculturally developed portions of Village Three to be impacted by
residual agricultural, including soil augmenting and chemicals. Elevated levels of organochlorine
pesticides were present in the soils at the Village Four site. Soil samples taken form the Village
Four Community Park site exhibited concentrations of toxaphene exceeding one-quarter of the
residential PRGs. Concentrations of OCPs exceeding residential PRGs are generally limited to
the upper two feet of soil. The concentrations of the pesticides in the soils at the Village Four
Community Park Site would be considered a significant risk to public safety.
DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION
Landform Alteration! Aesthetics
Thresholds of Siqnificance:
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Threshold 2: Substantially degrade scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
Threshold 3: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings;
Threshold 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day- or nighttime views in the area.
20
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR found that implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP would
result in significant unmitigable impacts to landform/visual resources. This EIR tiers from the
Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR; therefore, significant impacts may result if the proposed SPA
Plan would:
Threshold 5: Alter areas of sensitive landforms; and
Threshold 6: Grade steep slopes that may be visible from future development and roadways.
Impact: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day- or nighttime views in the area.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan would have a direct, significant impact resulting from
field lighting and general illumination at the high school stadium and baseball field (Section 5.2,
pages 5-63 through 5-64).
Explanation:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in long-term direct
potentially significant nighttime view impacts. The proposed project would contribute only a
minor change to night-sky illumination. The proposed SPA Plan includes lighting performance
standards to address the proposed project's contribution to nighttime lighting. Currently, the
proposed project site and vicinity are exposed to nighttime lighting from Villages One, Five, and
parts of Six to the north and northeast of the project site. Village Seven is under construction to
the east, and night lighting would also occur from this village once fully developed.
In addition, the proposed community park in Village Four would include uses that would require
court lighting at night. Sport field and court lighting would be in operation from 6:30 P.M. to 10:30
P.M. seven days a week. During winter months park lighting may be turned on earlier. Park site
security lighting in parking areas, walkways, and on exterior building walls or under eaves would
be in operation from dusk to dawn. Radiating light would be visible from the proposed
residences to the north of the park across Wolf Canyon and to planned or residential
development south of the park within Village Four, which represents a direct, significant impact.
The Otay Ranch High School athletic fields could also result in lighting impacts to on-site
residences. The stadium and baseball field lighting would be visible for short periods of time
during evening activities. Radiating light would be visible from the proposed residences not
directly adjacent to the high school. Lighting associated with the high school represents a
direct, significant impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
5.2-2 Prior to approval of the site-specific master plan for the community park in Village Four,
the applicant(s) shall provide funding through the payment of PAD fees for the
preparation of a lighting plan that shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of
sport field and court lighting on-site. Current sport facility lighting technologies including
21
reflector devices that serve to reduce the occurrence of light spill and glare shall be used
where appropriate. The plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building and Director of General Services.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.2 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
Impact: Alter areas of sensitive landforms; or grade steep slopes that may be visible
from future development and roadways.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would permanently alter the natural landform of the site
through grading, resulting in a direct, significant impact (Section 5.2, pages 5-64 through 5-69).
Explanation:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would require grading of the project area and would
involve the cut and fill of approximately 18,428,000 cubic yards. This grading would
permanently alter the natural landform of the site which would be significant. A portion of Wolf
Canyon would be filled to a height of 400 feet, approximately 90 to 100 feet above the canyon
bottom. A 100-foot-high slope would be created within Wolf Canyon. The ranch-wide steep
slope preservation standard would be met and, therefore, there would be no significant impact
associated with this policy. However, the filling of Wolf Canyon is considered a significant
landform alteration impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
5.2-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant(s) shall prepare grading and building
plans that conform to the landform grading guidelines contained in the proposed SPA
Plan, the City's Grading Ordinance, Otay Ranch GDP, and General Plan. The plans
shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City
Engineer.
5.2-3 Prior to the approval of the first rough grading permit, or first B-map, the applicant(s)
shall have prepared, submitted to and received approval from the Director of General
Services of a comprehensive Landscape Master Plan (LMP). Landscaping shall occur
with each phase of development in accordance with the LMP. The contents of the LMP
shall conform to the City staff checklist and include the following major components:
. Maintenance Responsibility Plan
. Master Irrigation Plan
. Master Planting Plan
22
. Brush Management Plan
. Hardscape Concept and Trail Plan
. Utility Coordination Plan
. Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan, and
. Monumentation and Signage Plan
Findinq:
While mitigation measure 5.2-1 and 5.2-3 are feasible and will be completed, they do not
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The only
mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of
the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the EIR.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholc;ls of Significance:
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Threshold 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means;
Threshold 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
23
Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan.
Impact: Have a substantial adverse effect on Sensitive Species and Habitats, including
Riparian Habitats.
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would have a substantial adverse effect, both
directly and through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, and
special status species in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG and
USFWS (Section 5.3, page 5-94 through 5-96).
The project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats and other sensitive
natural communities identified in the Otay Ranch RMP, the City's Subarea Plan, and by CDFG
and USFWS (Section 5.3, page 5-96 through 5-97).
Explanation:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan would result in significant direct impacts to sensitive
plant species. These impacts include the following species that are identified as covered under
the Subarea Plan: Otay tarplant, variegated dudleya and San Diego barrel cactus. In addition,
Otay tarplant and variegated dudleya are identified in the City's Subarea Plan as Narrow
Endemics. Impacts to these three species would be significant.
Surveys conducted for the proposed project confirmed the presence of coastal California
gnatcatcher, quino checkerspot butterfly, sharp-shinned hawk, rufous-crowned sparrow,
loggerhead shrike, California horned lark, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. In addition,
one raptor nest in the central portion of the Village Two site was observed. Implementation of
the proposed project would result in the direct loss of habitat for all of the sensitive animals
discussed in the Biology section (Section 5.3), of the EIR, including twelve pairs of coastal
California gnatcatchers and one individual Quino checkerspot butterfly. These impacts are
considered significant.
In addition to survey data collected for the proposed SPA Plan, previous biological data is also
available for the site, including data used in preparation of the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP and
accompanying Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR (Program EIR #90-01). Information on species
identified in previous surveys is provided in Section 5.3.1 of Program EIR #90-01, and in
Appendix B-1 of the EIR. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that are expected to occur based
on previous occurrence data, but were not found in recent surveys, are considered to be
significant due to the loss of potential habitat for these species.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, page 125]
24
5.3-1 Prior to recording each final map, the property owner(s) shall either convey land
within the Otay Ranch RMP Resource Preserve at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each
acre of development area or pay a fee in lieu.
5.3-2 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, for areas with salvageable resources, including Narrow Endemic
Species, Plantago erecta (OCB larval host plant),south coast saltscale and
smooth-stemmed fagonia (including plant materials and soils/seed bank), the
project property owner (s) shall be required to develop and implement a
Resource Salvage Plan. The Resource Salvage Plan shall, at a minimum,
evaluate options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching,
selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on manufactured slopes,
and application/relocation of resources within the preserve. The Resource
Salvage Plan shall include incorporation of relocation efforts for non-covered
species, including south coast saltscale and smooth-stemmed fagonia.
Relocation efforts may include seed collection or transplantation to a suitable
receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods of successful
relocation. The program shall also contain a recommendation for method of
salvage and relocation/ application based on feasibility of implementation and
likelihood of success. The program shall include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The program shall be
subject to review and approval of the City's Director of Planning and Building.
5.3-3 Pursuant to the requirements of the RMP, mitigation beyond the conveyance
requirements for impacts to maritime succulent scrub shall consist of on-site
restoration at 1:1 ratio. If final design plans indicate that impacts will be avoided,
this measure will not be applicable. Prior to issuance of land development
permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, that impact maritime
succulent scrub resources, the developer(s) shall prepare and implement a
restoration plan to restore 3.4 acres of maritime succulent scrub (1.5 acres from
impacts within the Otay Ranch Company ownership and 1.9 acres within the Flat
Rock Land Company ownership), pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP restoration
requirements. The maritime succulent scrub restoration plan shall be approved
by the City's Director of Planning and Building, and shall include an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
5.3-4 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, in portions of the SPA Plan area that are adjacent to the
Preserve, the property owner shall install fencing in accordance with CVMC
17.35.030.
25
Prominently colored, well-installed fencing shall be in place wherever the limits of
grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities or other biological
resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall
remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary and permanent
fencing shall be shown on grading plans. Prior to release of grading bonds, a
qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized
under the approved land development permit and associated plans.
5.3-5 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be developed, approved, and implemented during construction to
control storm water runoff, such that erosion, sedimentation, pollution, etc. are
minimized. The following measures contained in the Edge Plans shall be
implemented to avoid the release of toxic substances associated with urban
runoff:
. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or
other appropriate measures.
. Where deemed necessary, storm drains shall be equipped with silt and oil
traps to remove oils, debris and other pollutants. Storm drain inlets shall
be labeled "No Dumping-Drains to Ocean." Storm drains shall be
regularly maintained to ensure their effectiveness.
. The parking lots shall be designed to allow storm water runoff to be
directed to vegetative filter strips and/or oil-water separators to control
sediment, oil, and other contaminants.
. Permanent energy dissipaters shall be included for drainage outlets.
. The SPA Plan area drainage basins shall be designed to provide effective
water quality control measures. Design and operational features of the
drainage basins shall include design features to provide maximum
detention time for settling of fine particles; maximize the distance between
basin inlets and outlets to reduce velocities; and establish maintenance
schedules for periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation
and debris.
5.3-6 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, the following notes shall be included on the plans to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator:
26
(1) A qualified biologist shall be on-site to monitor all vegetation clearing and
periodically thereafter to ensure implementation of appropriate resource
protection measures.
(2) Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of
the RWOCB. A permit to discharge water from dewatering activities will be
required. This will minimize erosion, siltation, and pollution within sensitive
communities.
(3) During construction, material stockpiles shall be placed such that they
cause minimal interference with on-site drainage patterns. This will protect
sensitive vegetation from being inundated with sediment-laden runoff.
(4) Material stockpiles shall be covered when not in use. This will prevent fly-
off that could damage nearby sensitive vegetation communities.
(5) Graded area shall be periodically watered to minimize dust affecting
adjacent vegetation.
5.3-7 Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve shall be directed away
from the Preserve, wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. Where
necessary, development shall provide adequate shielding with non-invasive plant
materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the
Preserve and sensitive species from night lighting. Consideration shall be given
to the use of low-pressure sodium lighting. In compliance with the Chula Vista
MSCP Subarea Plan, all lighting shall be shielded and directed away from the
Preserve. Prior to issuance of improvement plans, a lighting plan and
photometric analysis shall be submitted to the City's Environmental review
Coordinator for review and approval. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location
of the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low-
pressure sodium lighting shall be used if feasible and shall be subject to the
approval of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. No
night-time construction lighting shall occur within the Preserve Edge.
5.3-8 Noise impacts adjacent to the Preserve lands shall be minimized. Berms or walls
shall be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may
introduce noises that could impact or interfere with wildlife utilization of the
Preserve. Construction activities shall include noise reduction measures or be
conducted outside the breeding season of sensitive bird species. Based on
current information, these conditions would be limited to areas within 500 feet of
Wolf Canyon. When clearing, grading or grubbing activities occur during the
breeding season for coastal California gnatcatcher (February 15 to August 15,
annually) or raptors (January 15 to July 31, annually), nesting bird surveys shall
27
be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify active nest locations.
Construction activities shall be restricted such that noise levels related to those
activities are below 60 average sound level (Leq) at the location of the active nest
site.
5.3-9 Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits, the property owner shall submit evidence showing that the
following features of the Preserve Edge Plan have been incorporated into
grading and landscaping plans:
(1) No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas
immediately adjacent to the Preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to
the Preserve shall be planted with native species per the Edge Plan that
reflect the adjacent native habitat.
(2) All fuel modification shall be incorporated into development plans and
shall not include any areas within the Preserve.
5.3-10
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall submit wall and
fence plans depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access into
the Preserve. The wall and fence plans shall illustrate the locations and cross
sections of proposed walls and fences. along the Preserve boundary, subject to
the approval the City's Director of Planning and Building.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
Impact: Effects on Federal and State Protected Wetlands
The project would have a direct, significant adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including jurisdictional waters and vernal pools
(Section 5.3, pages 5-97 and 5-98).
Explanation:
Impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed SPA
Plan, consisting of 0.5 acre of ephemeral and intermittent unvegetated stream channels, in
addition to the 0.2 acre of alluvial scrub, mentioned above. Impacts to ephemeral and
intermittent unvegetated waters and alluvial scrub are considered significant.
In Village Two, two vernal pools on the M2 mesa will be impacted by the proposed project, and
one vernal pool within the K17 complex in Village Three will be impacted. Impacts to these
28
three vernal pools are considered significant under CEQA. The total surface area of the three
pools is 203 square feet.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to all of the vernal pool resources within Otay Ranch
was considered in the development of the GDP. Because of the lack of resources and relative
quality of the M2 and K17 pool complexes, these pool complexes were not included in the
conservation planning. Instead, it was determined that enhancement and restoration of the J23,
J24 or J25 pools on Otay Mesa would provide the best overall strategy for conservation of
vernal pool resources within Otay Ranch.
The M2 and K17 pool complexes lack sensitive resources and were not identified for
preservation in the RMP Mitigation for impacts to these pool complexes is identified in Section
5.3.5 of the EIR. The proposed mitigation option consisting of restoration within the J23, J24 or
J25 pools on Otay Mesa would be consistent with mitigation identified in the RMP. In addition,
optional mitigation is provided in consideration of proposed changes in conservation strategies
for vernal pool complexes within Village 13.
Indirect, adverse edge effects to jurisdictional waters and vernal pools include potential runoff,
sedimentation, erosion, exotics introduction, and habitat type conversion in the short and long
term, particularly within the Wolf Canyon drainage. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are
considered significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.3, pages 128].
5.3-11
The City requires that impacts to wetlands be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. When avoidance is not feasible, the property owner(s) shall be required
to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible and mitigate for loss of
wetland habitat, including wetland habitat creation of at a 1: 1 ratio for
unvegetated waters of the U.S. and 3:1 for impacts to alluvial scrub. To mitigate
direct impacts to jurisdictional waters, the following conditions would be required
prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for any area impacting jurisdictional waters:
A total of 1.1 acres of wetlands shall be created. Prior to issuance of land
development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits that
impacts jurisdictional waters, the developer(s) shall prepare a Wetlands
Mitigation Plan to the satisfaction of the wetland resource agencies and the City's
Director of Planning and Building. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, an
implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated
completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
29
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the property owner
shall provide evidence that all required regulatory permits, such as those
required under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 1600 of the
California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act.
5.3-12 One of the following options shall be implemented by the property owner(s) prior
to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and
grading permits for areas impacting vernal pools:
(1) Option #1: The property owner(s) shall restore 406 square feet of vernal pools within
the J23, 24, or 25 pools (eastern Otay Mesa) or within the Village 13 (resort) planning
area. The restoration would involve reconfiguration and reconstruction of the mima
mounds and basins, removal of weedy vegetation, revegetation of the mounds with
upland sage scrub species and inoculation of the pools with vernal pool species. The
property owner shall prepare a Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan to the satisfaction of the
resource agencies (if applicable/jurisdictional) and the City's Director of Planning and
Building. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to an implementation plan,
maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant
contingency measures.
(2) Option #2: The project property owner(s) shall purchase vernal pool mitigation bank
credits within an approved mitigation bank. Evidence of the purchase and appropriate
monitoring and maintenance requirements shall be provided to the Director of Planning
and Building.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.3 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Including resources
that are eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of
Historic Places; and resources that are locally designated as historically significant; or the City
of Chula Vista finds the resource historically significant based on substantial evidence.
30
Criteria for determining a resource is "historically significant" typically includes:
(1) resources that are associated with an event or person of recognized significance;
(2) resources that can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; (3) resources that
have a special or particular quality such as the oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving
example of its kind; and (4) resources that are least 100 years old and possess substantial
stratigraphic integrity; and/or involve important research questions that historical research has
shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.
Threshold 2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Impact: Historic or Archaeological Resources
One prehistoric site (CA-SDI-12,291 B) and one historic site (11 ,384H) would be impacted by the
proposed project (Section 5.4, pages 5-136 through 5-5-139).
Explanation:
There were 16 prehistoric sites identified within the SPA Plan area. As a result of the testing of
these sites, only one site, CA-SDI-12,291B, was determined to be a significant historic resource.
Impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b would be considered significant. The remaining 15 sites were
determined not to be significant historic resources, however, grading and excavation activities
associated with the proposed project could result in direct, significant archaeological impacts to
unknown subsurface deposits. There was one historic site identified within the SPA Plan area.
The historic site, located on the Village Two project area, consists of the remains of the Otay
Ranch Farm Complex. Appendix I, of the February 2004(a) report for cultural resources at the
Otay Ranch Village Two SPA, concluded that no historically significant remaining components
were visible during site testing. However, the proposed project could result in significant
archaeological impacts because the site may contain masked subsurface deposits that may be
encountered during grading and excavation activities for the proposed project.
Mitioation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.4, pages 140].
Preservation is the preferred means of avoiding impacts to archaeological site SDI-12,291B.
This approach would involve redesign of the project to avoid impacts to Site SD-12,291 B. The
following measures outline a procedure for ensuring that adverse impacts are avoided for the
proposed SPA Plan.
Preservation is the preferred means of avoiding impacts to archaeological site SDI-12,291b.
This approach would involve redesign of the project to avoid impacts to Site SD-12,291b. In the
31
event that preservation on-site is infeasible, the following measures outline a procedure for
ensuring that adverse impacts are avoided for the proposed SPA Plan.
5.4-1 In the event that in place preservation is infeasible, the following data recovery program
will mitigate adverse impacts to SDI-12,291 b. These tasks need to be completed prior to
the issuance of grading permits for the portion of Village Three on which the site is
located.
a) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Registered Professional Archaeologist
(RPA) shall prepare a research design for the data recovery of Site SDI-12,291b to
the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. This research design shall
identify specific research questions to be addressed through the data recovery
process, the data collection and analyses needed to address those questions, and
the means and location of curation of recovered materials. This research design
shall be prepared prior to the initiation of the field investigation to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista.
b) Based on the approved research design, an excavation program shall be
implemented that will result in a reliable sample of the site. It is anticipated that
between two and four percent of the surface area of the mapped resource would be
excavated, and that excavation would be completed by hand excavated one-by-one
meter units, unless the questions developed for the research design require a
modified sampling strategy. All materials should be passed through a one-eighth-
inch mesh screen, with all recovered materials catalogued and analyzed. If datable
materials, faunal or floral remains, pollen, or other cultural significant materials are
found, appropriate special analysis shall be completed.
c) A detailed report of findings shall be completed and the results made available to the
public and scientific community. Curation of recovered materials shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City
of Chula Vista. Curation of collections from the project will be curated in a facility
approved in advance by the City.
5.4-2 A qualified archaeological monitor shall be on-site during initial grading of CA-SDI-
11,384H. If historic archaeological material is encountered during grading, all grading in
the vicinity as determined and defined by the archaeologist shall stop and its importance
shall be evaluated, and suitable mitigation measures shall be developed and
implemented, if necessary. Cultural material collected shall be permanently curated at
an appropriate repository. Curation of collections from the project will be curated in a
facility approved in advance by the City.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.4 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
32
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault,
. Strong seismic ground shaking,
. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
. Landslides;
Threshold 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
Threshold 3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become
unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
Threshold 4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating a substantial risk to life or property; and
Threshold 5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
disposal of wastewater.
Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on expansive
soil; or have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for disposal of
wastewater.
The presence of compressible and expansive soils and the potential for settlement and
landslides to occur at the project site is considered a potentially significant direct impact. The
current project design would require mass grading above portions of the tunnel that contains the
San Diego waterline, which would be a direct, significant impact (Section 5.5, pages 5-152 and
5-153).
33
Explanation:
Significant impacts to geology and soils could result from project development on compressible
and expansive soils. Expansive soils, which include alluvium, colluvium, and claystone occur
throughout the project site. Expansive soils may adversely impact structural slabs and
foundations and roadways due to their swelling characteristics. The adverse effects of slope
creep, landslides or lateral fill extension may also occur with expansive soil fills and cuts.
Additionally, the current conceptual design would require mass grading above portions of the
tunnel that contains the San Diego waterline, including excavation of formulational soils and the
placement of fill soils. A potentially significant impact could result from the grading above
portions of the existing City of San Diego waterline. Implementation of project-specific design
mitigation measures, as described below, would reduce or avoid significant impacts. Impacts
resulting from the grading above portions of the waterline would be eliminated if the waterline
were relocated.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.5, pages 5-155
through 5-156).
5.5-1 Prior to the issuance of the. grading permit, the applicant(s) shall verify that the
applicable recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigations for Villages
Two and Three prepared by Geocon (August 18, 2003 and September 3, 2003,
respectively) and the preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Parcel A portion of
Village Three, prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., (October 24, 2003) have been
incorporated into the project design and construction documents to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Recommendations include, but are not limited to:
a) During construction liquefiable soils within the colluvium/alluvium shall be
removed and replaced with compacted fill.
b) During construction highly expansive soils shall be kept below finish grade.
Where excavations expose highly expansive materials at finish grade, these
materials shall be excavated a minimum of four feet below finish grade. Where
excavations expose very highly expansive material at finish grade, these
materials shall be excavated a minimum of five feet below finish grade. The
excavations shall be replaced with a compacted fill soil that has a low to
moderate expansion potential.
c) During construction, the developer shall remove loose, compressible soils and
replace as compacted fill in areas that will be subjected to new fill or structural
loads.
34
d) During grading the developer shall construct earthen buttresses on unstable
slopes with drains installed, as warranted, at the rear of the buttresses to control
groundwater.
e) Grading of building pads shall be designed so that foundations bear entirely on a
relatively uniform depth of compacted fill. This may be accomplished by
overexcavating the cut portion of the building pad.
5.5-2 If the existing City of San Diego waterline is not relocated, the following mitigation
measure shall be required to reduce impacts associated with grading above portions of
the existing waterline:
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall consult with a pipeline
specialist to evaluate the structural integrity of the existing City of San Diego waterline
pipe and tunnel and the effect of the fill loads. A deformation analysis shall be
performed once final grades have been determined.
5.5-3 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall verify that the design of
any structures would comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California.
FindinQ:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.5 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholds of Significance:
The proposed project could have a significant effect on paleontological resources, if it would:
Threshold 1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
The proposed grading of the Otay Formation sandstone, the San Diego Formation, and the
Sweetwater Formation would move material with high sensitivity for paleontological resources,
which is considered a direct, significant impact (Section 5.6, page 5-160)
35
Explanation:
The project site is underlain by the Otay Formation, San Diego Formation, and Sweetwater
Formation, which are characterized by an upper portion with high paleontological resource
sensitivity and a lower portion with moderate resource sensitivity. The occurrence of fossils
within the covered bedrock cannot be evaluated prior to exposure. Areas of the Otay Formation
with accumulations of colluvial and alluvial deposits in the drainage course bottoms, the San
Diego Formation, the Sweetwater Formation, and Terrace Deposits may be exposed during
grading and construction activities. The proposed grading of the Otay Formation sandstone, the
San Diego Formation, and the Sweetwater Formation would move material with high sensitivity
for paleontological resources. Exposure of these formations would likely result in the unearthing
of fossil remains, which could damage the fossils if they were not recovered and salvaged.
Destruction of the paleontological resources from these formations would be a direct, long-term,
potentially significant impact.
MitiQation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.6, page 160]:
5.6-1 Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant(s) shall incorporate into grading
plans to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista's Engineer and Environmental Review
Coordinator, the following:
a) Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant(s) shall confirm to the City
of Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the
following mitigation program. The paleontologist shall attend pregrade meetings
to consult with grading and excavation contractors. (A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.)
b) A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of
previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive geologic formations (Le.,
Otay, Sweetwater, and San Diego Formations) to inspect cuts for contained
fossils. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. The monitor shall be on-site on at least a half-time basis during
the original cuts in deposits with a moderate resource sensitivity (Le., Terrace
Deposits). (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials.)
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may
be necessary to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils
are not discovered, the monitoring may be reduced.
36
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time,
the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily
direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor), a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up.
d) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and
maps, shall be deposited (with the applicant(s) permission) in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections. A final summary report shall be
completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall
include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.6 of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
AGRICULTURE
Impact:
The proposed project will result in the direct loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land to urban uses. The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops
associated with the project will also contribute to the cumulatively significant impact identified in
the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment
of such agricultural resources.
Explanation:
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a significant impact to
agricultural resources, due to the loss of 858.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and the
conversion of 321.72 acres of Grazing Land to urban uses. The loss of this acreage would result
in a significant unavoidable impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. This was previously addressed in the Otay
Ranch GDP Program EIR and was determined to be significant and not fully mitigated. At that
time, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this impact. Furthermore, noise,
odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural operations would create
indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between the agricultural uses and urban
uses.
37
MitiQation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.7, page 166]:
The following mitigation measure has been identified for the SPA Plan and the Composite TM to
reduce the potentially significant, short-term impacts caused by adjacency of ongoing
agricultural uses and urban uses:
5.7-1 The Agricultural Plan included in the SPA Plan shall be implemented as development
proceeds in the proposed SPA Plan area. The following measures shall be implemented
by the developer(s) to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista's Director of Planning
and Building:
a) A 200-foot buffer between developed property and ongoing agriculture
operations shall be maintained. The use of pesticides shall comply with federal,
state, and local regulations;
b) Vegetation shall be used to shield adjacent urban development (within 400 feet)
from agriculture activities where pesticides are to be applied;
c) Notification shall be given to adjacent property owners of potential pesticide
application through newspaper advertisements; and
d) Fencing shall be installed, where necessary, to ensure the safety of the SPA
Plan area residents.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.7, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
However, despite the above mitigation, the incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands
is considered a significant unmitigable impact, and no other feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. This impact is discussed
below in Section X, Cumulative Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures.
WATER RESOURCES AND WATER OUALlTY
Thresholds of Significance
Threshold 1: Substantially alters the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or substantially increases the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provides substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise
substantially degrades water quality;
38
Threshold 2: Violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including
City of Chula Vista Engineering Standards for storm water flows and volumes;
Threshold 3: Substantially depletes groundwater or interferes substantially with groundwater
recharge;
Threshold 4: Alters an existing 1 OO-year floodplain or places structures within a 100-year flood
hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows; and
Threshold 5: Exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, and/or exposes people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow.
Impact:
Project implementation will introduce landscaping, impermeable surfaces, and urban activities to
undeveloped land, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and household
products, which will result in significant long-term, direct and cumulative impacts. Impermeable
surfaces will decrease the amount of infiltration occurring at the project site and will lead to
increased runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced to water sources
(Section 5.9, page 5-179 through 5-181).
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would convert an existing undeveloped site to an
urban landscape with multiple land uses. In doing so, impermeable surfaces would be
introduced to the project site, as well as new pollutant sources, such as automobiles and
household products. Impermeable surfaces would decrease the amount of infiltration occurring
at the project site and would lead to runoff rates and the potential for pollutants to be introduced
to water sources. Therefore, the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM has the potential to
contribute to significant water quality impacts. Drainage at the site would be altered to direct
stormwater runoff into the municipal storm drain system.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.9, page 5-183]:
5.9-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed drainage system design study shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall include but not be limited to:
a) Peak runoff at each inlet, outlet, interceptor, concentration, or confluence point,
both predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions; and
39
b) The integration of the proposed system with the existing and proposed
downstream drainage facilities to effectively control flows within the entire
system.
c) Maps showing existing and postdevelopment conditions for existing topography
and proposed grading plans incorporating a drainage system design with main
lines and detention/desilting facilities pursuant to Section 3-202.1 of the Chula
Vista Subdivision Manual; and on-site detention/desilting facilities shall be
incorporated in the design for the various phases of construction and
postconstruction.
5.9-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant(s) shall submit a SWPPP
including assignment of maintenance responsibilities for review and approval by the City
Engineer and the Director of Public Works. The SWPPP shall be consistent and fully
comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and all requirements set forth in
the General Construction Permit, the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance (Storm Water Management Manual Ordinance), the City of
Chula Vista Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) and the City of
Chula Vista Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management
Standards Requirements Manual (Storm Water Management Manual). BMPs identified
in the SWPPP shall include but shall not be limited to the following:
a) Temporary erosion control measures designed in accordance with the Chula
Vista Grading Ordinance shall be employed for disturbed areas and shown on
the grading plans.
b) No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place
during the winter and spring months.
5.9-3 Prior to the issuance of all subsequent permits and approvals associated with the project
including but not limited to improvement plan approvals, construction permits, site plan
approvals, design review approvals, conditional use permits, grading permits, the
applicant of such permits, and/or approvals shall comply with the Clean Water Act, the
Municipal permit, the General Construction Permit, and the Storm Water Management
Ordinance and submit a SWPPP prior to the issuance of such permits and/or approvals
in compliance with the City's Storm Water Management Manual and the SUSMP.
Findina:
As identified Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.9, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
40
TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Thresholds of Significance:
The criteria utilized to determine if a traffic impact at an intersection, street segment, or freeway
is considered significant is based on City of Chula Vista standards. Both project specific and
cumulative project impacts can be significant impacts. Additionally, the criteria differs depending
on whether the timing of impacts are near-term or long-term. These criteria are outlined below.
Near Term (Study Horizon Year 0 to 4)
Intersections
A direct project impact to an intersection would occur if both of the following criteria are met:
1 . Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria area met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only #1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
If the ADT methodology indicates LOS C or better, the impact is not significant. If the ADT
methodology indicates LOS D, E, or F, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC)
criteria should be used, which includes the following:
Project specific impact if all the following criteria are met:
· Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E/F
· Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume
· Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment
· Cumulative Impact if only No. 1 is met
3. Freeways
Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
41
. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
. Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment.
. Cumulative impact if only NO.1 is met.
1 . Intersections
a. Project specific impact if both the following criteria area met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F
ii. Project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only No. 1 is met.
2. Street Lines/Segments
Use the planning analysis using the volume-to-capacity ratio methodology only. The GMOC
analysis methodology is not applicable beyond a four-year horizon.
. Project specific impact if all three of the following criteria are met:
. Level of service is LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS ElF
. Project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume
. Project adds greater than 800 ADT to segment
Cumulative Impact if only No.1 is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E
segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is not considered significant since
intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street
segment analysis. If segment Level of Service is LOS F, impact is significant regardless of
intersection LOS.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the impact identified in paragraph a. above occurs at study
horizon year 10 or later, and is off-site and not adjacent to the project, the impact is considered
cumulative. Study year 10 may be that typical SANDAG model year which is between 8 and 13
years in the future. In this case of a traffic study being performed in the period of 2000 to 2002,
because the typical model will only evaluate traffic at years divisible by 5 (i.e., 2005, 2010, 2015,
and 2020) study horizon year 10 would correspond to the SANDAG model for year 2010 and
would be 8 years in the future. If the model year is less than seven years in the future, study
horizon year 10 would be 13 years in the future.
42
In the event a direct identified project-specific impact in paragraph a. above occurs at study
horizon year 5 or earlier and the impact is off-site and not adjacent to this project, but the
property immediately adjacent to the identified project-specific impact is also proposed to be
developed in approximately the same time frame, an additional analysis may be required to
determine whether or not the identified project specific impact would still occur if the
development of the adjacent property does not take place. If the additional analysis concludes
that the identified project-specific impact is no longer a direct impact, then the impact shall be
considered cumulative.
3. Freeways
Project specific impact if both the following criteria are met:
. Freeway segment LOS is LOS E or LOS F
· Project comprises 5% or more of the total forecasted ADT on that freeway segment.
. Cumulative impact if only No. 1 is met.
Impact:
As shown on Tables 5.10-14 of the EIR (page 5-235), one intersection is projected to result in a
significant direct impact at buildout of the proposed SPA Plan. As shown on Table 5.10-15 of
the EIR (page 5-236), three street segments are projected to result in a cumulative traffic impact
at buildout of the proposed SPA Plan. Additionally, implementation of the SPA Plan will result in
significant cumulative impacts to six segments of 1-805. These impacts are discussed in Section
5.10, pages 5-198 through 5-234, of the EIR.
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the significance of
impacts under each analysis timeframe was determined. The intersection at Rock Mountain
Road and La Media Road is projected to result in a significant impact at buildout of the
proposed SPA Plan, as shown on Table 5.10-14. Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan will
result in significant, cumulative street segment impacts at the following three segments:
. Rock Mountain Road
· Main Street to La Media Road
· La Media Road to SR-125
· SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway
43
Significant cumulative impacts are calculated on 1-805 since LOS F is calculated for six
segments along this freeway, and the proposed project adds traffic to this freeway. In addition,
access-related impacts would occur if appropriate lane configurations are not provided at the
project driveways.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, page 5-234].
Mitigation of cumulative impacts to freeways are not feasible due to the fact that they are
beyond the control of the City of Chula Vista. The mitigation of cumulative impacts to freeways
is discussed in Section X below.
5.10-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as amended to design, construct, and
secure a fully actuated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries
at the Rock Mountain Road/La Media Road intersection. The design of the signal shall
be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Turn lane storage lengths shall be provided
as indicated in Table 5.10-16.
5.10-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as amended, towards widening Rock
Mountain Road from La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway to six lanes or toward an
intersection improvement along Rock Mountain Road to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer by year 2015.
5.10-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay the applicable
Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), as amended, toward widening Rock
Mountain Road from Main Street to SR-125 to six lanes and SR-125 to Eastlake
Parkway to eight lanes or towards an intersection improvement along Rock Mountain
Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by year 2030.
Project Access
5.10-5 Phasing of the following improvements shall be consistent with the project PFFP and to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, with intersection lane geometry per Figure 5.10-11.
Prior to the approval of the final map triggering the construction of the intersection
improvements, including installation of a traffic signal, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement to design, construct, and secure a fully actuated traffic signal including
interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment, underground
improvements, standards and luminaries at the intersections listed below. The design of
the signal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and conform to City standards.
The applicant shall provide turn lane storage lengths as listed in Table 5.10-16.
44
. Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway
. Heritage Road/Main Street
. Heritage Road/Street "D"
. Heritage Road/Street "F"
. Heritage Road/Street "J" North
. Heritage Road/Street "J" South
. La Media Road/Birch Road
. La Media Road/Santa Luna
. Olympic Parkway/Street "D"
PFFP
5.10-6
,Prior to the approval of the final map containing the EDU threshold triggering the
construction of street improvements, as defined by the PFFP, the applicant shall
enter into an agreement to design, construct, and secure full street improvements to
the street segments listed below. Phasing of improvements shall be consistent with
the project PFFP and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Heritaae Road
Olympic Parkway to Street "D"
Street "D" to Street "P'
Street "P' to Street "J" North
Street "J" North to Street "J" South
Street "J" South to Main Street
Heritage Road south of Main Street
Main Street
From Heritage Road to existing improvements
East of Heritage Road to project SPA boundary
Street "D"
Heritage Road to Street E
Street E to State Street
State Street to Santa Venetia
Olympic Parkway to Heritage Road
45
Street "E"
Street "D" to Street "B"
Street "B" to La Media Road
La Media Road
Santa Venetia to Birch Avenue
South of Birch Road to community park entrance (or Santa Luna)
5.10-7 No units within the project area shall be constructed which would result in the total
number of units within the Eastern Territories exceeding 8,990 units, prior to the
construction of SR-125 between SR-54 and the International Border. The City may issue
additional building permits if the City Council determines that each of the following
conditions have been met: (1) SR-125 is constructed and open between SR-54 and
Olympic Parkway; and (2) traffic studies, prepared to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the City Council, demonstrates that the opening of SR-125 to Olympic
Parkway provides additional capacity to mitigate the project's cumulative significant
impacts to a level below significance without exceeding Growth Management Oversight
Committee traffic threshold standards. Additionally, the City may issue building permits if
the City Council has approved an alternative method to implement the City's Growth
Management Ordinance, as amended from time to time.
Findinq:
As identified Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.10, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
AIR QUALITY
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Threshold 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
Threshold 3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Threshold 4: The City uses the following SCAQMD thresholds to assess the significance of air
quality impacts (SCAQMD 1993) (Table 5.11-5):
46
TABLE 5.11-5
SCAQMD THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Reactive Organic
Compounds
Oxides of Nitrogen
Oxides of Sulfur
PM1Q
Project Construction
Pounds/Day T ons/Ouarter
550 24.75
75 2.5
Project Operation
Pounds/Day
550
55
100
150
150
2.5
6.75
6.75
55
150
150
Threshold 5: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
Threshold 6: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM is not consistent with the growth
projections of the local regional air quality plan, which represents a direct, significant impact
(Section 5.11, page 5-256).
Explanation:
While the project conforms to may of the measures included in the RAOS "Criteria to Guide the
Development of Transportation Control Measures," the proposed SPA Plan project is not
consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan; which is a significant
impact. Because the significant air impact stems from an inconsistency between the proposed
SPA Plan and the growth projections upon which the RAOS were based, the only measure that
can lessen this effect is the review and revision of the RAQS to reflect the general plan with the
proposed project. This effort is the responsibility of SANDAG and San Diego APCD and is
outside the jurisdiction of the City. Revisions to SANDAG's RTP are anticipated in 2007.
Mitioation Measures:
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAOS to reflect the General
Plan with the proposed project. This effort is the responsibility of SANDAG and outside the role
of the City of Chula Vista.
Findino:
Implementation of this mitigation requires the revision of the RAQS. This is the responsibility of
SANDAG and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(2) of
the State CEOA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can
and should be adopted by such other agency.
47
Impact: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM will introduce new sources of air
emissions to the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is a non-attainment area. In addition,
development of the project will result in a short-term. direct air quality impact from dust
generated during construction activities, fumes, and equipment exhaust. Since the region is not
in compliance with the PM1Q standard and because the average daily emission is anticipated to
increase with implementation of the SPA Plan, impacts are significant. PM1Q emissions result
from construction of projects and from daily operations in the City. The mitigation measures
detailed below will reduce PM10 from construction activities. Until the region is in compliance
with the PM1Q and Ozone standards, impacts from operations remain significant.
Explanation:
As shown in Table 5.11-7 and Table 5.11-8 of the EIR, the proposed SPA Plan will result in a
cumulatively significant long-term contribution to regional PM1Q and ozone levels as a result of
projected emissions of ROG, an ozone precursor. In addition, the proposed SPA Plan will also
result in a short-term significant fugitive dust impact as a result of emissions stemming from
construction.
Mobile and stationary emissions emitted to the SDAB as a result of implementing the proposed
SPA Plan is expected to exceed the SCAQMD and the SDAPCD incremental thresholds for
PM1Q, carbon monoxide, and the ozone precursors NOx and ROGs, as shown in Table 5.11-8
the EIR. As such, significant air quality impacts are anticipated due to mobile sources as a result
of implementation of the project.
For area source emissions alone, only ROG is anticipated to exceed the applicable thresholds.
However, as shown in Table 5.11-8, the total emissions resulting from vehicular traffic and on-
site area sources are projected to exceed applicable thresholds for PM1Q and ozone precursors.
Consequently, occupancy of the proposed project is expected to result in significant air quality
impacts.
Because the region is not in compliance with the state PM1Q standard, the operational impacts of
the development of the land uses associated with the SPA Plan represent a significant
cumulative air impact. The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a
condition of approval and are made binding through these findings. Until the region is in
compliance with the PM1Q and Ozone standards, impacts from operations remain significant.
As the SDAB is in attainment for carbon monoxide, the projected maximum quarterly emission
levels for that pollutant will not cause the region to exceed any applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standards.
48
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.11, page 5-263).
5.11-1 Prior to the approval of building permits for each phase of the project, the applicant(s)
shall demonstrate that air quality control and energy conservation measures outlined in
the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Air Quality Improvement Plan pertaining to the
design, construction, and operational phases of the project have been implemented.
5.11-2 Prior to the approval of any grading permit, the following measures shall be placed as
notes on all grading plans, and shall be implemented during grading of each phase of
the project to minimize construction emissions:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipme~t units;
. Use low pollutant-emitting equipment construction equipment as practical;
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical;
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment;
. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment;
. Water the construction areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust;
· Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, as
feasible;
· Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within the
construction site prior to public road entry;
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads;
· Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence;
· Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel
on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
49
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads;
. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling; and
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
Findina:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the EI R. While mitigation measure 5.11-1 and 5.11-2 are feasible and will be completed, they
do not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EI R.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City to
reduce mobile source emissions to below a level of significance, those operation-related
impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the
proposed project.
NOISE
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Chula Vista General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies;
Threshold 2: Expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels;
Threshold 3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
Threshold 4: Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
expose people residing \or working in the project area to excessive noise; or
Threshold 6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impact: Expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Chula Vista General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
50
of other agencies or Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Construction activities would create short-term noise increases near construction areas.
Additionally, traffic-generated noise along Olympic Parkway, Birch Road, La Media Road,
Heritage Road, and several internal streets will cause a significant direct noise impact on
proposed residential uses within the project area. Noise levels from active uses associated with
the high school stadium and the proposed community park, and from traffic noise from the
industrial uses may exceed noise level standards and impact the adjacent residential uses
(Section 5.12, pages 5-269 through 5-281).
Explanation:
Potential sources of noise related to the proposed project include construction noise, traffic
generated noise, noise from activities at the high school, noise from the community park, and
noise from industrial uses.
Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, would create short-term noise increases
near construction areas. However, compliance with the existing City's Municipal Code would
reduce this impact to below a level of significance.
Noise within the proposed SPA Plan area would be affected by traffic on Olympic Parkway,
Birch Road, La Media Road, Heritage Road, and several internal streets. The traffic on area
streets could generate noise levels greater than the City's residential exterior standard of 65
CNEL at adjacent ground-level sensitive receptors, which could cause a significant impact
without mitigation.
Proposed residential units to the south of the high school stadium would be affected by activities
at the stadium. Exterior noise levels at receivers 2 through 8 in Village 2 are projected to exceed
65 CNEL. This could cause a significant impact without mitigation.
Active uses in the community park are not expected to exceed noise ordinance standards for
Village Two to the north. However, noise levels may exceed standards for the residential zone
to the south of the park. This could cause a significant impact without mitigation.
Traffic noise levels are not projected to exceed 75 CNEL in industrial use areas. Noise levels
produced on the industrial properties have the potential to affect adjacent residential uses and
adjacent wildlife. Depending on the specifics of the industrial uses, this may be a significant
impact.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
is made binding on the applicant through these findings (EIR, Subchapter 5.12, page 5-281
through 5-284).
51
5.12-1 Noise barriers shall be constructed as shown on Figure 5.12-4 of the ErR with the
following provisions:
. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for those lots within the noise contour
of 65 CNEL or greater, the applicant(s) shall construct the noise barriers as
shown on Figure 5.12-4. Required barrier heights may be achieved through the
construction of walls, berms, or wall/berm combinations. With the construction of
barriers ranging from three to six feet along the edge of pad or top of slope as
shown in Figure 5.12-4, noise levels at all ground-floor residential usable areas
and the community park site would be at or below 65 CNEL. As indicated in
Figure 5.12-4, the noise barrier adjacent to the community park may begin just
north of the anticipated driveway at the southeast of the park.
A site design for the multi-family residential area is not available at this time.
Mitigation of any exterior use areas could also be achieved through the site
design by placing the exterior use areas on the sides of the building opposite the
major project roadways (Olympic Parkway, Heritage Road and La Media Road).
This would ensure that these areas are adequately shielded from roadway noise.
. Prior to issuance of the rough grading permit noise barriers shall be shown on
wall and fence plans to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Planning
and the Environmental Review Coordinator.
5.12-2 Prior to approval of building permits for single-family areas where second floor exterior
noise levels exceed 65 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed ensuring that
interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or below 45 CNEL. Building plans
will be available during design review and will permit the accurate calculation of
transmission loss for habitable rooms. (lots 1 through 4, 6, 7 and 9 through 17 in R-6;
lots 103, 104, 114, 115, and 129 in R5; lots 11, 12 [or 25-C if this lot will have a building]
and 34 in R-25; and lots 3, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20 in R-4.) For these lots, it
may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior
noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 CNEL. Consequently, the design for these
units may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable
interior environment with the windows closed based on the results of the interior
acoustical analysis.
5.12-3 As stated in Title 24 of the State Building Code, prior to approval of design review
permits for multi-family areas where first and/or second floor exterior noise levels exceed
60 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed ensuring that interior noise levels
due to exterior sources will be below 45 CNEL. Building plans will be available during
design review and will permit the accurate calculation of transmission loss for habitable
rooms. (Portions of Neighborhoods R-14, MU-3, R-30, R-13, and R-12.) For these
areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that
52
interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 CNEL. Consequently, the design for
buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to
provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed based on the results of
the interior acoustical analysis.
Football Stadium Noise
5.12-4 Prior to the issuance of any building permit for Lots 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 53
through 57 (see Figure 5.12-3), the applicant(s) shall construct four-foot-high barriers
along the northern property line of the affected lots as shown on Figure 5.12-5.
Community Park Noise
5.12-5 Prior to approval of a precise grading plan, an acoustical analysis shall be performed
ensuring that noise levels do not exceed noise ordinance standards.
Industrial Noise
5.12-6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an industrial use on lots adjacent to
residential uses, or adjacent to the Wolf Canyon wildlife area a noise analysis shall be
completed demonstrating that the proposed use will not exceed the noise limits set by
the City's Noise Control Ordinance.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.12, Noise, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1)
of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
POTABLE WATER
Thresholds of Significance:
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact on potable water if it would:
Threshold 1: Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Threshold 2: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements needed.
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes water threshold standards and requires
53
all major development projects to prepare a WCP. A copy of the SPA Plan WCP
is available for public review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building
Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California, and incorporated by reference
in this EIR. These threshold standards are established to ensure that adequate
storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with
planned growth.
Therefore, impacts to potable water would be significant if the proposed project would exceed
City threshold standards which seek to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water,
appropriate for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions:
. The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the
appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level.
. The applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan
application.
. The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to
the development of each Otay Ranch SPA.
Impact:
The proposed SPA Plan would result in an incremental increase in water consumption and
place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. If the 110 water transfer and
other agreements are invalidated, a direct, significant water supply impact would result (Section
5.13, pages 5-301 through 5-309).
Explanation:
The WSAV Report prepared by Dexter Engineering for the proposed SPA Plan indicated that
the increase in water demand is consistent with the projected water demand included in the
OWD 2000 UWMP and the WRMP. The same finding can also be made under the OWD 2005
UWMP. The WSAV Report relied on water supply forecasts based on the projected potable
water demands supplied with imported water received from SDCW A. However, the SDCW A
relies in part on the liD water transfer and other agreements that are being challenged in court.
As a result, the assumption that the liD water transfer and other agreements will be available is
questionable due to litigation uncertainty, and it is possible that the identified water supplies may
not be available as anticipated, despite the urban water management planning conducted by
MWD, SDCWA, and OWD. If the litigation were to invalidate identified and available water
supplies, a direct, significant water supply impact would result.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13, page 5-310]:
54
5.13.1-1
Prior to the approval of the first final map, a final Subarea Master Plan (SAMP)
shall be required for the project. The SAMP shall include the following:
. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity
. The proposed points of connection and system
· The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculated
· Governing fire department's fire flow requirements (flow rate, duration,
hydrant spacing, etc)
. Agency's Master Plan
· Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water
Agencies' Standards)
. Water quality maintenance
· Size of system and number of lots to be served
Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance
with the SAMP.
5.13.1-2
Prior to the approval of the first final map, the applicant(s) shall secure and agree
with the Otay Water District to construct all potable water facilities (on-site and
off-site) required to serve the project. These water facilities improvements shall
be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance with the fees and
phasing in the approved Public Facilities Finance Plans for the SPA Plan.
Findinq:
While mitigation measure 5.13-1 and 5.13-2 are feasible and will be completed, they do not
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The water
supply impact remains significant because the issue of availability of water that was relied on to
determine that there will be a sufficient supply is currently being litigated. Until the resolution of
those actions, the anticipated water supply is not assured. The resolution of this issue is
outside of the purview of the City. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation
measures within the control of the City to reduce mobile water supply impacts to below a level of
significance, those impacts remain significant and unmitigated. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3)
of the State CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. As described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
55
RECYCLED WATER
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects; or
Threshold 2: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements.
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes water threshold standards and requires
all major development projects to prepare a WCP. A copy of the SPA Plan WCP
is available for public review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building
Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista, California, and incorporated by reference
in this EIR. These threshold standards are established to ensure that adequate
storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with
planned growth.
Therefore, impacts to recycled water would be significant if the proposed project would exceed
City threshold standards that seek to ensure that adequate supplies of quality water, appropriate
for intended use, are available. The standards require the following actions:
. The applicant must request and deliver to the City service availability letters from the
appropriate water district for each project at the tentative map level.
. The applicant is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan along with a SPA Plan
application.
. The project plans shall ensure an adequate supply of water on a long-term basis prior to
the development of each Otay Ranch SPA.
Impact:
The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in the use of recycled water and
place additional demands on water storage and pumping facilities. The increase in use of
recycled water has been planned for by the OWD and will not have a significant impact (Section
5.13, page 5-313). However, the impact to recycled water storage and distribution facilities
would be significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the development
phasing of the proposed SPA Plan outlines in the project's PFFP.
Explanation:
OWD has master planned a series of pump stations, reservoirs, and transmission lines to
integrate recycled water from the South Bay Reclamation Plant into the existing and future
56
recycled water system. Construction of these facilities is estimated to begin in the fall of 2006.
The recycled water system will continue to be supplemented with potable water until the
additional source of recycled water supply from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant is
available. Therefore, impacts to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would be
significant if construction of new facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated growth.
MitiQation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13.2, page 5-317]
5.13.2-1
Prior to the approval of the first final map, a final Subarea Master Plan shall be
required for the project. The SAMP shall include the following:
. Existing pipeline locations, size, and capacity
. The proposed points of connection and system
. The estimated water demands and/or sewer flow calculated
. Governing fire department's fire flow requirements (flow rate, duration,
hydrant spacing, etc)
. Agency's Master Plan
. Agency's planning criteria (see Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the Water
Agencies' Standards)
. Water quality maintenance
. Size of system and number of lots to be served
Water facilities improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in accordance
with the SAMP.
5.13.2-2
Recycled water facility improvements shall be financed or installed on- and off-
site in accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved PFFP for the
Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four SPA Plan.
FindinQ:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are req~ired in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
57
SEWER
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
Threshold 2: Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects; and
Threshold 3: As part of its General Plan, the City has adopted a Growth Management
Ordinance (Chapter 19.09) that imposes wastewater threshold standards that
require the following:
Sewage Flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set forth in the
Subdivision Manual adopted by City Council Resolution Number 11175 on February 12, 1983,
as may be amended from time to time. A copy of the Subdivision Manual is available for public
review at the City of Chula Vista, Planning and Building Department, 430 F Street, Chula Vista,
California.
The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12- to 18-
month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's
purchases/capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and
continuing growth, or the City Engineering Department staff shall gather the necessary data.
Impact:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM would result in an increase in
sewage generation (Section 5.13, pages 5-325 through 5-327). Based on this increase,
development of the proposed SPA Plan will require the construction of gravity sewer line to
handle increased flow. In addition, Village Three will be served by constructing a gravity sewer
line in Heritage Road and connecting to the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Interceptor. The
development of Village Three cannot occur until the construction of this gravity sewer line is
completed.
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan would require the construction of new wastewater conveyance
facilities. Construction of these conveyance facilities would occur in conformance with the
phasing plan in the proposed project's PFFP. Until the sewer line in Heritage Road is
constructed, development within Village Two will be limited so as not to exceed the excess
capacity in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor sewer. Similarly, development of Village Three cannot
proceed until the Heritage Road connection to the Salt Creek Interceptor is complete.
58
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13.3, page 5-327]
5.13.3-1
Sewer facility improvements shall be financed or installed on-site and off-site in
accordance with the fees and phasing in the approved Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
5.13.3-2
Prior to the recordation of the first Final Map or grading permit that creates any
parcel located within the Wolf Canyon/Salt Creek Sewer Basin, the City Engineer
shall be satisfied that the connections to the gravity sewer system from the
southern portion of Village Two have been designed and secured to convey flow
to Heritage Road and southerly to the Salt Creek Interceptor.
5.13.3-3
In order to ensure the timely construction of the Heritage Road regional facility,
prior to the first final map that creates any parcel located within the Wolf
Canyon/Salt Creek Sewer Basin, the necessary right-of-way for constructing full
street improvements within the SPA Plan boundary shall be granted to the City.
FindinQ:
As identified in Section 5.0, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for police protection services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, according to the City's Threshold Standards Policy, the project
would have a significant impact on police services if it:
· Exceeds the City's threshold standards to respond to Priority One emergency calls
throughout the city (within seven minutes in 81 percent of the cases and an average
response time to all Priority One calls of 5.5 minutes or less).
59
. Exceeds the City's threshold standards to respond to Priority Two urgent calls
throughout the city (within seven minutes in 57 percent of cases and an average
response time to all Priority Two calls of 7.5 minutes or less).
Impact:
Development of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a direct,
significant impact to law enforcement because of the predicted increase in calls for service and
the additional travel time required to respond to these calls (Section 5.13, page 5-333).
Explanation:
The Police Department is currently meeting the threshold standards for Priority One calls, but
not meeting the threshold standards for Priority Two calls. Development of the proposed project
would result in an incremental increase in calls for police service. Given the location of the
project, officers would be required to travel additional distances to respond to calls for service.
Increased travel time lengthens response time.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.5, page 5-
334].
5.13.5-1
Prior to the approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public
Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF). The proposed Public Facilities
Financing Plan describes public facilities fees for police services based on
equivalent dwelling units by development phase. The applicant(s) shall pay the
public facilities fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued.
5.13.5-2
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor the Chula Vista Police
Department responses to emergency calls and report the results to the Growth
Management Oversight Committee on an annual basis.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
FIRE PROTECTION
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
60
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the fire protection and
emergency services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, the City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed
project would have a significant impact on fire protection services if it would:
· Reduce the ability to respond to calls throughout the City within the City's
threshold standard to respond to calls within seven minutes in 80 percent of the
cases.
Impact:
The Chula Vista Fire Department does not currently meet the threshold standard for response
time for the City, including the Otay Ranch community. However, as population growth in the
service area warrants, fire stations would be constructed within Village Nine of the Otay Valley
parcel and within Village Thirteen of the Proctor Valley parcel to help ensure GMOC threshold
standards are met. Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan will result in direct, significant
impacts if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the increase in demand (Section
5.13, pages 5-335 through 5-336).
Explanation:
The Chula Vista Fire Department currently exceeds. the threshold standards established for
response time. Increased response time is attributable, in part, to increased travel time, which
results from responding to freeway incidents; the lower density, hilly terrain; and the more
circuitous non-grid nature of many streets in new residential developments in eastern Chula
Vista, which includes the SPA Plan area. According to the Fire Station Master Plan, a nine-
station network at General Plan buildout is needed to maintain compliance with the threshold
standard. These stations would help ensure adequate service within the requirements of the
GMOC threshold standards. Impacts to fire and emergency medical services would be
significant if construction of these facilities does not coincide with the project's anticipated
population growth and increased demand for services.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EI R, Subchapter 5.13, page 5-336]
5.13.6-1
Prior to the approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) at the rate in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
5.13.6-2
The City of Chula Vista shall continue to monitor Chula Vista Fire Department
responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the
Growth Management Oversight Committee on an annual basis.
61
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of
insignificance.
SCHOOLS
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for educational facilities services.
Threshold 2: According to the Otay Ranch GDP, impacts would be significant if the proposed
SPA Plan project locates schools:
. In areas where disturbing factors such as traffic hazards, airports, or other incompatible
land uses are present;
. In areas where they are not integrated into the system of alternative transportation
corridors, such as bike lanes, riding and hiking trails, and mass transit;
. Where private elementary and secondary schools are not spaced far enough from public
schools and each other to prevent an overconcentration of school impacts;
. Without at least 10 usable acres for an elementary school;
. Without a central location to residential development;
. Adjacent to a street or road which cannot safely accommodate bike, foot, and vehicular
traffic;
. In areas not adjacent to parks, thereby discouraging joint field and recreation facility
uses;
. At an unsafe distance (as required by law) from contaminants or toxins in the soil or
groundwater from landfills, fuel tanks, agricultural areas, power lines, utility easements,
and so on; or
. Inside of floodplains; on unstable soils; or near fault lines.
Impact:
Project implementation would result in a direct, significant impact to schools unless construction
of facilities coincide with student generation and associated service demands (Section 5.13,
pages 5-338 through 340).
62
Explanation:
The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,515 students between
elementary, middle school, and high school grades as shown on Table 5.13-18 of the EIR.
Proposed development and the projected increase in the number of elementary, middle school,
and high school students would have a significant impact on the existing schools since they are
already near capacity. According to the adopted Otay Ranch GDP School Facility
Implementation Plan, schools are planned to be constructed at the time that 50 percent of the
projected students reside in the community. Potentially direct, significant impacts to school
services would result if construction of new facilities does not coincide with need.
Mitiqation Measures:
Provision of school facilities is the responsibility of the school district when additional demand
warrants. Government Code 65995(b) provides that the statutory fees are the exclusive means
of considering as well as mitigating for school impacts. It does not just limit the mitigation that
may be required, but also limits the scope of review and the findings to be adopted for school
impacts. Once the statutory fee is imposed, the impact would be mitigated because of the
provision that statutory fees constitute full and complete mitigation. Therefore, implementation of
the mitigation measures set forth below would reduce the impact to schools to below a level of
significance for the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM. The following mitigation
measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the
applicant through these findings [EIR Subchapter 5.13.7, page 5-341].
5.13.7-1
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay all required
school mitigation fees or enter into an agreement to help finance the needed
facilities and services for the Chula Vista Elementary School District to the
satisfaction of the School District.
5.13.7-2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant(s) shall pay all required
school mitigation fees or enter into an agreement to help finance the needed
facilities and services for the Sweetwater Union High School District to the
satisfaction of the School District.
Findinq:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
LIBRARY SERVICE
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
63
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for library services.
Threshold 2: Additionally, the City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed
project would have a significant impact on library services if it would fail to meet
the City's threshold standard of 500 gross square feet of library space,
adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population.
Impact:
There is currently a shortfall of approximately 6,500 square feet of library space in the city. The
projected increase in population associated with the proposed SPA Plan would result additional
demands on library services. Direct, significant impacts to library services would result if
construction of new library facilities does not coincide with need (Section 5.13, pages 5-342
through 5-343).
Explanation:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan project and Composite TM would generate a greater
population and would, therefore, require additional library facilities. An estimated population
increase of 8,458 people corresponds to an increased library demand of 4,250 square feet. A
potentially significant impact would result from the development of the proposed SPA Plan and
the Composite TM if construction of new library facilities and provision of additional documents
does not coincide with project implementation and associated population growth.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.8, page 5-343].
5.13.8-1 Prior to approval of each building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicants shall
pay required Public Facility Development Impact fees at the rate in effect at the time
of permit issuance.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.10, Subchapter 5.13, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that
will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
PARKS AND RECREATION
64
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment;
Threshold 2: Increases the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated;
Threshold 3: The City's Threshold Standards Policy states that the proposed project would
have a significant impact on parks and recreation services if it fails to meet the City's threshold
standard of dedicating three acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000
residents.
Impact:
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and the Composite TM would generate increased
demand for parks and recreation facilities. A direct, significant impact could result if dedication
of parkland and construction of new facilities does not coincide with project implementation and
project population growth (Section 5.13, pages 5-345 and 5-346).
Explanation:
The proposed SPA Plan area is required to provide 25.4 acres of community/neighborhood
parkland. The proposed SPA Plan meets these requirements by providing a centrally located
7.1-acre Neighborhood Park, a 6.9-acre Neighborhood Park in the eastern area of the village, a
1.4-acre Town Square in the Village Core, and 44.2 (net) acres of Community Park in a portion
of Village Four for a total of 59.6 acres. However, if construction of new facilities does not
coincide with the increase in demand as a result of implementation of the proposed SPA Plan,
impacts would be significant.
Mitiqation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.13.9, page 5-346].
5.13.9-1 Prior to the approval of the first final map, the applicant(s) shall dedicate
neighborhood and community parkland. Prior to approval of the final map, or for
projects not requiring a final map, prior to building permit, the applicant(s) shall pay
park development fees; and prior to building permit the applicant(s) shall pay
recreation development impact fees in accordance with the fees and phasing
approved in the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the SPA Plan.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.13, Subchapter 5.13.9, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of
the CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project
65
that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR
to a level of insignificance.
HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1: Is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a
significant hazard to the public or the environment would be created;
Threshold 2: Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Threshold 3: Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
Threshold 4: Emits hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
Threshold 5: Is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
Threshold 6: Is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
Threshold 7: Impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
Threshold 8: Exposes people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas.
Impacts related to hazards were identified in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR. Because the
EIR is a second tier of the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, the impacts identified in the Program
EIR will also serve as the thresholds for determining impacts related to public health and safety
for the propose SPA Plan.
Threshold 9: Increase in urbanization would result in an increase in the uses, transport,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste materials and an associated increase
in the risk of an upset condition in the area. Mitigation involves adherence to
federal, state, and local laws and regulation regarding hazardous materials, and
66
emergency evacuation routes. Impacts would be reduced to levels below
significance.
Threshold 10: Historic use of pesticides which would result in soil contamination and health
effects. Mitigation involves conducting soil testing in appropriate areas. Impacts
would be reduced to levels below significance.
Impact: Historic use of pesticides which would result in soil contamination and health
effects.
The project will result in a direct impact to public health and safety due to soil contamination at
the project site (Section 5.14, pages 5-357 through 5-359).
Explanation:
The extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil beneath the former UST on Village Two have been
adequately assessed and excavated. Soil samples collected from the bottom and sidewalls of
the excavation do not exhibit TPHgITPHd concentrations at or above the laboratory detection
limits and are not considered a risk to public safety or the environment. The Phase I ESA
conducted for Village Three concluded that there is a potential for agriculturally developed
portions of the subject property to be impacted by residual agricultural, including soil
augmenting and chemicals. Elevated levels of organochlorine pesticides were present in the
soils at the Village Four site. Fifteen composite soil samples taken from the Village Four
Community Park Site exhibited concentrations of toxaphene exceeding one-quarter of the
residential PRGs. Concentrations of OCPs exceeding residential PRGs are generally limited to
the upper two feet of soil. The concentrations of the pesticides in the soils at the Village Four
Community Park Site would be considered a significant risk to public safety and mitigation
would be required.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and
are made binding on the applicant through these findings. [EIR, Subchapter 5.14, page 5-360].
In addition to implementation of BMPs for the. protection of water quality (see Chapter 5.9,
Water Resources and Water Quality), the following mitigation measures are required to reduce
significant impacts associated with the potential exposure to hazardous materials.
Implementation of the proposed SPA Plan and Composite TM could potentially result in public
health and safety impacts related to soil contamination at the project site and would require the
following mitigation:
5.14-1 If soil is to be exported from the site during proposed grading and other construction
activities, it should be characterized prior to proposed off-site use or disposal and
handled in accordance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. In addition,
67
contractors performing proposed grading and construction activities should employ
adequate dust control measures to minimize exposure to soil and dust at the site.
5.14-2 If soil exhibiting hydrocarbon staining and/or odors are encountered at the site during
grading and/or construction, the soil should be evaluated by a qualified professional
(such as a professional engineer, registered geologist, or registered environmental
assessor experienced in hazardous waste evaluations) and handled in accordance
with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
Findina:
As identified in Section 5.10, of the EIR, pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will
substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR to a
level of insignificance.
x.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
(Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). Several development proposals have been
submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula in proximity of
the project site. These "current or probable future" development proposals can affect many of
the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the SPA Plan.
Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of the project in
conjunction with these surrounding development projects.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken into consideration. Many of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative
impacts are similar to the project level mitigation measures. This reflects the inability of the
Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures on surrounding jurisdictions (Le., City of San
Diego, City of National City, and Caltrans) and the contribution of these jurisdictions to
cumulative impacts. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the following
irreversible cumulative environmental changes. All page numbers following the impacts refer to
pages in the EIR.
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) provided a comprehensive examination of the
cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the entire Otay Ranch in conjunction with other
related projects. The proposed SPA Plan project would not substantially change the conclusions
68
of the cumulative impact analysis from the Otay Ranch GDP EIR, since the proposed SPA Plan
project is consistent with the adopted GDP for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four.
Impact: Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
Implementation of the SPA Plan, in conjunction with buildout of the remaining portions of Otay
Ranch, and other nearby projects, will contribute to the conversion of over 30,000 acres of
undeveloped land to urban uses. The overall loss of agricultural land and change in the
character and use of the site from rural agricultural to urban would have a significant cumulative
land use impact (EIR, Subchapter 5.0, page 5.4), as identified in the GDP Program EIR (EIR
#90-01 ).
Explanation:
There are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of significance.
In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that
there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significant, and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The City Council determined that the
cumulative land use impacts were acceptable because of the specific overriding considerations.
Mitiqation Measures:
The City Council found in adopting the findings to approve the Otay Ranch GDP that there are
no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact of the conversion of land to urban uses to
below a level of significance. Therefore, the SPA Plan, as a project that implements the GDP,
would contribute to this cumulatively significant unmitigable impact.
FindinQ:
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR..
Impact: Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would contribute to a change in the visual quality of the
region. In addition, the project would contribute to the cumulative nighttime impacts identified in
the Otay Ranch GDP EIR.
Explanation:
The visual quality would be affected by the change in character from a rural to an urban setting
and overall landform alteration. Impacts to the nighttime visual setting would also occur from
the cumulative addition of lights as Otay Ranch and surrounding proposed projects are
implemented.
69
Mitiaation Measures:
Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character for the Otay Ranch and
other major projects in the region would remain significant. No mitigation has been identified for
the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact, and therefore, the Village Two, Three, and
Portion of Four SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to a change in
the visual character of the project area that cannot be fully mitigated.
Findina:
The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project Alternative. However, this
alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project as discussed in
Section 3.3 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative
infeasible. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Impact: Biological Resources
Development of the SPA Plan will contribute to a cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat. The
loss of raptor foraging habitat also was identified as a significant impact in the GDP Program
EIR (EIR #90-01).
Explanation:
The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) identified the loss of raptor foraging habitat as a significant
cumulative impact. The SPA Plan will result in impacts to non-native grasslands and
agricultural lands used by foraging raptors. Therefore, the SPA Plan and Composite TM, as a
project that implements the GDP, will contribute to this significant cumulative impact.
Mitiaation Measures:
The City Council found in adopting the findings to approve the Otay Ranch GDP that there are
no mitigation measures that would reduce the impact of the loss of foraging habitat to below a
level of significance. Adoption of the No Project Alternative is the only means to lessen the
impact to raptor foraging habitat. However, adoption of the No Project alternative would not
achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in the EIR. The SPA Plan, as a project
that implements the GDP, would contribute to this cumulatively significant unmitigable impact.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. As described in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that
these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Findina:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Development of the
proposed SPA Plan would contribute to the cumulative loss of raptor foraging habitat identified
70
in the approved GDP Program EIR #90-01. Adoption of the No Project Alternative is the only
means to lessen the impact to raptor foraging habitat. However, adoption of the No Project
alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in the EIR. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Cultural Resources
Development of the proposed SPA Plan would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of
cultural resources.
Explanation:
The Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR made a Finding of Overriding Considerations, whereby the
benefits of the Otay Ranch project outweigh the significant cumulative impacts to cultural
resources. No new cumulative impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the original GDP
Program EIR (#90-01) would occur from implementation of the project. However, because of
the continuing depletion of the archaeological record through general development, cumulative
impacts to cultural resources would remain significant and unmitigated. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitiqation Measure:
No mitigation has been identified for the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore,
the SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources that
cannot be fully mitigated.
Findinq:
The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project alternative. Adoption of the No
Project Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project discussed in
the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Agricultural Resources
The loss of agricultural land and land suitable for the production of crops would result in a
significant cumulative impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
limited agricultural resources. Noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with
agricultural operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between
the agricultural uses and urban uses.
Explanation:
Development of the SPA Plan and the Composite TM would result in a significant impact to
agricultural resources, due to the loss of 858.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and the
71
conversion of 321.72 acres of Grazing Land to urban uses. The loss of this acreage would result
in a significant unavoidable impact due to the incremental and irreversible loss or impairment of
Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land. In adopting the Findings of Fact to approve
the Otay Ranch GDP, the City Council found that there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate the impact below a level of significant, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was adopted. This impact is identical to that assessed in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR
(EIR #90-01). The SPA Plan would not result in any new significant adverse impacts to
agricultural resources, or an intensification of such impacts, that were not analyzed in GDP
Program EIR.
Furthermore, noise, odors, insects, rodents, and chemicals associated with agricultural
operations would create indirect, short-term, potentially significant impacts between the
agricultural uses and urban uses.
Mitiaation Measures:
No mitigation has been identified for the proposed SPA Plan to reduce this impact. Therefore,
the SPA Plan would result in significant cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources that
cannot be fully mitigated.
FindinQ:
The incremental and cumulative loss of agricultural lands, which was considered a significant
impact in the Otay Ranch GDP Program EIR, remains significant, and no mitigation measures
are available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. This incremental loss
remains significant and unmitigated. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable
because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access
The proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts on segments of 1-
805 [EIR, Subchapter 5.10, pages 5-228].
Explanation:
The analysis contained in Section 5.10 found that cumulative impacts on 1-805 would remain
significant and unavoidable. LOS F was calculated on 1-805 for individual scenarios and the
project adds traffic to this freeway. All required improvements to 1-805 are the responsibility of
Caltrans and SANDAG.
Mitiaation Measures:
The following mitigation measure is feasible and is required as a condition of approval and is
made binding on the applicant through these findings (EI R, Subchapter 5.10, page 5-234
through 5-242).
72
5.10-4 For the following freeway segments, additional lanes would be required to maintain
acceptable LOS. The City of Chula Vista recommends continued freeway planning
efforts and deficiency planning by Caltrans and SANDAG will determine mitigation
strategies for the regional freeway system.
· Northbound 1-805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street
· Southbound 1-805 from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road
· Southbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
· Northbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road
· Southbound 1-805 from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway
· Southbound 1-805 from Olympic Parkway to Main Street
Findinq:
While implementation of the measures described above in addition to adherence with applicable
laws and regulations would reduce significant cumulative impacts to freeway segments below a
level of significance, improvement to 1-805 is the responsibility of SANDAG and outside the
jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(2) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be
adopted by such other agency. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
Impact: Air Quality
The proposed project will result in temporary and long-term air quality impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. Once the proposed project is built out, the
major source of air pollution will be from project-related traffic. The analysis of air quality
impacts contained in Section 5.11 included an analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality and
found that the cumulative impacts related to long-term mobile emissions would be significant.
Explanation:
The region is currently classified as attainment for all criterion pollutants except Ozone. As of
April 15, the region was classified as non-attainment for Ozone as a result of the application of
the eight-hour Ozone standard. Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric
activity on precursors. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (reactive organic gases) are known
as the chief "precursors" of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to
produce ozone.
73
Because of the nature of the formation of ozone, it is a regional issue, rather than a localized
one. The construction of the proposed project represents a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the emission of ozone precursors, and a significant and unavoidable cumulative
air quality impact. This impact is identical to the significant and unmitigable impact to air quality
that was identified and assessed in the GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01), and overridden in the
City's Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the adopted Otay Ranch GDP.
Mitiqation Measures:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant
levels.
Findinq:
Project-related traffic emiSSions will exceed the identified significance thresholds for ozone
precursors. There is no feasible mitigation available for this cumulative impact because it is a
regional issue. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEOA Guidelines, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these impacts are
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Impact: Public Services and Utilities
WATER
The proposed project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water
consumption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
Explanation:
Cumulative impacts to water supply associated with ongoing development, including the
proposed SPA Plan, are anticipated on a regional scale. The WSA&V report prepared by OWD
for the proposed project relied on water supply forecasts based on the projected potable water
demands supplied entirely with imported water received from the SDCW A. However, the
SDCWA relies in part on a water transfer with the Imperial Irrigation District and the agreement
that provides for the water transfer is being challenged in court. In light of these cases, the
assumption that the liD water transfer water will be available is questionable. Since the liD
water transfer is being challenged, it is possible that the water from liD will not be available as
anticipated. In the absence of this water a significant water supply impact would result.
Mitiqation Measure:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant
levels.
Findinq:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
74
the EIR. The water supply impact remains significant because the issue of availability of water
that was relied on to determine that there will be a sufficient supply is currently being litigated.
Until the resolution of those actions, the anticipated water supply is not assured. The resolution
of this issue is outside of the purview of the City. Because there are no applicable or feasible
mitigation measures within the control of the City to reduce water supply impacts to below a
level of significance, those impacts remain significant and unmitigated. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
XI.
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City
must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these
circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe
than those of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of
the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this
project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the
decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed
project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives
"capable of eliminating" environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEOA Guidelines, section 15126).
75
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible"
pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to
the findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CEOA Guidelines
provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEOA
Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an
alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental,
social, or technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565 [276 CaI.RptrA10]).
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to
the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project
for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
"Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEOA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)).
"Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(3)).
"Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain
76
alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various alternative to meet objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental
impact.
The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through
the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the
following:
· Land Use (cumulative - conversion of the site from undeveloped to intensive urban
uses) ;
· Landform Alterations/Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character of
the site);
· Biological Resources (cumulative -loss of raptor foraging habitat)
· Cultural Resources (cumulative - depletion of the archaeological record)
· Agricultural Resources (cumulative - loss of agricultural lands);
· Air Ouality (cumulative - operation-related emissions)
· Public Services and Utilities: Water Supply (cumulative - absence of sufficient water
supply to serve the project)
The GDP Program EIR (EIR #90-01) also identified significant and not mitigated impacts for
land use, agricultural resources, air quality, landform alterations/aesthetics, and biological
resources. The SPA Plan project would contribute to the significant, unmitigated impacts
identified above and by the GDP Program EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
previously adopted by City Council for the GDP Program EIR, from which the SPA Plan EIR
tiers.
Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives
identified in the ErR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts
listed above (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County
Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47
Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). Table 10-9 in the EIR (EIR, Chapter 10, pages 10-30
through 10-36) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following
77
discussion will show, no identified alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally
superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular
alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings
will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts - even though such a far-
ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each
alternative is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project.
The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential
impacts associated with the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project.
Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement
development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in
Section III. The City evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project, which are discussed
below (No Project/No Development Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative A, Reduced
Development Alternative B, and Reduced Development Alternative C).
No Project/No Development Alternative
Section 15126, subdivision(e), of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the "No
Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services."
Under the "No Project/No Development" alternative, the SPA Plan project site would remain as
it is today, and no development would occur. The project site would remain as undeveloped,
agricultural land with residential development to the north and planned future urban
development to the west, east and south.
The proposed SPA Plan project is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP. The No Project/No
Development alternative would not allow for the development of the SPA Plan as identified in
the Otay Ranch GDP. With respect to the unmitigated impacts discussed in Section 5.0 of the
EIR, the No Project/No Development alternative would not result in direct impacts to landform
alteration, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, paleontological
resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, utilities and public services, and hazards/risk of
upset. Cumulative impacts to landform and aesthetics, biological resources, agricultural
resources, transportation and access, and public utilities. However, impacts to land use would
occur because the project would not implement the City's General Plan, MSCP Subarea Plan or
the Otay Ranch GDP, and would not provide housing opportunities within the City. With the No
Project/No Development alternative, the site would not be permanently removed from future
development, since applicable plans for the site identify its development.
78
,,"'. .... ',. ,,_,,_,,'h~_~,~_"'_~ ,,__,,~,'____"'="'__''''"'~-''_'''_--''''~"'"'~''~~'"''~''__'''''''''''__...-"""-,....~'"_.~ . ,--"~..._--_.""'........._,..,,,.'.
Although the No Project/No Development alternative is considered environmentally preferable to
the proposed project because it would eliminate many direct and cumulative impacts, it would
not accomplish several of the goals and objectives of the proposed project and is therefore not
feasible. Additionally, this alternative would result in land use conflicts because it would not
allow for implementation of the Otay Ranch GDP for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four.
Findinqs:
The No Project/No Development alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives
as listed in Section 3.3, Project Objectives, of the EIR, and in Section III of these Findings of
Fact.
The No Project/No Development alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the
housing goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income
groups.
Retention of the project site in its existing state as primarily agricultural fields would be
inconsistent with the approved General Plan and existing Otay Ranch GDP land use
designations for the site. In addition, key subregional traffic routes established in the Circulation
Element would not be implemented.
Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General
Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing GDP. The project proposes to provide
regional-serving public facilities designated in the community plan, including Circulation Element
roads, parks, open space, water and sewer facilities, and other infrastructure. These facilities
would be needed to support surrounding developments whether the project is implemented or
not. The No Project/No Development alternative would require that these facilities be provided
without the benefit of the dedications and financial participation from private development, which
may delay or preclude facilities from being provided. The reduction in dwelling units would result
in a loss of anticipated contributions into the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) from the
dwelling units/structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building
permits. The loss of units under the No Project/No Development alternative would result in a
shortfall of contributions into the PFFP and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the
remaining public facilities currently identified in the PFFP for construction in this area.
The City and County would receive lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales
tax resulting from the non-development of the proposed residential areas.
Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve any of the
objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily
preserve land which is currently not developed, agricultural land and other natural features on
the project site, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual development, despite
the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan GDP.
79
The No Project/No Development Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the
project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public
services and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's
circulation; and to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure.
The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected
population in an area reasonable close to future job-growth areas within the City, as well as the
construction of affordable housing consistent with the City's goals.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that the No Project/No Development Alternative
is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23
Cal.AppAth at 715).
Reduced Development Alternative A
The Reduced Development Alternative A designates the proposed SPA Plan area for low-
medium residential at three to six dwelling units per acre, distributed around a Village Core,
which includes higher density single- and multi-family residential use, an elementary school site,
a community park site, a mixed-use site, two neighborhood park sites, and research and limited
industrial uses. The detail of this land use is provided in Table 10-2 and the layout is provided in
Figure 10-1 of the EI R.
Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative A would reduce the available housing within the SPA
Plan area by approximately 37 percent relative to the proposed project. The reduction in
available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of the City to meet the
SANDAG-projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The lack of housing
concurrent with need as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan
would result in a potentially significant impact.
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative A of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b, as identified in Section 5A of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as a result of completion of the Reduced Development
Alternative A, no significant impact will result to cultural resources.
The direct impacts to sensitive biological resources under the Reduced Development Alternative
A would be greater than the proposed project's. The current development footprint pursuant to
the adopted Subarea Plan permits an impact to 0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic
species, containing 25,000 tarplants. Under the proposed project, the project Boundary
Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000 Otay tarplants that would be otherwise impacted
without the Boundary Adjustment.
The development under this alternative would result in higher predestination flows to the Poggi
Canyon basin from the Village Two Northwest subbasin. An additional detention basin would be
required for peak flow from the Village Two West area. The development of Reduced
80
Development Alternative A would control the rate of on-site, post-development peak storm water
runoff discharges. The Reduced Development Alternative A proposes significant grading
modifications as compared to the proposed project. A portion of Wolf Canyon which is located
in the MSCP preserve would not be filled in from development of this alternative. As such, there
would be a measurable reduction in the volume or quality of the runoff from the site.
The traffic analysis conducted for this project indicated that the cumulative traffic effects of the
Reduced Development Alternative A would not impact any intersections in the study area. It
would, however, adversely affect eight roadway segments in the vicinity of the project.
In addition, under the Reduced Development Alternative A, the eight segments of 1-805 are
calculated to deteriorate to LOS E or LOS F (The remaining segments are calculated to operate
at LOS D or better.), as discussed in Section 10.2, page 10-8 of the EIR.
Air quality impacts associated with vehicular trips would be reduced under the Reduced
Development Alternative A. Short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would
be slightly reduced because the area and extent of grading would be reduced because
development under this alternative would not extend into a part of Wolf Canyon. There could be
a slight decrease in overall long-term air quality impacts associated with power generation and
the operation of on-site commercial facilities due to the reduced population. Overall, the
reduction in air quality impacts would be minor and the cumulative impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
As with the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative A would increase the
number of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would
have a significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative A would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 2,624 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 5,249. It does, however, result in
a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
Findinqs:
The Reduced Development Alternative A would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative:
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
81
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
The Reduced Development Alternative A results in a much less intense development than is the
proposed project. The proposed project includes a total of 2786 residential units while this
alternative 1791 units. As stated on Page 10-4 of the draft EIR, this alternative was designed
with medium and medium-high density residential areas, rather than the more intense
development of the proposed project. It also does not place as much residential use in the
Village core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and
promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development Alternative A does
not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is
currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary
Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the EI A. Therefore, pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Reduced Alternative B
The Reduced Development Alternative B designates Village Two as a "transit village" served by
the future extension of the Bus Rapid Transit, which integrates SANDAG's adopted Transit First!
Strategy into the Otay Ranch and locates a station within Village Two. The station location in
Village Two would serve as a vital stop for travel to other Otay Ranch and regional destinations.
The detail of this alternative is provided in Table 10-4 and illustrated in Figure 10-2, of the EIA.
Impact
Development under the Reduced Development Alternative B would reduce the amount of
housing available within the SPA Plan area by approximately 10 percent fewer units relative to
the proposed project. This would reduce the ability of the City of Chula Vista to meet the
projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The lack of housing concurrent
with needs as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan would result in
a potentially significant impact.
As with Reduced Development Alternative A, the direct impacts to sensitive biological resources
under the Reduced Development Alternative B would be greater than the proposed project's.
The current development footprint pursuant to the adopted Subarea Plan permits an impact to
0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic species, containing 25,000 tarplants. Under the
proposed project, the project Boundary Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000 Otay
tarplants that would be otherwise impacted without the Boundary Adjustment.
82
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative B of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b, as identified in Section 5.4 of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as for Reduced Development Alternative A, no significant
impact will result to cultural resources as a result of implementing this alternative.
As with the proposed project, Reduced Development Alternative B would increase the number
of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would have a
significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative B would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 3,810 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 7,620. It does, however, result
in a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
Findinas:
The Reduced Development Alternative B would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives.of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative~
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
The Reduced Development Alternative A results in a much less intense development than is the
proposed project. The proposed project includes a total of 2786 residential units while this
alternative 1791 units. As stated on Page 10-4 of the draft EIR, this alternative was designed
with medium and medium-high density residential areas, rather than the more intense
development of the proposed project. It also does not place as much residential use in the
Village core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and
promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development Alternative A does
not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is
currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary
Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to
83
section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
The Reduced Development Alternative B includes 1,801 multi-family units, no mixed-use units
and 709 single-family units. The proposed project includes 1,740 multi-family units, 60 mixed-
use residential units and 986 single-family units.
The Reduced Development Alternative B results in a less intense development than is the
proposed project. This alternative was designed with less multi family residential use in the
Village Core area. As indicated on page 10-12 of the EIR, while this alternative It therefore limits
the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In
addition, the Reduced Development Alternative B does not place fill in the finger canyon that
extends north of the mouth of Wolf Canyon. This area is currently being considered to be
removed from the Preserve as part of the proposed Boundary Adjustment. By not filling this
area it would not result in the net benefit to conservation of Covered Species and habitats as
described on page 10-12 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
alternative infeasible.
Reduced Alternative C
The land uses for the Reduced Development Alternative C include approximately 2,393
residential units, of which 1,130 units are single-family and 1,263 units are multi-family and
approximately 255.1 acres of industrial development (including 70.8 within the landfill buffer),
and the remaining acres would be developed with non-residential uses. The Industrial uses
proposed within the landfill buffer are consistent with the adopted GDP. Figure 10-3 shows the
land use plan for the Reduced Development Alternative C. Table 10-6 presents a tabulation of
the proposed uses for the SPA Plan for this Alternative. There would be no development within
Wolf Canyon under this alternative.
Impact
The Reduced Development Alternative C would reduce the amount of housing available within
the SPA Plan area by approximately 18.4 percent. This would reduce the ability of the City of
Chula Vista to meet the projected need for an additional 20,823 dwelling units by 2010. The
Reduced Development Alternative C would not be in conformance with those policies as
outlined in SANDAG's Growth Management Plan. The lack of housing concurrent with needs
as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan would result in a
potentially significant impact.
As with Reduced Development Alternatives A and B, the direct impacts to sensitive biological
resources under the Reduced Development Alternative C would be greater than the proposed
project's. The current development footprint pursuant to the adopted Subarea Plan permits an
84
impact to 0.98 acre of Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic species, containing 25,000 tarplants.
Under the proposed project, the project Boundary Adjustment conserves the estimated 25,000
Otay tarplants that would be otherwise impacted without the Boundary Adjustment.
As a result of the development the Reduced Development Alternative B of the Village Three
portion of the project, significant impacts to CA-SDI-12,291 b, as identified in Section 5.4 of the
EIR, would be avoided. Therefore, as for Reduced Development Alternative A, no significant
impact will result to cultural resources as a result of implementing this alternative.
As with the proposed project, Reduced Development Alternative C would increase the number
of elementary, middle, and high school students beyond the existing demand and would have a
significant impact on the existing schools. It does, however, have fewer students than is
represented by the proposed project.
Implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative C would result in increased demand
on existing library services, including a need for approximately 3,590 square feet of library
facilities based on the expected project population of people of 7,179. It does, however, result
in a reduction in the demand for library facilities.
Findinas:
The Reduced Development Alternative C would reduce impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, schools, libraries. However, significant impacts have been identified for land use,
housing and population, traffic and air quality. While the alternative would implement some of
the project objectives of the proposed project, the following objectives would not be met with this
alternative:
. Establish a pedestrian and transit-oriented village with an intense urban core to reduce
reliance on the automobile and promote walking and the use of bicycles, buses, and
regional transit.
. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Chula Vista General Plan,
and particularly, the Otay Ranch GDP, the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP, the
Otay Ranch Facility Implementation Plan, the Otay Ranch Village Phasing Plan, and the
Otay Ranch Service/Revenue Plan.
. Establish a land use and facility plan that assures the viability of the SPA Plan area in
consideration of existing and anticipated economic conditions.
. Wisely manage limited natural resources.
The proposed project includes 1,740 multi-family units, 60 mixed-use residential units and 986
single-family units. The Reduced Development Alternative C includes 1,130 multi-family units,
no mixed-use units and 1263 single-family units. This alternative results in a less intense
85
development than is the proposed project. This alternative was designed with less multi family
residential use in the Village Core area. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on
the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In addition, the Reduced Development
Alternative C does not place fill in the finger canyon that extends north of the mouth of Wolf
Canyon. This area is currently being considered to be removed from the Preserve as part of the
proposed Boundary Adjustment. By not filling this area it would not result in the net benefit to
conservation of Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-24 of the EIR.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEOA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternatives considered, including the proposed project. If the No Project/No Development
alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR also shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the EIR indicates, through a
comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the proposed project,
that the No Project/No Development alternative, if left in its current state, could be considered
environmentally superior because no new uses would be introduced to the area and the project
site would not result in environmental impacts. However, the No Project/No Development
alternative would not implement the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or the RMP,
which are primary project objectives. The No Project/No Development alternative would not
accomplish any of the objectives of the project.
The Reduced Project Alternative A could be considered the environmentally superior project
because it would reduce impacts associated with land use, visual quality/landform alteration,
cultural resources, traffic, air quality, noise, utilities and services, and water quality while
implementing some of the project objectives. The project objectives are enumerated in Section
3.3 of the EIR.
86
XII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED
VILLAGES TWO. THREE. AND A PORTION OF FOUR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAPS EIR
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact:
. Land Use
. Landform Alterations/Aesthetics
. Biological Resources
. Agricultural Resources
. Transportation
. Air Quality
. Water supply
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This provision allows
a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for
choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not
been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits
outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California
Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species
Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a
statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions.
Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis
contained in the Final EIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose
more stringent standards or measures.
87
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs
are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub.
Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse"
impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be
addressed. (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377].)
Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits
can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations. (CEOA Guidelines
Section 15093.)
The City finds that the proposed project would have the following substantial, social,
environmental and economic benefits. Anyone of the reasons for approval cited below is
sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every
reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination
that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various
benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this
Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV.
Environmental Protection and Preservation
The SPA Plan will adjust the boundary of the MSCP Subarea Preserve to include a large portion
of Wolf Canyon. As identified on Page 10-7 of the EIR, there is net benefit to conservation of
Covered Species and habitats as described on page 10-7 of the ErR.
The SPA Plan will convey 1.188 acres of land to the open space preserve for each acre of
development area, or pay a fee in lieu. The RMP has established performance standards for
achieving an 11 ,375-acre Otay Ranch open space preserve. Compliance relies on progressive
acquisition, or funding for acquisition, of the designated Otay Ranch Preserve areas with each
development approval.
The preserve includes an open space system that incorporates public education programs, links
community to natural areas, and preserves and restores sensitive habitats, special landforms,
and wildlife corridors. In addition, a system of paths and trails will connect the urban villages
and their parks, forming a passive and active recreation network throughout the area. The RMP
adopted by the Chula Vista City Council has the following functions.
. Serves as a plan-wide multi-species/habitat and cultural resources management
program;
. Provides the funding, phasing, and ownership mechanisms necessary to effectively
protect and manage on-site resources over the long term;
. Plans for coordinated, controlled public use and enjoyment of the Management Preserve
established as part of the RMP consistent with protection of sensitive resources;
. Provides certainty that the open space will be preserved in perpetuity by requiring
irrevocable dedications of open space acreage; and
88
. Preserves/protects cultural resources.
The RMP provides for management, resource enhancement and restoration, research,
education, and interpretive activities to ensure that resource values in areas to be preserved are
maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. The RMP also addresses cultural, paleontological,
recreational, and agricultural resource protection needs in addition to sensitive habitats. Finally,
the RMP provides an opportunity to establish large blocks of interconnected natural open space.
By linking the Otay Ranch Preserve system to large and adjacent publicly owned open space
lands with resource values similar to those found on the Otay Ranch property, the RMP
contributes to the creation of an overall regional open space system, providing more than
35,000 acres of interconnected open space in Otay Ranch and the immediate vicinity. The
RMP identifies the preservation of sensitive habitats that contain approximately 100 species of
sensitive plants and animals.
Community Planning and Development
The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this
pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed SPA Plan and the Village concept of
the Otay Ranch GDP are designed to minimize automobile trip length and thereby reduce
pollutant contributions to regional air quality that would otherwise result if jobs and housing were
provided for in a typical suburban development pattern.
Otay Ranch's location adjacent to the Otay Mesa industrial area will provide housing proximate
to this employment center. A mixed-use development, the GDP will promote linkage of trips,
reduce trip length, and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking,
walking and use of transit. The project is part of the GDP that creates a multi-modal
transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle trips.
It is designed to encourage walking, biking, use of transit and reduced reliance on automobiles,
the GDP clusters high-density, high-intensity development in villages near transit and light rail
terminals. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by
pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The GDP and the SPA Plan project provide the opportunity to comprehensively plan
development that meets the region's needs for housing, jobs, infrastructure, and environmental
preservation. These benefits area made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay
Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that area
typically not undertaken for smaller development projects. The regional planning process
undertaken for the GDP involved long-range inter-jurisdictional coordination, ensuring maximum
achievement of policies and regulations of both the City of Chula Vista and San Diego County.
The benefits offered by the regional planning process utilized for the GDP and the SPA Plan
include the following:
89
. Comprehensive consideration of the GDP cumulative effects;
. Consistency in the approach to resolving regional issues such as transportation, air
quality, habitat preservation, infrastructure, and public services planning; and
. Long-range coordination of local and regional public facilities.
The GDP includes a provision for designating land for regional public facilities. These facilities
area provided by the County and are currently housed in County-owned facilities, where
available, but are more commonly located in leased or rented space. Designation of land for
regional purposes will facilitate the provision of these services and provide better opportunities
for users of these facilities than is currently available with new development.
The SPA Plan will develop a mix of uses that will result in an urban village once the entire
Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four area is developed. The project is consistent with and
implements the vision for Villages Two, Three, and a portion of Four, as set forth in the Otay
Ranch GDP.
Housing Needs
The GDP and SPA Plan/Composite TM will help meet a projected long-term regional need for
housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of
housing compared to other uses (e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the
cost of other uses in the Otay Ranch area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The
GDP and the SPA Plan will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply
of suitable land for residential development.
The SPA Plan increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 2,786 dwelling units.
This proposed level of development is included in the adopted planning for the City. The project
represents a future housing supply for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market
conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing.
SANDAG has forecasted a need for an additional approximately 20,823 additional dwelling units
within the City of Chula Vista. The project will enact the SANDAG policies by providing a
pedestrian and trail system, preserving open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax
base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit system.
The SPA Plan provides five percent low-income and five percent moderate-income housing.
The proposed 10 percent affordable housing is consistent with the objectives of the City's
Housing Element and the Otay Ranch GDP requirements.
90
,
Fiscal Benefit
The fiscal impact analysis conducted for the GDP and included in the Otay Ranch Service
Revenue Plan concluded that, at buildout, the GDP will have a net positive impact on both the
City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. Because it is anticipated that during buildout
there will be short-term periods in which the costs to service Otay Ranch exceed revenues, the
GDP includes a reserve fund program, which protects the City and County by correcting any
operating deficiencies incurred by the affected jurisdiction during years where there is a fiscal
shortfall. Financing of the reserve program and the cost of annual fiscal reviews will be the
responsibility of the applicants.
The project will provide for significant community-wide public facilities. As the plan is
implemented, it will be responsible for constructing public facilities and infrastructure to serve
the project and incidentally the subregion. These facilities include:
. Improvements to regional backbone circulation system;
. Water and sewer facilities;
. An elementary school and a high school site to serve Villages Two, Three, and a portion
of Four and the subregion; and
. A public park and greenbelt and community trails.
The project would also generate new temporary construction-related jobs that would enhance
the economic base of the region.
For these reasons, on balance, the City Council finds there are environmental, economic, social,
and other considerations resulting from the project that serve to override and outweigh the
project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse unavoidable
effects are considered acceptable.
91
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: ~ "Z'
...1:. ~;
Meeting Date: Mav 10.2006
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: GPA 01-01 and PCM 01-01; Request to
amend the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) including amendments to the
Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Chula Vista
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) for Villages Two,
Three and a portion of Village Four.
Applicant - Otay Project L.P.
Otay Project, L.P. has submitted an application for necessary legislative planning actions
needed to construct 2,786 dwellings, a town center, industrial development and a
community park within Otay Ranch. In order for these objectives to be accomplished,
this application seeks to amend the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) on Villages Two, Three and a portion of Village Four
to:
1. Adjust the Chula Vista MSCP boundary for Village Two grading;
2. Increase the allowable number of dwelling units in Village Two;
3. Amend the Phase 1 and 2 RMP for consistency with the County of San Diego
MSCP including the 1995 Baldwin Letter Agreement; and
4. Eliminate the RMP Phase 2 Preserve Conveyance Schedule.
Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and Four are located at the western edge of the Otay
Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway (Poggi Canyon), west of the future extension of
La Media Road, east and southeast of the Otay Landfill and north of the future extension
of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road (Attachment 1 - Locator Map).
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined
that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, a
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-02-02) has been prepared. Certification
of the Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-02-02) for this project will be
considered by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
Resolution No. PCM 01-01 recommending the City Council approve amendments
to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP) including amendments to the Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management
Plan (RMP) and Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) for
Villages Two, Three and a portion of Village Four.
Page 2, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/10/06
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on April 17, 2006 to consider the Final
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-02-02) and voted 6-0 to recommend
certification of the document.
DISCUSSION:
I. Background
In October of 1993, the City Council adopted the Otay Ranch GDP, including the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) that identified the policies for the formation of the
Preserve. The GDP designated Village Two as an urban village without Light Rail
Transit (LRT) service. In 1997, the City annexed 9,100 acres of the GDP area, known as
the "Otay Valley Parcel", into the City and entered into an agreement with the County of
San Diego to limit land uses within 1,000 feet of the Otay Landfill operation to non-
residential uses. In a subsequent amendment, the area within the "Landfill Buffer" was
designated Light Industrial as indicated on the current General Plan. In 1996, in
conjunction with the approval of the Village One SPA Plan, the City Council adopted
RMP Phase 2 that delineated how the Preserve was to be conveyed to the Preserve Owner
Manager.
On December 13, 2005, the City Council adopted the City of Chula Vista's
Comprehensive General Plan Update, which also included amendments to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The December 2005 amendments to the City's
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP increased the permissible maximum number of
units in Village Two from 1,719 (709 single-family residential units and 586 multi-family
residential units) to 2,510 dwelling units (709 single-family residential units and 1,801
multi-family residential units). These amendments also relocated the community park to
Village Four and relocated the Village Core's mixed-use area within Village Two. As
part of the General Plan Update, transit service was changed from LRT to Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) and service was expanded with two additional lines. Since one of those
lines provides BRT service to Village Two, the 2005 GPU/GDPA also changed the multi-
family densities from 14 dwelling units per acre to 18 dwelling units per acre to support
the transit stop within the village. Village Three remains primarily industrial serving as a
transition from existing industrial areas to the Otay Ranch residential villages. Village
Four became the new location for the Community Park and the remainder of the village is
anticipated to be developed as low density single-family residential units.
The Otay Ranch GDP also lays out the circulation system and defines the village
boundaries for the Otay Valley Parcel that includes Villages Two, Three and Four. A
"Village Concept" is envisioned and described as mixed-use centers with opportunities
Page 3, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0106
for employment and shopping among other uses within the Village Core and provides a
framework of design elements for each use. Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four
were designed with this concept as described in the Otay Ranch GDP.
II. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
The City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP designated the land within the Otay
Valley Parcel for urban villages and pedestrian friendly development. Otay Ranch
villages are designed within a village concept. This concept locates higher residential
densities and a variety of mixed uses within the "Village Core", and then surrounds the
core with a secondary area oflower density single-family homes.
The General Plan identifies Villages Two and Three as being within the Western District
of the Otay Ranch Subarea and Village Four as being within the Central District. The
General Plan designates residential land uses in Village Two as Residential Low Medium
(3-6 dwelling units per acre). In addition, there is a Village Core located within Village
Two that contains two neighborhood parks (NP) and an elementary school (ES). Village
Three is designated as "light industrial" in the General Plan and the portion of Village
Four included in this project is designated as Community Park (CP).
The Otay Ranch GDP authorizes 2,510 dwelling units (709 single-family and 1,801
multi-family), Industrial, parks and schools for Village Two, Industrial (I) development
for Village Three and a Community Park for the portion of Village Four included within
this application.
III. Proposed Plan
A. General Plan Amendments
1. MSCP Boundary Adjustment
The City of Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan is included as an element of the
City of Chula Vista's General Plan. Amendments to the Chula Vista Subarea
Plan require amending the General Plan.
The applicant is proposing to adjust the MSCP Preserve boundary to
accommodate the grading limits of Village Two and include additional lands in
the MSCP Preserve. The proposed boundary adjustment would remove Preserve
in the western fork of Wolf Canyon and add Preserve in the northern portion of
the main drainage of the canyon (Exhibit 2 - Proposed Boundary Adjustment to
the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve). The proposed boundary adjustment would add
approximately 26 acres of land that is currently developable to the Preserve and
pennit development on approximately 18 acres of land currently identified as
Preserve in the MSCP Subarea Plan. This would result in a net increase of
approximately 8 acres to the Preserve.
Page 4, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0/06
Analysis:
The City's Subarea Plan pennits boundary adjustments that result in a Preserve
configuration with biological values that are equal to or higher than the current
configuration. The proposed boundary adjustment would increase the size of the
City's Preserve and provide for conservation of higher value habitat. The land
proposed to be removed from the Preserve has been, and can continue to be,
cultivated and is generally void of sensitive habitat while the land that is proposed
to be added to the Preserve contains approximately 16 acres of maritime succulent
scrub, a rare upland habitat, and conserves an estimated 25,000 Otay tarplants.
The proposed boundary adjustment would pennit a superior grading plan for
Village Two that would not be accomplished under the current Preserve
configuration. With the inclusion of the western fork of Wolf Canyon in the
development area, filling that portion of the canyon would allow for the creation
of a relatively flat Village Core. The creation of a pedestrian friendly Village Core
complies with the goals and objectives of both the City's General Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP.
The proposed boundary adjustment is consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and the MSCP Subarea Plan. The
proposed boundary adjustment would result in a superior Preserve design and the
City has received concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Game for the proposed boundary
adjustment.
2. Increase In Pennissible Units
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan and Otay Ranch
GDP to increase the pennissible number of units in Village Two from a maximum
of 2,510 units to a maximum of 2,786 units. This proposal would increase the
number of pennissible single-family residential units from 709 to 986 single-
family units and reduce the number of pennissible multi-family units from 1,801
to 1,800 multi-family units in Village Two. The proposal would result in an
additional 276 dwelling units being pennitted within Village Two (Attachment 9
- Otay Ranch GDP Village Two Amended Land Use Table).
Analysis:
The City's General Plan identifies Village Two as being within the Western
District of the City. General Plan Objective-LUT 78 describes a higher density,
mixed-use Village Core within the Village Two area to serve Village Two, as well
as nearby communities. General Plan Policy LUT 78.5 envisions the
intensification of multi-family residential densities and commercial uses to
enhance transit use.
Page 5, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0/06
The Otay Ranch GDP, as adopted in 1993, identified the core of Village Two as
having a multi-family density of approximately 10.0 units to the acre. With the
addition of a transit stop to the Village Core in 2005, the Otay Ranch GDP was
amended and the density permitted within the core was increased to 18.0 units to
the acre. The increase in density intends to enhance transit use, reduce automotive
dependency and promote social interaction. The current Otay Ranch GDP
identifies Village Two as an Urban Village and includes a transit station within
the Village Core. Urban Villages are described as being adjacent to existing urban
development and being planned for transit-oriented development with higher
densities and mixed uses in the village cores. General Plan policy, in addition to
the Otay Ranch GDP increase in density within the Village Core, results in the
additional 276 units. While the overall number of multi-family units has not
increased, the multi-family portions of the proposed project are being intensified
in the Village Core.
The proposed boundary adjustment discussed above, also impacts the overall
number of units proposed in the project. By grading a relatively flat Village Core,
pursuant to the policies contained in the Otay Ranch GDP, and filling the western
fork of Wolf Canyon (as described above), the proposal would allow for
additional large lot single-family homes along the northern rim of Wolf Canyon.
The location of these homes along Wolf Canyon is in conformance with General
Plan Policy LUT 77.2 that describes the need to limit land uses adjacent to open
space to lower density, large-lot, single-family residential and limited industrial or
business parks.
Based on the foregoing, the increase in the number of permissible units within
Village Two is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Chula
Vista's General Plan as well as the Otay Ranch GDP.
3. Baldwin 1995 Letter Agreement
In November of 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department
of Fish and Game, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and the owner of the
Otay Ranch (then the Baldwin Company) entered into a letter agreement
(Attachment 3 - 1995 Baldwin Letter Agreement) to enhance the long-term
viability and sustainability of the Otay Ranch and the MSCP Preserve system.
Specifically, the parties agreed to eliminate development that had already been
approved in the Otay Ranch GDP for approximately 139 acres of development in
Otay Ranch Village 13 (Resort Site) and approximately 98 acres of development
in Otay Ranch Village 15 (Attachment 4 - 1995 Letter Agreement Preserve
Modifications Graphic). The deletion of these areas was deemed to provide
significant contributions to the long-term sustainability of the Preserve as they
contained high-quality habitat and/or contributed significantly to the connectivity
and integrated size of the Preserve system.
Page 6, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0106
In exchange for the elimination of these development areas, the parties agreed to
eliminate the Otay Ranch GDP coastal sage scrub restoration requirement, as well
as allow development in areas that had been approved as part of the preserve, but
contained low-quality, fragmented and isolated habitats. These areas, including
portions of Village One, One West (62 acres combined) and Village Two West
(56.8 acres) were to be removed from the Preserve and identified for
development.
On November 10, 1998, the City of Chula Vista City Council approved an
amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP to reflect the
negotiated boundary changes in Village One, One West and Village 13 and 15.
The currently proposed General Plan amendment would include deletion of the
preserve areas within Village Two West.
Analvsis:
On July 18, 2001, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a General Plan
amendment and Otay Ranch Subregional Plan (SRP) amendment to eliminate
development areas in Otay Ranch Village 13 and 15 consistent with the 1995
Letter Agreement. The terms of the 1995 Letter Agreement contribute to the
long-term viability of the preserve system and accordingly were also incorporated
into the County MSCP Subarea Plan. The deletion of the Preserve areas within
Village Two West would bring consistency with the County of San Diego's
MSCP Subarea Plan and the City of Chula Vista adopted Subarea Plan.
B. General Development Plan Amendments
1. Previously Described Plan Changes
As described and analyzed above, the applicant proposes to amend the General
Plan to: 1) process a boundary adjustment in the upper reaches of Wolf Canyon;
2) increase the number of permissible units from a maximum of 2,510 units to a
maximum of 2,786 units; and 3) delete the Preserve areas within Village Two
West. These items would also require an amendment to the Otay Ranch GDP. In
addition, the following two items would require amendments to the Otay Ranch
GDP:
· Deletion of the Avian Corridor, and;
· Elimination of Coastal Sage Restoration Requirement in accordance with the
1995 Letter Agreement.
In addition to the boundary changes formalized in the 1995 Letter Agreement, the
GDP would also be amended to delete the "potential" avian corridor between
Village Two West and Wolf Canyon, as well as to the eliminate the Otay Ranch
GDP coastal sage restoration requirement.
Page 7, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/10/06
Analysis:
Deletion of the Avian Corridor
The adopted GDP includes a conceptual "potential" avian corridor connecting
Preserve areas within Poggi Canyon and Wolf Canyon. Wolf Canyon is an
extension of the Preserve system from the Otay River Valley, capturing live-in
habitat for birds and smaller mammal species. While Wolf Canyon is identified in
the Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Study as a local corridor for target mammal
species, it is not designated a regional wildlife movement corridor and, therefore,
offers little linkage value. The deletion of the avian corridor would not
significantly alter the ability of wildlife (including target mammal species as
identified in the Wildlife Corridor Study) to move through the area, and would not
preclude linkages of habitat.
The primary function of the western fork of Wolf Canyon in the original RMP
Preserve design was to accommodate a manufactured corridor between Wolf
Canyon and coastal sage scrub resources in Poggi Canyon. However, as a result
of the exchange of Preserve areas, the proposed corridor is no longer proposed
because it would not serve any functional purpose. The benefits of the 1995
Letter Agreement provide an overall improved MSCP Preserve design and
function. Deletion of the avian corridor would not impede overall wildlife
movement within the preserve.
Elimination of Coastal Sage Restoration Requirement
Policy 3.4 and Chapter 4 of the GDP requires a coastal sage restoration program
and sets standards for conservation levels of coastal sage scrub and maritime
succulent scrub habitat, including a conservation target of 1,300 acres of coastal
sage restoration, which is anticipated to be achieved through a combination of
preservation and restoration of disturbed and/or non-native habitat.
The proposed action would eliminate the requirement for coastal sage scrub
restoration, but would not affect the maritime succulent scrub restoration
requirement. This action is consistent with the provisions of the 1995 Letter
Agreement, which specifically removed the coastal sage scrub restoration
requirement in exchange for other benefits to the MSCP. The intent of the 1995
Letter Agreement was, among other things, to ensure that the Otay Ranch was
incorporated into both the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and County MSCP Subarea
Plan. The primary advantage of incorporating the Otay Ranch into both the Chula
Vista Subarea Plan and County MSCP Subarea Plan was to provide greater
assurance of 10ng-tenn conservation and management of biological resources. In
exchange for the long-tenn benefits derived by including the Otay Ranch in the
MSCP program, and in exchange for elimination of the otherwise developable
areas identified above, the parties to the 1995 Letter Agreement collectively
agreed to a number of revisions to the Otay Ranch land plan as well as the
Page 8, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/10/06
deletion of the coastal sage scrub restoration requirement. The terms of the 1995
Letter Agreement contributed to the long-term viability of the Preserve system
and provided an improved design within the Otay Ranch. The deletion of the
costal sage requirement was considered in the negotiated terms of the agreement
and the overall benefits of the Preserve changes provided greater assurances for
high-quality coastal sage preservation.
2. Elimination of Preserve Conveyance Schedule
The applicant is proposing to amend the Otay Ranch GDP to eliminate the
Preserve Conveyance Schedule and allow Villages Two, Three and a Portion of
Four, as well as all future Villages, to convey any Otay Ranch Preserve lands in
satisfaction of each Village's conveyance requirement.
Analysis:
Part II of the Otay Ranch GDP and Policy 5.6 of the Resource Management Plan
(RMP) One require the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego (in
coordination with the Preserve Owner Manager) to develop and approve a plan
for the orderly conveyance of dedicated parcels of land to the preserve
(Attachment 5 - Adopted RMP Preserve). Both the City and County adopted a
preserve conveyance schedule with the RMP Phase 2 and subsequently amended
the conveyance schedule with the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan (Attachment 6 -
SP A One Conveyance Schedule). The conveyance schedule essentially
establishes a priority for lands to be conveyed into the preserve. Lands with the
highest quality resources and/or in the most vulnerable areas, beginning with what
were termed "keystone" parcels, were to be conveyed first.
Since the adoption of the Otay Ranch SPA One Conveyance Schedule, the
majority of the preserve lands in the schedule that met these requirements: (a)
have been offered for dedication already; (b) are to be offered for dedication as a
condition of development approval, or; (c) have been acquired for purposes of
non-Otay Ranch mitigation or for preservation as permanent open space.
Approximately 1,225 acres of available mitigation land remain within the SPA
One Conveyance Schedule, which has not been conveyed or is pending
conveyance (Attachment 7 - Conveyances/Pending Conveyances and Third Party
Acquisitions). The remaining 1,225 acres of SPA One Conveyance Schedule land
will not be enough to meet the applicant's conveyance obligations for their
pending SPA Plan application and foreseeable Otay Ranch development
(Attachment 8 - Land in SPA One Conveyance Schedule Available for
Conveyance). The applicant estimates that approximately 1,998 acres of
conveyance obligation will result from this application as well as those for their
portion of the Freeway Commercial site and Village 13 (within the County of San
Diego). Future developments by other landowners within Otay Ranch (i.e. the
Page 9, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0/06
Eastern Urban Center, Villages Eight and Nine, etc.) will require the conveyance
of additional lands above and beyond the 1,998 acres identified above.
The majority of the SPA One Conveyance Schedule has already been acquired or
conveyed for dedication to the preserve, or will be offered as a condition of
approved development. Given these circumstances, sufficient land is not
available to satisfy the conveyance requirement for the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan and other foreseeable projects. In addition,
circumstances have also changed since the adoption of the SPA One Conveyance
Schedule such that equally valuable and high quality biological resources have
been found on other Preserve lands within the Otay Ranch.
C. Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management Plan Amendments
As part the adoption of the Otay Ranch GDP in 1993, the City Council and San
Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Resource Management Plan
(RMP). This GDP document established the policies for habitat preservation and
management of the Otay Ranch Preserve. It required that prior to the approval of
the first SPA Plan, Phase 2 of the plan be approved by both jurisdictions to
establish the implementation policies for the Preserve. The Phase 2 RMP adopted
with the SPA One Plan sets the boundary and size of the Preserve at 11,375 acres,
set the conveyance ratio at 1.188 acre of Preserve land for every acre of
development and excludes public or common land uses such as schools and parks
from a conveyance obligation.
The applicant proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 RMP to
implement the aforementioned changes related to the following:
1. To refine the Otay Ranch RMP Preserve boundary to accommodate the
grading limits of Village Two and include additional lands in the RMP
Preserve.
2. Amend the RMP to reflect the previously described elements of the 1995
Letter Agreement:
a. Delete the "potential avian corridor" between Village Two West and
Wolf Canyon;
b. Eliminate three development areas totaling approximately 139 acres
within Village 13 and thereby convert to open space;
c. Eliminate development from approximately 98 acres within Village
13 and thereby convert to open space
d. Expand the development area by approximately 62 acres in Villages
One and One West
e. Delete Preserve areas in Village Two West; and
f. Eliminate the Otay Ranch RMP coastal sage restoration requirement.
Page 10, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/1 0106
Analvsis:
Amending the Preserve boundaries to add the development area in the western
fork of Wolf Canyon is consistent with the MSCP and GDP boundary adjustment
previously discussed in Section A.I. Depositing dirt from the Village Core in the
canyon will create a more walkable community with a flatter village. The other
RMP amendments are necessary to make the RMP consistent with the MSCP and
Otay Ranch GDP.
The proposed amendments would bring the Otay Ranch General Plan, GDP and
RMP into conformance with the County of San Diego's MSCP Subarea Plan and
the amendments adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, which
implemented the negotiated provisions of the 1995 Letter Agreement.
D. City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
As described and analyzed above, the proposed project includes a MSCP
boundary adjustment to accommodate the grading limits of Village Two and
include additional lands in the MSCP Preserve. The proposed Boundary
Adjustment would also require an amendment to the City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. The proposed Boundary Adjustment is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the City's General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP and the MSCP
Subarea Plan. The proposed boundary adjustment would result in a superior
preserve design and has received concurrence from the Resource Agencies.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan with the
proposed revisions will increase the size of the Preserve, allow additional units and
developable area within Village Two, bring the City's MSCP Subarea Plan into
conformance with the County's and eliminate the Preserve Conveyance Schedule to
permit conveyance of any Preserve lands to meet each Village's conveyance
requirements. These amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Otay
Ranch GDP because better quality habitat is preserved, more high quality habitat is
preserved, the additional Village Two units and developable land within Village Two
creates a better pedestrian environment, brings consistency between City and County
MSCP Subarea Plans and allows any land within the preserve to be conveyed to the
Preserve Owner/Manager.
Attachments:
1. Locator Map
2. Proposed Boundary Adjustment to the Chula Vista MSCP
Preserve
3. 1995 Baldwin Letter Agreement
4. 1995 Letter Agreement Preserve Modifications Graphic
5. Adopted RMP Preserve
6. SPA One Conveyance Schedule
Page 11, Item:_
Meeting Date: 05/10/06
7. Conveyances/Pending Conveyances and Third Party
Acquisitions
8. Land in SPA One Conveyance Schedule Available for
Conveyance
9. Otay Ranch GDP Village Two Amended Land Use Table
10. Planning Commission Resolution (GP A 01-01)
11. Draft City Council Resolution
H:\PLANNING\scorrD\PC AGENDA STATEMENT GPA, GDPA & RMPA.DOC
PROJECT
lOCATION
\
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLlCANl: The Otay Ranch Company ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT South of Olympic Pkwy and
ADDRESS: East of Otay Landfill. Village 2,3 and 4 (Portion)
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale EIR-02-02
J: \plan ning\carlos \locators\eir0202.cdr 02.28.06
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: y, D- ~
Meeting Date: Mav 10.2006
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM-06-05; Consideration of a Tentative
Subdivision Map for Village Two and a Portion of Village Four of
Otay Ranch.
Applicant: Otay Project L.P.
Otay Project L.P. has applied for approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide
approximately 702.5 gross acres of land in Village Two into 1,252 lots. The tentative
map proposes 1,055 single-family residential lots, 10 multi-family residential lots
containing 1,416 units. The tentative map proposes lots for the elementary school, parks,
community purpose facilities, mixed-use, industrial and commercial lots as authorized by
the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and determined
that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, a
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) has been prepared. Certification
of the Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report for this project (EIR 02-02) will be
considered by the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt:
· Resolution No. PCM-06-05 recommending that the City Council approve the
Village Two and a Portion of Four Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 06-05).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The Resource Conservation Commission met on April 17, 2006 to consider the Final
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) and voted 6-0 to recommend
certification of the document.
DISCUSSION:
Existin2 Site Characteristics
Villages Two and Four are located in the western section of the Otay Valley Parcel in
Otay Ranch. Village Two is approximately 775 acres and is bound on the north by
Olympic Parkway, on the south by Wolf Canyon, on the east by La Media Road, on the
southwest by the Otay Landfill and on the northwest by the Sunbow Industrial Park. The
44.6 gross-acre portion of Village Four is bound by Wolf Canyon to the north and west,
La Media Road to the east and the remainder of Village Four to the south. A City of San
Page 2, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 10. 2006
Diego waterline fee strip/easement runs through the Community Park site, Wolf Canyon
and portions of Village Two. The fee strip/easement is proposed to be left in place as part
of this project.
General Plan. Zonine: and Land Use
The General Plan identifies Village Two in the Western District of the Otay Ranch
Subarea and Village Four in the Central District. The General Plan designates residential
land uses in Village Two as Residential Low-Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre). In
addition, there is a village core located within Village Two that contains two
neighborhood parks (NP) and an elementary school (ES). A portion of Village Four is
included in this project and is designated as community park (CP) in the General Plan.
The Otay Ranch GDP authorizes 2,510 dwelling units (709 single-family and 1,801
multi-family) for Village Two and a community park for the portion of Village Four
included within this application. The proposed tentative subdivision map relies on the
approval of amendments to the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan (as described in GPA-OI-0l and PCM-OI-0l). The Village Two, Three
and a Portion of Four Planned Community (PC) District Regulations establish separate
zoning districts for the village land uses as described in Table 1.
SYMBOL
SF2
SF3
SF4
RMl
RM2
CPF
MU
P
OSI
Table 1
PC District Zoning Designations and Definitions
DEFINITION
Single Family Two: District which permits single-family housing located on
lots >8,750 s uare-feet
Single Family Three: District which permits single-family housing located on
lots from 5,000 to 8,749 s uare-feet.
Single Family Four: District which permits single-family housing located on
lots <5,000 s uare-feet.
Residential Multi-Family One: District which permits housing ranging from 8
units/acre to 14.9 units/acre including small lot single-family, alley, duplex,
townhouse and stacked flat roduct es.
Residential Multi-Family Two: District which permits housing at densities from
15+ units/acre.
Community Purpose Facility: District which permit uses established pursuant to
the Communi Pu ose Facili re uirements of the PC Re ulations.
Mixed-Use: District which permits commercial uses such as, but not limited to,
retail shops, professional offices and service commercial within the Village
Core. Transfer of residential uses into this district may be permitted above or
connected to the commercial uses.
Parks: District which permits allowable open space and park uses including
community parks, neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, town squares and
rivate arks.
Open Space One: District which permits developed or usable open space and
ark uses, and ma include naturalized 0 en s ace.
Page 3, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 10.2006
SYMBOL
OS2
DEFINITION
Open Space Two: District which permits natural, undisturbed and/or restored
open space, which is part of the Otay Ranch Preserve.
Villages Two and Four are currently vacant land that has been used for agricultural in the
past. To the north, Olympic Parkway separates the Village Two from the Village of
Heritage (Village One). Villages Six and Seven are to the east of the project site along the
southerly extension of La Media Road. The Otay Landfill borders the project site to the
south of Village Two West and west of the main portion of Village Two. Wolf Canyon,
located within the Otay Ranch Preserve, borders Village Two to the south and Village
Four to the north. The community park site is also bound by La Media Road and Village
Seven to the east, the remainder of Village Four and its planned single-family residences
to the south.
Proposed Plan
Land Use
The tentative map proposes to subdivide Village Two (approximately 775 acres) into
1,055 single-family residential lots, 10 multi-family residential lots containing 1,416
units, 13 master open space lots, 158 HOA maintained lots, one school lot, five park lots,
five community purpose facility lots, three mixed-use lots, three industrial lots and one
commercial lot as authorized by the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The map proposed to create a 44.6-acre lot for a portion of the
70-acre community park. The Village Two SPA Plan authorizes 2,786 units for Village
Two and the community park for approximately 44.2 acres of Village Four. The tentative
map application proposes 2,784 units. The proposed tentative subdivision map relies on
the approval of amendments to the City's General Plan, the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan and the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan (as described in GPA-01-01 and PCM-01-01).
The proposed project site is constrained by a City of San Diego waterline that traverses
the site. The waterline enters the community park property from the south and travels
north to Wolf Canyon and Village Two. The waterline parallels the back of Otay Ranch
High School's property and then connects to the waterline in Olympic Parkway. The
project proposes to leave the waterline in place, however, the applicant is in negotiations
with the City of San Diego to relocate the waterline to La Media Road. Those
negotiations are on going.
The Village Two core is located on State Street and runs east between Santa Victoria
Road and Santa Diana Road. From east to west, the Village Core includes the 11.9-acre
commercial (C-l) site, a 1.3-acre Community Purpose Facility site (CPF-4) and the 4.4-
acre mixed-use (MU-3) area that will incorporate 38 units along State Street. Adjacent to
the roundabout, a 1.4-acre mixed-use site (MU-2), that includes 12 residential units and a
6.9-acre neighborhood park (P-3) are located on the comer of Santa Diana Road and
Santa Victoria Road. East of the MU-2 site, multi-family residential Neighborhood R-29
Page 4, Item: _
Meeting Date: May 10. 2006
will include 152 units on 17.1 acres and multi-family residential Neighborhood R-Il will
include 144 units on 14.5 acres. Village Two's 1O.3-acre elementary school site (S-I) and
a 7.1-acre neighborhood parks (P-2) will occupy the center of the village. The village
core ends at the western roundabout with a I.O-acre town square (P-l), a 1.6-acre mixed-
use site (MU-l) and multi-family residential Neighborhood R-28 that includes 85 units
on 14.4 acres.
Circulation
Vehicular access to Village Two is proposed from seven different locations in the Project
as provided for in the Village Two SPA Plan. The project proposes a series of Transit
Village Entry Streets, Secondary Village Entry Streets and Residential Promenade Streets
leading into, and within, the village core from Olympic Parkway, La Media Road and
Heritage Road.
The SPA Plan's Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) indicates the intersection of
Heritage Road and Olympic Parkway will exceed the City's thresholds at 1,276
equivalent dwelling units (EDU), and a second access to the village necessary. The
conditions of approval require Heritage Road to be extended to Main StreetIRock
Mountain Road prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 1,276 EDU in Village
Two.
Two alternative alignments are proposed for the intersection of Heritage Road and Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road. The ultimate alignment of Heritage Road south of Main
Street will require the construction of a new road and bridge across the Otay River, which
the City of San Diego will assist in financing. However, San Diego's funding will most
likely occur after the build-out of Village Two. The ultimate intersection is 40 feet higher
than the existing grade of Main Street and Heritage Road to the south. An interim
solution is proposed to provide access to Main Street until the City of San Diego funding
is available to build the ultimate alignment of Heritage Road and the new Otay River
bridge. The interim solution does provide sufficient capacity for the build-out of Village
Two.
The centerpiece of Village Two will be the entry on State Street. This Transit Village
Entry Street will bring residents into the village core from La Media Road. State Street is
a 143-foot wide street with landscaped median for much of its length. Two travel lanes
adjacent to diagonal parking spaces create an urban environment that will adjoin the
Village Pathway on the north and a concrete pathway on the south. Buildings will be
pulled-up to the back of the pathway, and neck-downs will create a pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere. Village Entry and Secondary Village Entry Streets connect State Street to
the rest of the village core. Santa Victoria Street is the major east/west connection within
Village Two. It starts as a Village Entry Street with on-street diagonal parking south of
the eastern roundabout and then continues as a Secondary Village Entry through its
intersection with Heritage Road and on to Olympic Parkway.
Page 5, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 10. 2006
A series of tree-lined Residential Promenade Streets connect the residential
neighborhoods to the village core. Consistent with other villages in Otay Ranch,
residential streets are 32 feet wide with two lO-foot travel lanes and 6-foot parking lanes
on each side of the road. Residential streets are bordered by an 8-foot parkway that
includes turf and street trees and 5-foot sidewalks. This design encourages pedestrian
friendly movement and an inviting streetscape. Consistent with the policies of the Otay
Ranch GDP, a strong "grid pattern" of streets is proposed throughout the village to
minimize residential cul-de-sacs and provide multiple points of access to the village core
or elsewhere.
Vehicular traffic, while important for circulation in all Otay Ranch villages, is considered
secondary to pedestrian traffic in the proposed project. As required by the Otay Ranch
GDP, streets are designed to be narrower to reduce vehicular speeds and cul-de-sacs are
only used at the edge of the villages. In addition, 'traffic calming" devices such as
"roundabouts" and "neck-downs" are used.
Gradinf!
The proposed grading plan for the proposed tentative map is designed to comply with the
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP policies for landform grading. The grading
concept for the proposed project is based on the following principles: create a fairly level
village core, use landform grading techniques adjacent to arterial roads to make slopes
look natural, balance earthwork, create and maintain views, use elevation changes to
separate potential land use conflicts, minimize impacts to surrounding canyons, and
create a usable 44-plus acre park.
The grading proposed by the applicant will create a relatively level village core and
would provide for cut and fill totaling 29,668,000 cubic yards (14,834,000 cubic yards of
cut and 14,834,000 cubic yards of fill). Cut and fill areas are shown on Attachment 2.
Contour grading techniques are proposed on all man-made slopes along La Media Road,
Heritage Road, Olympic Parkway and along Wolf Canyon to mimic natural slopes in the
vicinity. A significant off-site retaining wall is proposed along Heritage Road adjacent to
the Otay Landfill. This wall is 22 feet high at its highest. The applicant has proposed to
meander the wall, provide planting pockets and use plantable construction to minimize
the visual impacts to the extent possible.
Due to the large naturally occurring hillsides directly south of Olympic Parkway a
number of large man-made slopes will occur on the perimeter of the project. Slopes in
excess of 100 feet will occur at the southeast and southwest comers of Olympic Parkway
and Heritage Road, along the project's Olympic Parkway interface and where La Media
Road crosses Wolf Canyon. The grading plan also proposes large slopes on the southern
portion of the community park site as La Media Road climbs out of the canyon. The
perimeter slopes of the project are also included in the 75-foot wide (average) landscape
and open space buffers from each of the three roads on the project's boundary.
Page 6, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 10.2006
Parks. Recreation. Open Space and Trails
Pedestrian pathways are provided throughout the proposed project to connect internal
paths to regional trails located on the perimeter of the project. A hierarchy of pathways
will connect the pedestrian within and outside of the village (see Attachment 3). The 15-
foot Village Pathway will connect residents to the village core, regional trails and other
villages via pedestrian bridges over the arterial roadways. This project includes two
pedestrian bridges connecting Village Two with Village Six to the east and connecting
Village Two to Village One to the north (currently under construction). Promenade
streets, with street trees on both sides of the sidewalk, will connect pedestrians to the
village core, residential areas, pedestrian parks and the Village Pathway.
The Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four project contains a wide variety of open
space areas to promote the overall open space element of Otay Ranch. The Village
Greenway, which provides a 75-foot average open space corridor, will connect Village
Seven with the community park site on Village Four. In addition, Olympic Parkway,
Heritage Road and La Media Road also provide a 75-foot average open space buffer
along these arterial roadways.
A proposed 44.6-acre portion of the planned 70-acre community park will be the major
public park in the project. In addition, the village core contains a lA-acre Town Square
(P-1), a 7.1-acre neighborhood park (P-2), and a 6.3-acre neighborhood park (P-3) near
the westerly terminus of State Street. The applicant is also proposing two private Home
Owners Association maintained parks (CPF-1 and 2) near Neighborhoods R-7 and R-23.
Consistent with the requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP),
the proposed project must convey land to the Otay Ranch Preserve. The development of
one acre of land in Otay Ranch requires the dedication of 1.188-acres of land to the Otay
Ranch Preserve with the approval of each Final Map. As required by the RMP, the
project is obligated to convey 769.9 acres of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve Owner/
Manager (City and County of San Diego).
Community Purpose Facility
The tentative map for Village Two will not fulfill the Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
obligation as identified in the SPA Plan. With an estimated population of 8,458 persons
in Village Two, 11.8 acres of CPF land is required (1.39 acres per 1,000 residents). The
proposed project includes five CPF sites totaling 6.1 acres. Three of the sites are
proposed Private Recreations Facilities ranging in size from 0.9 to 1.7 acres, while the
other two are "floating sites" located in Neighborhood R-12 (0.8-acres pedestrian park)
and the Commercial (C-1) site (1.5 acres for a potential day care). The remaining SPA
Plan obligation is proposed to be met by a 10.2-acre CPF site located in Village Three
Industrial area of the SPA Plan. The applicant has agreed to process a SPA Plan and
tentative map amendment pursuant to the conditions of approval for the SPA Plan to
locate a 3- to 5-acre CPF site in the Village Two core.
Page 7, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 10. 2006
Residential Nei5!hborhoods
Fourteen single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed to contain 986 single-
family residences ranging from 2.9 to 7.7 units per acre on lot sizes ranging from
approximately 2,890 square feet to 18,938 square feet. Retaining walls are used
extensively throughout the single-family neighborhoods. While small 1.5- to 2-foot walls
in the side yards help identify property boundaries, some rear yards have walls up to 7
feet tall with a minimum rear yard set back of 15 feet. Staff believes any rear yard wall
over 4.5 feet should be terraced or plantable. The conditions of approval include this
requirement.
Thirteen multi-family developments (including three mixed-use sites) provide an
additional 1,800 dwelling units, which range from 8.3 to 21.1 units per acre. These multi-
family developments will incorporate a variety of housing types including alley homes,
townhouses, condominiums and apartments. Each of the multi-family developments will
provide street frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience and provide a human scale.
In higher density multi-family neighborhoods, individual pedestrian connections to some
of the units will be provided as well. The following table is a summary of the residential
land uses within Village Two:
Table 2
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Neighborhood Land Use Tentative Tentative Target Lot Size
I Area Map Map DU's/Acre Min
Acreage Dwelling
Units
VilIae:e Two - Single-Family
R-4 SF 41.5 160 3.9 2,885
R-6 SF 12.6 63 5.0 5,060
R-7 SF 9.4 44 4.7 6,100
R-8 SF 10.1 50 5.1 5,060
R-9 SF 13.5 101 7.6 3,799
R-15 SF 8.0 45 6.3 4,343
R-18A SF 11.1 65 5.6 4,250
R-18B SF 11.1 48 4.4 6,132
R-19 SF 10.8 83 7.7 3,868
R-20 SF 19.5 83 4.3 6,478
R-21 SF 21.8 62 2.9 8,750
R-23 SF 13.5 71 5.4 5,060
R-24 SF 8.0 41 5.4 5,240
R-25A SF 4.5 34 7.2 3,800
R-25B SF 4.9 34 6.9 3,727
Subtotal 200.3 984 4.9 --
VilIae:e Two - Multi-Family
R-5 SF 15.7 130 8.3 2,885
R-lO MF 3.3 90 20.0 --
Page 8, Item: _
Meeting Date: Mav 10. 2006
Neighborhood Land Use Tentative Tentative Target Lot Size
I Area Map Map DU's/Acre Min
Acreage Dwelling
Units
R-11 MF 14.5 144 14.5 --
R-12 MF 23.5 295 12.3 --
R-13 MF 10.4 149 14.5 --
R-14 MF 7.8 137 18.0 --
R-16 MF 2.6 74 21.1 --
R-17 SF 13.7 119 13.7 2,890
R-26 MF 9.0 75 8.5 --
R-27 MF 7.5 110 12.5 --
R-28 MF 5.6 85 14.4 --
R-29 MF 6.9 152 17.1 --
R-30 MF 10.3 180 17.6 --
Subtotal 130.8 1,740 13.3 --
VilIae:e Two - Mixed Use
MU-1 MU 1.6 10 6.3 --
MU-2 MU 1.4 12 8.6 --
MU-3 MU 4.4 38 8.6 --
Subtotal 7.4 60 8.1 --
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 338.5 2,786 - -
CONCLUSION:
With its strong grid system of streets, extensive use of traffic claiming techniques,
emphasis on pedestrian circulation and facilities, mix of uses in the "Main Street" theme,
and variety of housing types, the Village Two tentative map is consistent with, and
implements, the Otay Ranch GDP (as amended) as well as the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan policies. In addition, the map proposes a 44.6-acre parcel for
the community park.
Staff believes that the proposed tentative map for Village Two and a Portion of Four is
consistent with the approved Otay Ranch GDP and the Village Two SPA Plan policies
and recommends approval of the tentative map subject to the Conditions of Approval (see
Draft Council Resolution, Attachment 5).
Attachments:
1. Locator Map
2. SPA Plan Cut and Fill Plan
3. SPA Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
4. Planning Commission Resolution PCS-06-05
5. Draft City Council Resolution
6. Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 06-05)
7. Disclosure Statement
H:\PLANNING\sCOTTD\PC AGENDA STATEMENT V2 TM.DOC
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~I~~: The Otay Ranch Company PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 ::~' ~~~I~fb~~~~d~'~ and Village 2, 3 and 4 (Portion) Tentative Map.
NORTH . No Scale
OT A Y RANCH VILLAGES Two, THREE AND A PORTION OF FOUR
IV. Grading
,
,
'-..--
Exhibit 37
Cut and Fill Plan
78
2/2006
DRAFT
OT A Y RANCH VILLAGES TwO, THREE AND A PORTION OF FOUR
V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan
YlU,4lf&-or~1f&-
(11.0
~f/IttS
wr.,. 0-"''''
UlMItIf ~ 1/".,
North
EB
ru1..1I
500' 1000'
~~m:~~:::;,~uonsshown / '
,
/'
,
/'
,
/'
,
,
\
\/
,
..... -.. . \ ,
--- . . ':--
, o.n..,..;!vt'
y-~
Exhibit 40
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
LEGEND
Y0" ~1IfY<I1 fraMfflM4l 0,-. Sf"'U'
t8" 1're?NYe- 0,-. Sf"'U'
c~ ~ tI-ule-O,.".- Sf"'U!
QQ1SI I'm4fe- ~ Center
~ l'uVI!t1art~
SCH~ S.:JrM(
,,' I'~ Sflwf~
.
· 1111ap- I'4fMaIf1
..
1111ttfe-~"'f
o (1t!t4f1tm- f~ h<- tWermlM<lI". M1fIIHIttI",,"
g II1ffl,~ 1'4r,t ~!f""AM M~
Ytllttfe- ~ SI';II'Ian-)
? 1111ttfe- Tnz1/~
.. ~1ffWII/~ Tnz1/~
.
93
2/2006
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-06-05
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR VILLAGE TWO AND A PORTION OF VILLAGE
FOUR OF OTAY RANCH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 06-05.
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
06-05, and is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of Village For
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, Otay Project L.P. ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for the
subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as "Otay Ranch
Village Two and a Portion of Village Four, Chula Vista Tract 06-05", ("Project"), with the Planning
and Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on October 13,2005; and,
WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of approximately
702.5 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of Village Four" located at the
western edge of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension alignment of La Media Road to
the east, Olympic Parkway to the north, Wolf Canyon and the Otay Landfill to the south and the
Sunbow Planning area and the Otay Landfill to the west. The portion of Village Four included in this
application is generally located west of the future extension of La Media Road, south and east ofW olf
Canyon and north of the remaining portions of Village Four.
WHEREAS, the Project is also the subject matter of the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan (GDP), as amended, originally approved by the City Council on October 28, 1993 by Resolution
No. 17298, and as amended on October 16,2001, by Resolution No. ("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, the Village Two, Three and Potion of Four Second-Tier Environmental
Impact Report ("Final EIR 02-02") (SCH#2003091012), the candidate CEQA Findings and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the Project and has
determined that the Project would result in a significant impact to the environment; therefore, a
Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) has be prepared; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said
"Tentative Map, Otay Ranch Village Two and a Portion of Village Four, Chula Vista Tract 06-05",
(PCS-06-05) and notice of aid 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. May
10, 2006, in the Council Chambers located in the Administration Building, 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 Otay Ranch Village Two and a
Portion of Four Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 05-06) is consistent with the City ofChula 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 practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Village Two and a Portion of Village
Four Tentative Map involving 702.5 acres ofland known as "Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion
of Village Four" located at the western edge of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future extension
alignment of La Media Road, Olympic Parkway, Wolf Canyon and the Sunbow Planning Area in
accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. .,
and,
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 10th day of May, 2006 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Vicki Madrid, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H:\PLANNING\sCOTTD\V2 TM PC RESOLUTION.DOC
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VILLAGE
TWO AND A PORTION OF VILLAGE FOUR, OF
THE OTA Y RANCH.
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and described on Chula Vista Tract 06-05, and
is commonly known as Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of Village Four
("Property"); and,
WHEREAS, Otay Project L.P. ("Applicant") filed a duly verified application for
the subdivision of the Property in the form of the tentative subdivision map known as
"Otay Ranch Village Two and a Portion of Village Four, Chula Vista Tract 06-05",
("Project"), with the Planning and Building Department of the City of Chula Vista on
October 13,2005; and,
WHEREAS, the application requests the approval for the subdivision of
approximately 702.5 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of
Village Four" located at the western edge of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the future
extension alignment of La Media Road to the east, Olympic Parkway to the north, Wolf
Canyon and the Otay Landfill to the south and the Subbow Planning area and the Otay
Landfill to the west. The portion of Village Four included in this application is generally
located west of the future extension of La Media Road, south and east of Wolf Canyon and
north of the remaining portions of Village Four.
; and,
WHEREAS, the Property is also the subject matter of an amendment to the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) adopted by City Council by Resolution
No. ; and,
WHEREAS, the Project was included in the environmental evaluation of said
amended GDP, which relied in part on the original Otay Ranch General Development
Plan Program Environmental Impact Report 90-01, and the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four Second- Tier Environmental Impact Report ("EIR 02-02")
(SCH#2003091012), the candidate CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of Village Four Tentative Subdivision Map
(C.V.T. 06-05) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property
Resolution No.
Page 2
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. May 10, 2006, in the Council Chambers located in the Administration
Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Project and said hearing was thereafter
closed; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Otay Ranch, Village Two and a Portion of Village Four Tentative
Subdivision Map; 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 May 10, 2006, and the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers,
shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
Second-Tier Final ErR 02-02, would have no new effects that were not examined
in said Final EIR (Guideline 15168 (c)(2)).
III. ACTION
The City Council hereby approves the resolution approving the Otay Ranch,
Village Two and a Portion of Village Four Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 06-
05 involving 702.5 acres of land known as "Otay Ranch, Village Two and a
Portion of Village Four" in this resolution, finding it is consistent with the City of
Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA 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.
Resolution No.
Page 3
IV. 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 Two and a Portion of Village Four
Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 00-05)" as conditioned, attached as Exhibit "B"
to this resolution, hereto for
Otay Project L.P., is in conformance with all the various elements of the City's
General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village Two, Three and
a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The Project is in a planned community that provides single-family and
multi-family residential uses, mixed-use, industrial, parks, schools,
community purpose facilities and open space and other uses authorized by
the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area
(SP A) Plan.
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
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan. The Applicant shall
construct those facilities in accordance with City and Otay Ranch Village
Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan standards.
3. Housing
An affordable housing agreement between the City and Otay Project L.P.
(Master Developer) will be executed subsequent to the approval of the
Tentative Map 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 provide local Neighborhood parkland and Community
parkland. Construction of parkland and open space and programmable
recreation facilities are the responsibility of the Applicant
Resolution No.
Page 4
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 conformance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. No seismic faults
have been identified in the vicinity of the Project according to the Otay
Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Geotechnical
Reconnaissance Report.
7. Public Safety
All public and private facilities are expected to be reachable within the
threshold response times for fire and police services.
8. Public Facilities
The Applicant will provide all on-site and off-site streets, sewers and
water facilities necessary to serve this Project. The developer will also
contribute to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to
provide terminal water storage for this Project as well as other major
projects in the eastern territories.
9. Noise
The Project may include noise attenuation walls under review in an
acoustic study currently being prepared for the Project. In addition, all
units are required to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code
with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
10. Scenic Highway
The roadway design provides wide landscaped buffers along Olympic
Parkway the only General Plan, GDP/SRP scenic highway adjacent to the
Project.
Resolution No.
Page 5
11. Bicycle Routes
The Project is required to provide on-site bicycle routes on the Project
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.
V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Project subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto.
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, 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.
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 shall be deemed to be automatically
revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Resolution No.
Page 6
Presented by
Approved as to form by
James D. Sandoval, AICP
Planning and Building Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
Resolution No.
Page 7
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California, this 23rd day of May, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 23rd day of
May, 2006.
Executed this 23rd day of May, 2006.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LO(9CATOR ~~~J~~1T: The Otay Ranch Company
PROJECT South of Olympic Pkwy and
ADDRESS: East of Otay Landfill_
SCALE-
NORTH . No Scale
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Village 2,3 and 4 (Portion) Tentative Map.
Draft of May 4, 2006
Exhibit "B"
Otay Ranch Village Two Tentative Subdivision Map
(CVT 06-05)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set
forth below shall be completed prior to the related Final Map as determined by the Director of
Planning & Building, the City Engineer, and the Director of General Services (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 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". (Planning)
2. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan; the City's Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual;
Chula Vista Design Manual;Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch Resource
Management Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2; Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan; Otay Ranch
Overall Design Plan; Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) and Tentative Maps (TMs) Final Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report (Final
EIR 02-02 ) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); Otay
Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and
supporting documents including: Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP); Parks, Recreation,
Open Space and Trails Plan; SPA Affordable Housing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan
(AQIP), Water Conservation Plan (WCP); and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation
Plan as 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. (Planning)
3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are,
by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to
be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, deny,
or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein
Page 1 of 35
Draft of May 4,2006
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
any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy
any deficiencies identified by the City. (Planning)
4. Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any
and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SP A, Tentative Maps, and Second Tier EIR (EIR
02-02 ) and subsequent environmental review for the Project and any or all entitlements and
approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. (Planning)
5. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
SPA conditions of approval, as may be amended from time to time. (Planning)
6. Prior to the approval of the first "A" Map for the Project, Applicant shall prepare and submit,
to the satisfaction of, and as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning & Building, an
updated Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and supporting regulating documents
including, but not limited to text, exhibits, and tables for the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan; Planned Community District Regulations; Village Design Plan;
Public Facilities Finance Plan; Affordable Housing Plan Air Quality Improvement Plan;
Water Conservation Plan; Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; Parks, Recreation,
Open Space and Trails Plan; and applicable environmental documents. (Planning)
7. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter in hereunder shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney. (Planning)
8. A reserve fund program has been established by Resolution No. 18288 for the funding of the
Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) Model for the Otay Ranch Project. The
Applicant shall provide funds to the Reserve Fund as required by the Reserve Fund Program.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance and the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall participate in the funding of 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 in the Project
and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual
report shall adhere to the GDP/SRP, as amended from time-to-time. (Planning)
9. In accordance with mitigation measure of the Final EIR 02-02 and associated MMRP, no
units within the project area shall be constructed which would result in the total number of
units within the Eastern Territories exceeding 8,999 units, prior to the construction of SR -125
between SR-54 and the International Border. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may
issue additional building permits if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that
each of the following conditions have been met: (1) SR-125 is constructed and open between
SR-54 and Olympic Parkway; and (2) traffic studies, prepared to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the City Council, demonstrate that the opening ofSR-125 to Olympic Parkway
provides additional capacity to mitigate the project's cumulative significant traffic impacts to
a level below significance without exceeding GMOC traffic threshold standards.
Alternatively, the City may issue building permits if the City Council, in its sole discretion,
Page 2 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
has approved an alternative method to implement the City's Growth Management Ordinance,
as may be amended from time to time. (Engineering, Planning)
10. 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"), to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
& Building. (Planning)
ENVIRONMENTAL
11. The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building and
Environmental Review Coordinator, all environmental impact mitigation measures identified
in Final EIR 02-02 (SCH# 2003091012), the candidate CEQA Findings and MMRP for this
Project. (Planning)
12. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California Department of
Fish and Game, the California State Water Resources Quality Control Board, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any activity that may
potentially impact biological resources, such as clearing and grubbing, the Applicant shall
comply with all applicable requirements prescribed in Final EIR 02-02 (SCH# 2003091012)
and MMRP. (Planning)
13. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a take permit/authorization from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, or comply with the approved
City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, if applicable to the Project. (Planning)
14. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with
all requirements and policies of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) as
approved by City Council on October 28, 1993, and Otay Ranch, Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan (RMP 2) and "Preserve Conveyance Schedule," as approved by City
Council on June 4, 1996, and as may be amended from time to time by the City. (Planning)
15. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit (including clearing and grubbing) for the
Project, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the RMP, Phase Two, Resource
Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building. (Planning)
16. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map for the Project, Applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan Agricultural Plan.
(Planning)
17. The Developer agrees to convey fee title, or upon the consent of the Preserve Owner/
Manager (POM) and any lien holder, an easement restricting use of the land to those
permitted by the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP), to the POM upon the
recordation of each Final Map for an amount of land equal to the Final Map's obligation to
convey land to the Preserve. Where an easement is conveyed, the Developer agrees to
provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the POM has a first
priority interest in such land. Where consent and subordination cannot be obtained, the
Developer shall convey fee title. Where fee title or an easement is conveyed, access to the
satisfaction of the POM shall also be conveyed. Where an easement is granted, each Final
Page 3 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
Map is subject to a condition that fee title shall be granted upon demand by the POM. The
developer further agrees to maintain and manage the offered conveyance property consistent
with Phase 1 and 2 RMP guidelines until such time when the POM has accepted the
conveyance property. (Planning)
19. Prior to approval of any Final Map for the Project with any residential uses, at the request of
the City Engineer, Developer shall take all necessary steps to include the Project area within
Improvement Area "A" of the Otay Ranch Preserve Maintenance District (CFD No. 97-02).
(Environmental, Engineering)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
20. In accordance with mitigation measurs contained in the Final EIR 02-02 and associated
MMRP, an acoustical study confirming wall geometrics and conformance with the City's
noise threshold for residential units along Heritage Road and La Media Road shall be
approved by the Environmental Review Coordinator prior to grading permit. A noise barrier
plan shall be prepared in conformance with the aforementioned study as well as the noise
analysis contained in Final EIR 02-02 and the associated MMRP. The noise barrier plan
shall be submitted for review and receive approval by the Director of Planning & Building,
Environmental Review Coordinator, Director of Public Works and Director of General
Services prior to issuance of the first grading permit for the Project. This noise barrier plan
shall be incorporated into the wall and fence plan, a component of the Landscape Master
Plan. Should Developer request modification of the approved wall and fence plans,
Developer shall provide additional acoustical analysis if required by the Director of Planning
& Building and Environmental Review Coordinator. Noise barriers shall be constructed
within dedicated open space lots and shall not be constructed on private property unless a
Master Homeowners Association (MHO A) is formed to maintain sound barriers to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Environmental Review Coordinator.
(Environmental, Engineering)
21. Prior to approval of building permit for single-family areas where second floor exterior noise
levels exceed 65 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed ensuring that interior noise
levels due to exterior sources will be at or below 45 CNEL.
22. Prior to approval of design review permits for multi-family areas where first and/or second
floor exterior noise levels exceed 60 CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed
ensuring that interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be below 45 CNEL.
23. 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". A Final
"B" Map is defined as a final subdivision or parcel map, filed in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which proposes to subdivide land
into individual single or multi-family lots, or contains a subdivision of the multi-family lots
shown on the Tentative Map. The "B" Map shall be in substantial conformance with the
related approved final "A" Map and Tentative Map. Unless otherwise specified, all
conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City
Engineer's satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final 'B' Map. (Engineering)
Page 4 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
24. Prior to approval of the first final "B" Map for the Project within the Tentative Map, 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. (Engineering)
25. 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.
(Engineering)
26. In the event of a filing of a final 'B' Map which requires oversizing of the improvements
necessary to serve other properties within the Project, 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). (Engineering)
27. The Developer shall enter into a Joint Use Agreement with the City of Chula Vista, and City
of San Diego in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for all public facilities crossing City
of San Diego fee title land and/or easements prior to the issuance of the 588th Building
Permit for the Project. Said Agreement shall be approved by the City Engineer as to
content and the City Attorney as to form prior to execution. . The Applicant shall be
responsible for any payment to City of San Diego for any Right-of-Way crossing the City of
San Diego land and easements. (Engineering)
28. Prior to approval of any grading permit the Developer shall provide an executed Joint Use
Agreement for all areas where City right-of-way or City facilities will cross existing fee title
land and/or easements owned by the City of San Diego. Work proposed within another
agency's easement and/or fee title land will require the authorized representative of the
agencies signature on the applicable plans prior to permit issuance (i.e., Landscape and
Irrigation, Grading and or Improvement Plans). (Engineering)
DESIGN
29. Any proposed monumentationlsignage shall be consistent with the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four Village Design Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning & Building prior to approval of the applicable Final Map. (Planning)
30. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall submit for review and approval
a sign program to the Director of Planning & Building. Prior to issuance of the first building
permit, Applicant shall post temporary signs on all neighborhoods within the Project
indicating the future land use(s) for said sites with signage consistent with the sign program.
Page 5 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
Temporary signs shall be maintained in place until such time as a project is approved for any
such future land use site. (Planning)
31. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to
soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 1,500 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 subject to the requirements of the [applicable] Fire Protection Plan.
Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Planning & Building prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map.
(Planning, General Services)
32. Street parkways shall be no less than 7.5 feet in width for the planting area, except as
approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works. The Applicant shall plant trees
within said parkways which have been selected from the list of appropriate tree species
described in the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Design Plan, Village Two, Three
and a Portion of Four SPA Plan and Landscape Master Plan and shall be approved by the
Directors of Planning & Building, General Services and Public Works. The Applicant shall
provide root barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for the trees, as approved by the
Director of General Services and the Director of Public Works. (Planning, Engineering,
General Services, Public Works)
33. 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 City Engineer, and Directors of Planning and Building and General
Services. 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 Tree
Improvement Plans that show the location of all future street trees, which will be subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer, and the Directors of Planning & Building and
General Services. Prior to any utility installation, wood stakes shall be placed by the
Applicant on site according to the approved Preliminary Street Tree Improvement Plans, and
shall be painted a bright color and labeled as future street tree locations. Applicant further
agrees to provide to the City documentation, acceptable to the City Engineer, and the
Directors of Planning and Building and General Services, 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 the locations as shown
on the approved Preliminary Street Tree Improvement Plans until all dry utilities are in place.
A Preliminary Street Tree Improvement Plan shall be submitted for review and subject to the
approval of the Directors of Planning and Building and General Services prior to or
concurrent with the second submittal of Street Improvement Plans within the subdivision.
(Planning, General Services, Engineering, Public Works)
34. Prior to the first Final Map for the Project, Applicant shall submit to and obtain approval by
the City Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building a SPA-wide signage plan, if such
plan has not been already produced by the Applicant for another Final Map within the SPA.
Such plan shall address trails, cart and off-street bicycle circulation and street crossing. Such
plan shall include sign colors, materials, heights, location and lighting. Applicant shall
Page 6 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
install approved signs concurrent with related improvements or upon request by the City
Engineer. (Engineering, Planning)
PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES, IMPROVEMENTS AND PHASING (Streets, Transit,
Sewer, Water, Drainage, Grading)
35. Developer shall dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map
within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the first "A" Map and those "B"
Maps, which trigger improvements as set forth in the Village Two, Three and a Portion of
Four PFFP, the Applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure
all street improvements as required by the PFFP, 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. (Engineering)
36. Construct a protective fencing system at the inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as
and when directed by the City Engineer. The final fencing design and types of construction
materials shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
37. Construct energy dissipaters at all storm drain outlets as required by the City Engineer to
maintain non-erosive flow velocities. (Engineering)
38. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, acquire and then grant to the City all off-
site rights-of-way and easements necessary for the installation of required street
improvements and/or utilities identified for the applicable Project, subject to the City's
Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act. (Engineering)
39. Concurrent with approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall submit
Improvement Plans for the applicable neighborhood for review and approval by the City
Engineer, Director of General Services and the Director of Planning & Building. Applicant
shall secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code the construction
and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets as identified in the
Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA PFFP, as may be amended from
time to time 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, fire hydrants and street light locations, subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
The amount of the security for required improvements, including landscape and irrigation
plans, shall be 110% times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and
the Director of General Services if related plans have been approved by the City, 150% times
the approved cost estimate if related plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the
construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and the Director of General
Services if related plans have not been submitted for City review. The landscape and
irrigation (L&I) bond, at a minimum, shall be based on a 90% complete Landscape Master
Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of General Services. (Engineering, General Services,
Planning)
Page 70f35
Draft of May 4, 2006
40. Upon approval of Final Map for the Project that triggers the Cumulative DU's and or
Access/Frontage, ("Table "A") below, consistent with the Village Two, Three and a Portion
of Four PFFP, as may be amended from time to time, Developer shall construct or enter into
an agreement to design, secure, and construct in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the
Municipal Code, the required street improvements: (Engineering)
asmg an ummary
Facility Facility Description Trie:e:ers
Heritage Road: between AlFI, 15t unit in Village 2 west of
A Olympic Parkway and Santa Heritage Road or 1,008 EDUs 2 in
Victoria Village 2 overall
B Heritage Road: between Santa A/FI or 1,276 EDUs 1. in Village 2
Victoria to Santa Lisa overall
C Heritage Road: between Santa A/Flor 1,276 EDUs 1. in Village 2
Lisa to Street "]" North overall
D Heritage Road: between Street A/Flor 1,276 EDUs 1. in Village 2
"]" North to Street "]" South overall
E Heritage Road: between Street A/Flor 1,276 EDUs 1. in Village 2
"]" South to Main Street 3 overall
Main Street: between Heritage A/F1or 1,276 EDUs 2 in Village 2
F Road to connect to existing overall
improvements
G Santa Victoria: Olympic Parkway 151 EDU in Village 2 west of
to Heritage Rd. Heritage Road
H Santa Diana & Santa Carolina: AlFI or 1,008 EDUs 1. in Village 2
between Santa Victoria to State St. overall
I La Media Road: Santa Venetia to 15t EDU in Village 2
Birch Rd.
J State Street: between Santa 151 EDU in Village 2
Victoria to La Media Rd.
K La Media Rd: between Birch Rd AlF10r with Park development
to Park P-4 Entrance (Santa Luna)
Rock Mountain Rd: between East 2090 Residential EDUs in Village 2
L of Heritage Rd and/or Main St
within the SPA boundaries overall
M Santa Victoria: between Santa AlFI or 1,008 EDUs 1. in Village 2
Carolina to State Street. overall
N Santa Victoria: between Santa 151 EDU in Village 2
Venetia to Santa Diana
0 Santa Victoria: between Heritage AlFI or 1,008 ED Us 1. in Village 2
Road to Santa Carolina overall
Table "A"
Otay Ranch Village 2, and Portion of Village 4 SPA
Ph . PI S
1. AlP: Access or Frontage - Roadways needed for continuity and minimum access: roadway
segment as detennined by the City Engineer, is triggered with the first final map which has
frontage on the roadway, or if roadway is required to provide access.
Page 8 of 35
J
Draft of May 4, 2006
2. In tenns of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) 1,276 residential units represents 1,276
equivalent dwelling units and 106 acres of industrial represents 1,276 EDU's based on SANDAG
rates. Commercial uses are not included in the EDU calculations.
41. 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. (Engineering)
42. Developer shall design and construct a minimum 9-foot wide multipurpose pathway along
both sides of State Street and portions of Santa Victoria Road (from State Street to 900'
south). Developer shall install signage and striping to accommodate bicyclist & pedestrian
within the pathway as required by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
(Engineering, Public Works)
43. Prior to approval of the First Final Map for the Project Developer shall form a Pedestrian
Bridge DIF program, or, annex to the existing program's "Area Benefit" in order to complete
the financing for the two Pedestrian Bridges (the West Olympic Parkway Pedestrian Over-
crossing connecting Village One and Otay Ranch High School and South La Media Road
Pedestrian Over-crossing connecting Village Six and Village two) and secure the
construction of both Bridges. (Engineering, Planning)
44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1,276 EDU the developer shall design and
construct Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. The applicant may
construct a 'Temporary Intersection' at Main Street and Heritage Road according to the
following requirements:
a. The intersection geometry shall be approved by the Chula Vista City Engineer.
b. The design of the south leg of the intersection shall be reviewed with representatives of the
Coors Amphitheater to ensure the design adequately accommodates the high volume event
traffic.
c. The intersection construction shall be coordinated with the Coors Amphitheater event
season and the construction phasing will need to be completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
d. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, Civil Engineering drawings of the
intersection and concept plan of construction phasing. (Engineering)
45. Prior to approval of the First Final Map that creates any parcel located within the Wolf
Canyon/Salt Creek sewer basin (with the exception of parcel P-4), the Developer shall grant
to the City the necessary right-of-way for construction of full street improvements of the
Heritage Road regional facility within the SPA Plan Boundary. (Engineering)
46. Prior to approval of any Final Map for the Project which triggers the installation of the
related street improvements, Applicant shall enter into an agreement, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, to design, construct and secure fully activated traffic signals, including
Page 9 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
interconnect wiring, mast arm, signal heads, and associated equipment underground
improvements, standards and luminaries at the intersections listed below. The
applicant shall fully design the aforementioned traffic signal in conjunction with the
improvement plans for the related streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and conform
to City Standards. (Engineering)
INTERSECTIONS
· Heritage Road & Olympic Parkway
· Heritage Road & Santa Victoria Road
. Heritage Road &
· Heritage Road & Street "J" North
· Heritage Road & Street "J" South
· Heritage Road & Main Street
· Olympic Parkway & Santa Victoria Road
· Olympic Parkway & Santa V enetia Road
· La Media Road & Santa Venetia Road
· La Media Road & State Street
· La Media Road & Santa Luna Street(Park Entrance)
47. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all
promenade, collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated
improvement plans. (Engineering)
48. The Applicant shall comply with the Fire Department's codes and policies for Fire
Prevention, and the requirements/recommendations contained in the approved Fire Protection
Plan, Urban-Wildland Interface Area for Village Two, as may be amended from time to time.
Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, a fire access and water supply plan prepared by a
licensed engineering firm, which has been determined to be qualified in the sole discretion of
the Fire Marshal, shall be submitted to for approval by the City Of Chula Vista Fire
Department. A signed and dated Chula Vista Fire Department Access and Water Supply
agreement shall accompany the above-mentioned submittal. The plan shall detail how and
when the Applicant shall provide the following items either prior to the issuance of building
permit(s) for the Project, or prior to delivery of combustible materials on any construction
site on the Project, whichever occurs earlier:
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.
b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer of hard asphalt surface or
concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of 20 feet.
c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Temporary street signs
shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department. Locations and
identification of temporary street signs shall be subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer and Fire Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering)
Page 10 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
49. Depending on the location of improvements such as cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways or when
special circumstances exist in a subdivision design, as determined by the Fire Marshal, the
Applicant shall install additional fire hydrants upon request and to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department. (Fire, Planning, Engineering)
50. 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 feet in length (as measured from the nearest street centerline
intersection). (Engineering, Fire)
51. 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 distance 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 of Chula Vista policies shall prevail. Lighted
SAG vertical curves may be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at
intersections per American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) standards. (Engineering)
52. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Engineer-of- Work shall submit and
obtain approval by the City Engineer a waiver request for all subdivision design items not
specifically waived on the Tentative Map, and not conforming to adopted City standards. The
Engineer-of-work request shall outline the requested subdivision design deviations from
adopted City standards and state that in his/her professional opinion, no safety issues will be
compromised. The waiver is subject to approval by the City Engineer in the City Engineer's
sole discretion. (Engineering)
53. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, prior to the approval of the first Map
for the Project whereby the developer agrees to the following:
a. Fund and install Chula Vista transit stop facilities within the tentative map boundary
when directed by the Director of Public Works. The improvement plans for said stops
shall be prepared in accordance with the transit stop details described in the Village Two,
Three and a Portion of Four Design Plan and Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
PFFP and as approved by the Directors of Planning & Building and Public Works.
b. Not protest the formation of any future regional benefit assessment district to finance the
MTDB San Diego Trolley, BRT System or other transit system. (Public Works)
54. The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to
meet applicable "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City
Engineer. In the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-
way, which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such
approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless
otherwise required by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as
determined by Federal regulations, after construction has commenced. (Engineering)
Page 11 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
55. The Applicant shall not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities
crossing any public street. The installation of sleeves for future construction of privately
owned facilities may be allowed subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer if
the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the
following:
1. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within
the public right-of-way; and,
11. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service;
and,
111. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area; and,
IV. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of
the developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where
private facilities traverse public streets. (Engineering)
56. Prior to issuance of any grading permit based on plans proposing the creation of down slopes
adjacent to public or private streets, Applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of a
study to determine the necessity of providing guardrail improvements at those locations.
Applicant shall construct and secure any required guardrail improvements in conjunction
with the associated construction permit as determined by and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The guardrail shall be installed per CalTrans Traffic Manual and Roadside Design
Guide requirements and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
57. Prior to approval of improvement plans that include roundabouts, Developer shall
demonstrate compliance with stopping sight distance standards as determined by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. (Engineering, Planning)
58. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, Applicant shall agree to install permanent
street name signs, and shall install such signs prior to the issuance of the first building permit
for production homes for the applicable Final Map. (Engineering)
59. Prior to the acceptance of Public Improvements by the City Engineer & Public Works
Director, Developer shall have in place 5(five) Horizontal control points, and 21 (twenty-one)
Vertical control points set pursuant to Sections 2-302.1(8) and 2-302.3(1) of the City of
Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and Chapter 18.16.180 of the Chula Vista Municipal code.
Applicant shall also cause to be filed with the County of San Diego, a Record of Survey;
required pursuant to Section 8762 of the Professional Land Surveyors Act. (Engineering,
Public Works)
60. Left and right turn storage lengths shall be provided as recommended in the Linscott, Law
and Greenspan Traffic Study for Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, dated <insert
date>, or as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
Page 12 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
61. Prior to the approval of the First Final Map for the Project, Developer shall provide a cash
deposit in the amount of $60,000.00 for the installation of six permanent traffic count stations
as listed below: (Engineering)
2 count stations on Olympic Pkwy between Santa Venetia and Project Westerly
Boundary
2 count stations along Heritage Road between Olympic Pkwy and Project's Southerly
boundary
2 count stations along La Media Road between Santa Venetia Road and Santa Luna Road
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
62. The Applicant shall provide drainage improvements in accordance with the Master Drainage
Study for Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four, dated February 16, 2005,
and the Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and
a Portion of Four, dated October 28, 20050r a subsequent Hydrology Study, as may be
required, submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall maintain all
such drainage improvements until said improvements are formally accepted by the City or
included as part of an applicable maintenance district, or other mechanism as approved by
the City. Said maintenance shall ensure that drainage facilities will continue to operate as
designed. (Engineering)
63. Prior to approval of any grading permit or any other grant of approval for constructing the
proposed extended detention and water quality basins, whichever occurs earlier, the
Applicant shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed extended detention and water
quality basins will reduce the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50 and 100-year post-development peak flows, to
any natural drainage course to an amount not exceeding pre-development conditions, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer (Engineering)
64. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on
grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public
system or to the point at which storm water that is collected from public street right-of-way,
public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that
point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed
and approved by the City Engineer for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or
within CFD maintained Open Space lots. (Engineering)
65. The applicant shall submit 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. (Engineering)
66. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit which impacts off-site property, the Applicant
shall deliver to the City, a notarized letter of permission to grade and drain for all off-site
grading. (Engineering)
67. Prior to acceptance of the maintenance responsibilities of proposed detention basins,
Developer shall obtain permits for five years duration from all required regulatory agencies.
(Engineering, Public Works)
Page 13 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
68. Storm drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the
Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. (Engineering)
69. Provide improved all-weather access with H-20 loading, based on a minimum traffic index
(TI) of 5, to all public storm drain clean-outs, inlets, outlets and basins or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. (Engineering, Public Works)
70. All City maintenance access roads shall be 12' min. width and designed for H-20 (min. TI of
5) loading. Provide a minimum of 6-inch thick PCC (reinforced with #4 BAR at 18" on
center each way) and heavy broom finish for any access road with grades of 8% or greater.
All other access roads, shall be asphalt concrete designed to carry H-20 loading. In addition,
maintenance pads adjacent to the inlet and outlet structures shall be a minimum of 6-inch
PCC (reinforced with #4 bar at 18" on center each way) designed for H-20 loading with a
heavy broom finish. Additional or restricted paving requirements for the above may be
required when determined necessary at the discretion of the Director of Public W orks-
Operations and in conformance with the environmental provisions for the Project.
(Engineering, Public Works)
71. 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 & Building. (Engineering, Planning)
72. Grant on the appropriate final liB" Map a 15-foot minimum drainage and access easement for
public storm drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the
City Engineer. All other public easements shall meet City standards for required width.
(Engineering)
73. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) and as set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit requirements by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for urban runoff and storm water discharge and
any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to said regulations or
requirements in effect at the time the development occurs. Further, the Applicant shall file a
Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the
commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post
construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding
mechanisms for post construction control measures. The Developer, and successors in
interest, 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 Applicant shall comply with the City of Chula Vista
Development and Redevelopment Projects Storm Water Management Standards
Requirements Manual (Storm Water Management Standards Manual) and shall design the
Project's storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer and Public
Works Director. (Engineering, Public Works)
Page 14 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
74. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building
for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. Engineering,
Planning)
75. 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 from perpendicular to the
contours. (Engineering)
76. Brow ditches perpendicular to 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 from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private
property. Brow ditches and channels from private property shall not be routed through City
open space unless approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
77. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls, which are to be maintained by open space
districts, shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City.
(Engineering)
78. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as shown on the Tentative Map or as approved by
the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to
the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over
slopes or onto adjacent property. (Engineering, Planning)
79. Provide a minimum of 3 feet of flat ground access from the face of any City maintained wall
to the beginning of the slope rounding for wall maintenance, unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. (Engineering)
80. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer and based on Applicant's Soils
Engineer recommendations, 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. (Engineering)
81. Construct temporary de-silting basins to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The exact
design and location of such facilities shall be based on hydrological modeling. (Engineering)
82. Developer shall submit a drainage study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with each
grading permit application showing that any interim conditions do not adversely impact
downstream flows. (Engineering)
83. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Applicant shall demonstrate that the grading plans are in
substantial compliance with the grading concepts outlined in the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four SPA Plan consistent with the landform grading policies described in the
City's General Plan. Said grading concepts shall ensure that manufactured slopes are
contoured to blend with and reflect adjacent slopes. (Engineering, Planning)
Page 15 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
84. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map for the Project, or issuance of the first grading
permit for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, Applicant shall enter into an agreement with
the City of Chula Vista, wherein the Applicant agrees to the following:
a. Comply with the requirements of the Storm Water Management. Standards Manual
including revision of approved grading and or improvement plans as necessary
b. Indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees,
from and against all fines, costs, and expenses and damages 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 Applicant, any agent or employee,
subcontractors, or others. The Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all
costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City.
c. 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.
Such Applicant obligation may be assigned to a Master Homeowner's Association or other
appropriate Maintenance District subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering,
Public Works)
85. Post-construction Best Management Practices, including site design, source control, and
treatment control, shall be implemented and maintained into perpetuity in accordance with a
City approved Water Quality Technical Report. The responsible party and funding
mechanism for the maintenance of post-construction BMPs shall be identified in an
agreement between the City and the Developer. The Developer or subsequent owners shall
maintain records of inspections and maintenance of all post-construction Best Management
Practices and make such records available for review by the City's Storm Water Compliance
Inspectors. (Public Works)
SEWER
86. Sewer access points shall, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director
of Public Works:
a. Be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs; and,
b. Not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas of maintenance equipment; and,
c. Not be in the wheel tracks on Promenade Streets and higher street classifications; and,
d. Meet Regional Standard Drawing M-4 (Locking) if located within intersections of Class I
Collectors and above; and,
Page 16 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
e. Have improved all-weather paved 12-foot wide minimum access to withstand a H-20
vehicle load as approved by the Director of Public Works; and,
f. Be provided at all changes of alignment of grade. (Engineering)
87. Prior to approval of the first Final Map that creates any parcel located within the Wolf
Canyon/Salt Creek sewer basin (with the exception of parcel P-4), Developer shall design
and construct the gravity sewer system to convey flow from the southern portion of Village
Two to Heritage Road and southerly to the Salt Creek Interceptor.
88. Prior to approval of the first Final Map or any other grant of approval for any improvement
proposing to pump the Village Four Park site (P-1) sewage flows to Poggi Canyon sewer
trunk, Developer shall accomplish the following:
a. Comply with all the requirements of Council Policy No. 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station
Financing Policy).
b. Enter into an agreement to construct and secure the construction, in accordance with
Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, of those improvements required to
accomplishing the following:
1. Construction of pump station improvements and associated facilities necessary to
pump sewage flows to the Poggi Canyon sewer trunk.
11. Removal, or other acceptable method of abandonment, of any existing, new, and/or
modified pump stations, force mains, and associated improvements, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, upon completion of the Rock Mountain Road Sewer Line.
iii. Connection of the Project by gravity to the Rock Mountain Road Sewer Line, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, upon completion of the Rock Mountain Road Sewer
Line.
c. Provide and stub out sewer lateral for future connection to Rock Mountain Road Sewer
Line, as determined by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
89. The Village Two sewer improvements shall be consistent with the Village Two, Three and a
Portion of Four Conceptual Sewer Study, dated January 2006 or a subsequent Sewer Study
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
90. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1 %
and/or a velocity of 2 feet per second, or 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. (Engineering)
91. Grant on the appropriate Final Map a 20-foot 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. (Engineering)
Page 17 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
92. The Applicant shall provide an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (lOD) to the City on the first
"A" Map for Neighborhood Park P-2 (7.1 net useable-acres), Neighborhood Park P-3 (6.9 net
useable-acres), and Community Park P-4 (42.0 net useable-acres). The park net acreage and
park Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) credit to be received by the applicant is based
on net usable park acreage as determined by the Directors of General Services and
Recreation. (General Services, Recreation).
93. Prior to the issuance of the 588th building permit for any dwelling unit the Applicant shall
provide documentation to the City, that assigns irrevocable free and clear use and access for
park and recreation purposes over and upon all easements and fee owned parcels that traverse
any public park site, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Recreation, General Services, and
Engineering. Said documentation shall be approved by the Directors of Recreation, General
Services and Engineering as to content and approved by the City Attorney as to form prior to
execution of said document and prior to the 588th building permit for any dwelling unit. No
park credit will be given for easements located in park. (General Services, Recreation,
Engineering).
94. Prior to issuance of any building permit with the MU-1 site or the R-28 site the applicant
shall commence construction of the Town Square lot P-1 (1.2 net useable acres) to the
satisfaction of the Director of General Services. Applicant shall complete construction of the
Town Square within nine months of commencement of construction. The term "complete
construction" shall mean park construction has been completed according to the City
approved construction plans and been accepted by the Director of General Services.
(General Services)
95. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the project, the Applicant shall deposit funds into
a City of Chula Vista Finance Department account, in an amount determined by the Director
of General Services, for use by the City for the preparation of site-specific park master plans
and related construction documents for the community park site (P-4) and the two
neighborhood park sites (P-2 and P-3). Said funds will serve as a proportional share credit
against the Applicant's total PAD Fee obligation for the project. (General Services)
96. Prior to approval of each Final "B" Map, or prior to issuance of building permits for
residential units not requiring the filing of a Final "B" Map, the Applicant shall pay all
applicable parkland acquisition and development fees (PAD Fees) to the City in accordance
with CVMC Chapter 17.10. (General Services)
97. Applicant shall rough grade, provide all weather access to, and install underground utilities to
the property line of the Project park sites (P-1, P-2, P-3, and P-4) to the satisfaction of the
Directors of General Services, Engineering, and Recreation and the Fire Marshal concurrent
with the installation of project backbone streets for any portion of the project adjacent to the
park sites or upon request of the Director of General Services, whichever occurs earlier.
(General Services, Engineering, Recreation)
98. The Developer shall submit to City for review by General Services Department, as-graded
topographic surveys capable of demonstrating that grading of Park sites P-2, P-3, and all
parcels of P-4 are in compliance with approved rough grading plans for the sites. Said survey
Page 18 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
shall be prepared at Developers' own expense and shall not be credited toward Developer
PAD Fee obligation. The topographic survey shall be submitted at the request of the Director
of General Services. Any grading permit security held for the project shall not be released
until the respective Parks' net usable areas have been verified and approved by the Director
of General Services. If the survey indicates that the site fails to conform to the approved
grading plans, and to the City Of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance for any of the park sites,
then the Developer shall bring the site into conformance and incur the expenses associated
with re-grading the sites as needed. Expenses incurred by the Developer to perform any
corrective re-grading of the sites shall not be credited toward the Developer PAD Fee
obligation. Site re-grading shall be completed with 60-days of notification of non-
compliance. (General Services, Engineering)
99. Prior to approval of the first Final "A" Map for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with
the provisions of the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan as adopted, as
may be amended from time to time, and as it affects facility and other related requirements
for the Project's parks. (General Services)
100. Prior to the First B Map, the applicant shall enter into a community park parkland
reimbursement agreement with the City for the purpose of addressing community park
acreage within the project in excess of parkland obligation related to the Project.
101. Prior to the First B Map for the Project, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
City to provide necessary funds, for the preparation of additional site-specific park master
plans and related construction documents in the event the community park's site is
constrained by the waterline fee title parcel and or waterline easement as determined by the
Director of General Services. Said funds shall include and not be limited to design, project
management, staff time and overhead, above and beyond the funds related to applicant's
parkland development fee obligation, for the design of the community park. Said agreement
shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Prior to the first B Map, the Applicant
shall provide a surety bond, or other form of security in an amount as determined by the
Director of General Services, to guarantee said additional funds.
102. Prior to the approval of the first Final "A" Map for the Project, Applicant shall have
prepared, submitted to and received approval from the Director of General Services of a
comprehensive Landscape Master Plan (LMP) for the Project. Such approval shall be
indicated by means of the Director of Planning & Building, or designee's signature and date
on said Plan. The contents of the LMP shall conform to the City staff checklist and include
the following major components:
a. Maintenance Responsibility Plan (delineates private and public property and indicates the
maintenance responsibility for each);
b. Master Irrigation Plan (includes mainline and point of connection locations);
c. Master Planting Plan (includes landscape concept statement);
d. Brush Management Plan (identifies brush management zones and treatment, if any);
e. Hardscape Concept and Trail Plan (identifies types and finishes of paving);
Page 190f35
Draft of May 4, 2006
f. Utility Coordination Plan (includes locations of major utility boxes and vaults);
g. Conceptual Wall and Fence Plan (includes the previously approved noise barrier plan);
and
h. Monumentation and Signage Plan (includes enlargements of entry monument locations
and signage concepts)
103. Within 90 days of approval of the applicable Final "B" Map, Developer shall enter into a
Grant of Easements and Maintenance Agreement as necessary for landscaping and
improvements maintained by a Homeowners Association within City right-of-way or such
other public areas required by the City. (Engineering, Public Works, General Services)
104. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit for the Project, the Applicant shall prepare,
submit, and secure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Building all landscape
and irrigation slope erosion control plans. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the
current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance, as may be amended from
time to time. Applicant shall install landscape and irrigation slope erosion control in
accordance with approved plans no later than six months from the date of issuance of the
grading permit. If the work cannot be completed within the specified time, the Applicant
may request an extension, which may be granted at the discretion of the Director of Planning
& Building. Such a request shall be submitted for approval in writing to the Planning &
Building Department sufficiently in advance of the end of the six-month timeframe to allow
processing of the extension. Notwithstanding the time of installation of landscape, and
irrigation slope erosion control, Applicant shall remain in compliance with NPDES.
(Planning, General Services)
105. Prior to the approval of any Final "B" Map for the Project, the Applicant shall obtain
approval of a Wall and Fence Plan from the Director of Planning & Building. The Wall and
Fence Plan shall be in conformance with the Village Two, Three and Portion of Four SPA
plan and shall identify location of walls, constructions materials and color, and wall and
fence types. The plan shall also identify location and type of trial signage proposed
throughout the development. Final wall design, location and construction details, including
fencing and signage, shall be shown on the Wall and Fence Plans and shall be subject to
approval by the Director of Planning & Building. (Planning)
106. The conceptual Wall and Fence Plan for the Project shall be included in the Project's
Landscape Master Plan and shall indicate color, materials, height and location. Materials and
color used 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. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all
other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required. All walls shall be constructed
pursuant to Final EIR 02-02 and the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan.
Upon request of the Director of General Services, Applicant shall update the Project's
Landscape Master Plan to conform to any substantial changes made subsequent to the initial
approval of the plan (Planning, General Services)
Page 20 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
107. Prior to the issuance of each Street Construction permit for the Project, the Applicant shall
prepare and secure, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of General
Services, street improvement Landscape and Irrigation Improvement Plans. All plans shall be
prepared in accordance with the current Chula Vista Landscape Manual and the Village Two,
Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan, as may be amended from time to time. Applicant
shall install all improvements in accordance with approved plans to the satisfaction of the
Director of General Services and the City Engineer. (General Services, Engineering)
TRAILS
108. All trails shall be bonded/secured prior to the approval of the rough grading plans, and
constructed to connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring
development projects, as determined by the Directors of Planning & Building and General
Services. (Planning, General Services)
109. Prior to the approval of any Final Map with private open space lots for the Project, the
Applicant shall provide a trail easement to the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney,
for all trail alignments. (General Services)
110. The Applicant shall, concurrent with the construction of the La Media Road improvements,
construct a "Regional Trail" along the west side of the street from Olympic Parkway to the
projects southern boundary as depicted on the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan in the
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan, and shall be designed to incorporate the
Project's Landscape Master Plan as approved by the City and as may be amended from time
to time. (General Services)
111. Applicant shall keep any necessary retaining walls 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
unless approved as shown on the Tentative Map. The retaining walls are to be located and
detailed on all applicable grading plans for the Project, and subject to the approval of the
Directors of Planning & Building, Public Works and General Services. Slope gradients may
be increased to the maximum permitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to
accommodate constraints such as maintenance access ways. Landform grading policies shall
be observed and followed. If a combination of low retaining walls and modified landform
grading cannot accommodate any constraints or maintenance access areas, the top of slope
shall be adjusted, as approved by the City Engineer. (General Services)
112. Neighborhood connector trails located within the Project shall provide a minimum 6-foot
wide decomposed granite (DG) where the grade is 2% or less or cement treated base (CTB)
trail bed where the grade is greater than 2%, or as approved by the Director of General
Services. Where down slopes (exceeding 4:1) occur adjacent to the trail, an additional4-foot
graded shoulder shall be provided with split-rail fencing centered in the shoulder. Where up
slopes occur adjacent to the trail a 2-foot shoulder (with a 2% maximum cross-slope) shall be
provided. Shoulders shall be planted and irrigated in accordance with the most current
edition of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual, as amended from time to time. All trail
construction materials shall be subject to the approval of the Director of General Services.
(General Services, Public Works)
Page 21 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
113. Applicant shall obtain the approval of the Director of Planning & Building for appropriate
signage indicating location of trail connections, handicap access, and bikeway locations to
the Regional Trail, Village Pathway, and Chula Vista Greenbelt. Said signage shall be
included on the Wall and Fence Plan. Signage shall be installed upon the request of the
Director of Planning & Building. (Planning)
114. Applicant agrees to comply with the current Regulatory Negotiation Committee
Recommendations for Accessibility Guidelines: Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report, as
may be amended from time to time, developed for: U.S. Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board when designing all trails and trail connections. (General
Services)
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
115. Developer shall request the formation of a Community Facility District for Maintenance
(CFD) or similar funding mechanism prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project.
Developer shall submit an application packet for formation of said Maintenance District, and
submit the request to the City Council for consideration. The Maintenance CFD shall be
formed prior to approval of the First Final "B" Map for the Project. If Council does not
approve the Maintenance CFD formation, another financing mechanism such as a Master
Homeowners Association, or an endowment shall be established and submitted to the City
Council for consideration prior to approval of the First Final "B" Map for the Project.
Subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer, Developer shall
submit a list of amenities, acreage and costs for all Open Space lots including but not limited
to the cost of any detention basin maintenance and structural storm water quality BMP's
within the Project. Developer shall maintain the open space improvements for a minimum
period of one year or until such time as accepted into the open space district by the Director
of Public Works. Along with submission of the application package for formation of the
CFD, Developer shall submit an initial cash deposit in an amount to be determined by the
City Engineer to begin the process of formation of the Open Space District. All costs of
formation and other costs associated with the processing of the open space relating to this
Project shall be borne by the Developer. The Developer shall provide all the necessary
information and materials (e.g., tables, diagrams, etc.) required by the City Engineer for
processing the formation of the proposed open space district. (Public Works, Engineering)
116. Prior to the approval of any Final Map with residential uses, the developer shall:
a. Submit evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning &
Building of the formation of a Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA) for the
Project.. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping
improvements that are not to be included in the proposed financial mechanism. The City
Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building may require that the Maintenance CFD
shall maintain some of those improvements. 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 Maintenance CFD Proceedings. The MHOA
shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City
Engineer and Director of Planning & Building require such annexation of future tentative
map areas. The MHOA formation documents shall be subject to the approval of the CityöAttorney; and,
Page 22 of 35
Draft of May 4,2006
b. Submit and obtain approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building
of a list of all Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA and MHOA
facilities and other items to be maintained by the proposed district. Separate lists shall be
submitted for the improvements and facilities to be maintained by the Open Space
District and those to be maintained by a Master Homeowner's Association. Include a
description, quantity and cost per year for the perpetual maintenance of said
improvements. These lists shall include but are not limited to the following facilities and
improvements:
1. All facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls,
fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage
structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the
number of acres of: 1) turf, 2) irrigated, and 3) non-irrigated open space to aid in the
estimation of a maintenance budget thereof.
11. The proportional share of medians and parkways along La Media Road, Olympic
Parkway and all other street parkways proposed for maintenance by the applicable
Community Facilities District or Homeowners' Association.
111. The detention basin located in Wolf Canyon.
IV. All storm-water quality structural BMP's serving the Project. (Engineering, Public
Works)
117. Developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication in fee interest to the City on all applicable
Final Maps, those open space lots shown on the tentative map to be maintained by an open
space district. (Engineering)
118. Prior to the approval of each Final "B" Map, Declaration or Supplementary Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted and subject to the
approval of the City Engineer. The CC&R's shall include the following obligations of the
Master Homeowners Association:
a. A requirement that the MHOA shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance
against liability incident to ownership or use of the following areas:
1. All open space lots that shall remain private,
11. Other Master Association property.
b. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City
can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The MHOA shall not
seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of
the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
c. The MHOA shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers
and employee from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or
arising from the maintenance activities of the MHOA.
Page 23 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
d. The MHOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations
described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders of
first mortgages or property owners within the MHOA.
e. The MHOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an amount not less than one
million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and
name the City as additionally insured to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
f. The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots
containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners
know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City
property.
g. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways,
drainage and sewage systems which are private.
h. The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring MHOA membership in an advance notice
such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity.
1. The CC&R's shall include provisions that provide the City has the right but not the
obligation to enforce the CC&R provisions the same as any owner in the Project.
J. The CC&R provisions setting forth restrictions in these Tentative Map conditions may
not be revised at any time without prior written permission of the City.
k. The MHOA shall not dedicate or convey for public streets, land used for private streets
without approval of 100% of all the HOA members or holder of first mortgages within
the MHOA.
l. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. . (Engineering, Fire,
Planning)
119. 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 & Building prior to distribution through escrow, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld. (Engineering, Planning)
120. The Community Purpose Facility (CPF) lots shall be maintained by a maintenance entity as
determined by the Director of Planning & Building based on City Council policy. The
facilities in the CPF lots being maintained by the maintenance entity shall include, but are not
limited to: pavements, sidewalks, street lights including power supply, private drainage
facilities and landscaping of private common areas. The CPF Lot, Common Usable Open
Space area as described in the Chula Vista Design Manual, shall be landscaped, graded and
contains amenities to the satisfaction of the Director Planning & Building. Construction shall
be completed prior to the issuance of the final building permit. (Planning, General Services)
Page 24 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
121. Developer shall grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope),
along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-
wall to beginning of slope. Said area shall be shown on the wall and fence plan as approved
by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building. (Engineering, Planning)
122. Developer shall ensure that all buyers of individual lots adjoining open space lots, containing
walls maintained by the open space district, shall sign a statement, when purchasing their
homes, stipulating that they are aware that the walls are on City or HOA property and that
they shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto the City or HOA property.
These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&R's for all lots. (Engineering)
123. Prior to approval of each Final Map, developer shall provide proof to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Director of Public W otks that all improvements located on open space lots
are incorporated into and maintained by a Home Owner's Association or an Open Space
District. (Engineering, Public Works)
124. 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. (Engineering)
125. Street parkways within the Project shall be maintained by an entity such as a Master Home
Owner's Association (MHOA) or a Community Facilities District (CFD); private
homeowners shall not maintain the parkways. Street parkways shall be designated as
recycled water use areas, if approved by the Otay Water District and San Diego County
Health. (Engineering, General Services, Public Works)
126. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes permanent 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, or other funding mechanism
acceptable to the City, in the City's sole discretion, 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 determined by the City
Engineer and the Director General Services, 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 months of the maintenance period if the maintenance is being accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Director of General Services. (Engineering, General Services, Public
Works)
Page 25 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
SCHOOL
127. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, Developer shall provide
documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High School District
(SUHSD) and Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) facility funding
requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding shall be satisfied through the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to
each District. In addition, no Final Map shall be approved unless and until a school facility
financing mechanism is in place to the satisfaction of the SUHSD and the CVESD.
(Engineering)
128. Prior to approval of the Final map, which includes a school site for the Project, Developer
shall agree to construct and secure, and thereafter construct and secure, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer, the following improvements:
a. All necessary improvements for providing ingress and egress to each school site. This
requirement shall also include but is not limited to any required modification to medians,
storm drainage system, street lights, and irrigation improvements; and,
b. If warranted and upon the request of the City Engineer, traffic signal improvements for
providing vehicular ingress and egress to the school site. (Engineering)
WATER
129. Prior to City acceptance of any open space lots, the Developer shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels
dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the
parcel(s). (Engineering)
130. Prior to approval of each Final Map, present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a
letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service
and long-term water storage facilities. (Engineering, Planning)
131. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the Applicant shall present verification to the City
Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that Otay Water District is able to
provide sufficient water supply pursuant to Section 66473.7 of the California Government
Code, as may be amended from time to time. (Engineering)
132. Prior to approval of the first Final Map for the Project, the Developer(s) shall provide an
approved Subarea Water Master Plan (SAMP) by the Otay Water District. The SAMP will
provide more detailed information on the project such as project phasing; pump station and
reservoir capacity requirements, and extensive computer modeling to justify recommended
pipe sizes. (Engineering, Planning)
EASEMENTS
133. Developer shall grant to the City, a minimum of 10' wide easement for general utility and
landscape purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots offered for dedication
Page 26 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
to the City unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Developer shall include the
above-mentioned easement on the Preliminary Street Tree Improvement Plans, showing the
location of proposed trees and utilities. (Engineering, General Services)
134. Indicate on all appropriate Final "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 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
135. Grant on the applicable Final Maps sight distance easements to the City of Chula Vista for
corner lots and parcels adjacent to roundabouts, as required by the City Engineer to keep
such areas clear of any obstructions. Sight distance easements shall be shown on applicable
grading plans, improvement plans, and Final Maps, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(Engineering)
136. Design landscape and irrigation plans such that street tree placement is not in conflict with
the visibility of any traffic signage. The Developer shall be responsible for the removal of
any obstructions of said traffic signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
137. Developer shall grant to City on all applicable Final "B" Map, a 2-foot access easements
along the rear and side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by
theMaintenance CFD. The locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director
of Planning & Building and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of
said walls. (Engineering, Planning)
138. 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. (Engineering)
139. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Developer shall either have removed
or subordinated any easement, which may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete
exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way at the direction of the City
Engineer. (Engineering)
140. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the first Final
Map for the Project by the City Council 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.
Page 27 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
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.
c. 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.
d. Acquire and bond for off-site rights-of-way and easements to be dedicated to the City in
order to comply with the PFFP schedule. Applicant shall bond for the off-site
improvements as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
141. Developer shall provide easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities
prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project requiring those facilities. The easements
shall be sized as required by the City of Chula Vista Standards, unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. (Engineering)
142. Grant on all applicable Final Maps, easements along all public streets within the subdivision
as shown on the tentative map and in accordance with City standards unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building. 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. (Planning, Engineering)
143. Grant on the applicable Final Map, a 20-foot minimum sewer and access easement for sewer
lines located between residential units, unless otherwise required by the City Engineer.
Unless as otherwise provided for herein, all other easements shall meet City standards for
required width. (Engineering)
AGREEMENTSIFINANCIAL
144. Enter into a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City, prior to
approval of each Final Map for the Project, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the Project in order to have the Project
comply with the Growth Management Program, as may be amended from time to time, or
if anyone of the following occurs:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by a Chula Vista transportation phasing
plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached.
11. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the
adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then effective Growth
Management Ordinance, and Growth Management Program and any amendments
thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage,
sewer and water.
Page 28 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
111. 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 & Building
and the City Engineer. The Applicant agrees that the City may withhold building
permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four
SPA if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by
the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed.
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 Applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense.
c. Permit all cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal
opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service for each lot or unit
within the Tentative Map area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or easement,
and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula Vista, conditional
access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the Final Map only
to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista, the condition
of such grant being that:
1. Such access is coordinated with Developer's construction schedule so that it does
not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not require the
trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of such conduits; and
11. Any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to
remain in compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise and 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.
Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said
covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation of
said grant upon determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated the
conditions of grant.
Page 29 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
d. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the
Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative
Map Conditions or any Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The City
shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer
reasonable time to cure said breach
e. To defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees,
from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this
Project. (Engineering, Planning)
145. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to approval of the First "A"
Map for the Project, where the developer agrees to the following:
a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by
SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).
b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities
benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities.
c. To equitably participate in any future regional impact fee program for regional facilities
should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the construction of such facilities.
(Engineering)
146. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall comply with all
previous agreements as they pertain to this tentative map. (Engineering, Planning)
147. Prior to approval of each Final Map for the Project, the Applicant shall contract with the
City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public
Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of
service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The Developer shall cause
street sweeping to commence immediately after the final residence, in each phase, is
occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or
60 days after the completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. The Developer
further agrees to provide the City Special Operations Manager with a copy of the memo
requesting street sweeping service, which memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and
the date the sweeping will begin. (Public Works)
148. The Applicant shall be required to equitably participate in any future regional impact fee
program for regional facilities should the region enact such a fee program to assist in the
construction of such facilities. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement, prior to approval
of the first Final Map, with the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the
formation of any potential future regional benefit assessment district formed to finance
regional facilities. (Engineering)
149. Prior to approval of the applicable Final Map for the Project, Applicant shall construct and
secure, or agree to construct and secure, the construction of transit stop facilities as set forth
in the PFFP. The schedule for constructing the transit stops shall be approved or determined
by the City Engineer prior to approval of the aforementioned Final Map. Applicant shall
design, subject to the approval of the City Engineer said transit stops in conjunction with the
Page 30 of35
Draft of May 4,2006
improvement plans for the related street. The City Engineer may require that Applicant
provide security guaranteeing the construction of said transit stops in a form of cash or any
other form approved by the City Engineer at hislher sole discretion. Since transit service
availability may not coincide with project development, the Applicant shall in'stall said
improvements when directed by the City. (Public Works/Transit)
150. Prior to approval of the first Final "A" Map for the Project in order to satisfy their fair-share
contribution for financing the transit system, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with
the City which states that the Applicant will not protest the formation of any potential future
regional benefit assessment district formed to finance the transit system. (Engineering,
Public Works)
151. Prior to the approval of any Final Map for the Project that contains open space lots,
Developer shall enter into an agreement to construct and secure open space landscape
improvements within the map area. All landscape improvements shall be secured in amounts
as determined by the Director of General Services, Director of Public Works and approved in
form by the City Attorney. (Engineering, General Services, Public Works)
152. The Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista, prior to approval
of Developers' first Final Map, regarding the provision of affordable housing. Such
agreements shall be in accordance with the Chula Vista Housing Element, the Ranch Wide
Affordable Housing Plan and the Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four Affordable
Housing Plan. (Engineering)
MISCELLANEOUS
153. The Developer shall implement the final Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) measures as
approved by the City Council, and as may be amended from time to time, and to comply and
remain in compliance with the AQIP. (Planning)
154. The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may, from time-to-time, modify air
quality improvement and energy conservation measures as technologies and/or programs
change or become available. The Developer shall modify the AQIP to incorporate those new
measures upon request of the City, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with
each Final Map approval within the Project. The new measures shall apply to development
within all future map areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which receive Final
Map approval prior to effect of the subject new measures. The Developer acknowledges and
agrees that the City has adopted the City of Chula Vista Air Quality Improvement Plan
Guidelines (AQIP Guidelines) as approved per Resolution No. 2003-260 and that such
guidelines as approved and as may be amended from time-to-time shall be implemented.
(Planning)
155. The Developer shall implement the final Water conservation Plan (WCP) measures as
approved by the City Council, and as may be amended from time to time, and to comply and
remain in compliance with the WCP. (Planning)
156. The Developer acknowledges that the City Council may, from time-to-time, modify water
conservation measures as technologies and/or programs change or become available. The
Developer shall modify the WCP to incorporate those new measures upon request of the
Page 31 of35
Draft of May 4, 2006
City, which are in effect at the time, prior to or concurrent with each Final Map approval
within the Project. The new measures shall apply to development within all future map
areas, but shall not be retroactive to those areas, which receive Final Map approval prior to
effect of the subject new measures. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City
has adopted the City of Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines (WCP Guidelines)
as approved per Resolution No. 2003-234 and that such guidelines as approved and as may
be amended from time-to-time shall be implemented. (Planning)
157. The Applicant shall install all public facilities in accordance with the Village Two, Three and
a Portion of Four Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), or as required to meet the Growth
Management Threshold standards adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the
sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
The Applicant further agrees to comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (Growth Management Ordinance) as may be amended from time to time by the City.
Said Chapter includes but is not limited to Threshold Standards (19.09.040) Public Facilities
Plan Implementation (19.09.090) and Threshold Compliance Procedures (19.09.100).
(Engineering)
158. The Applicant agrees that the maintenance and demolition of all interim facilities (public
facilities, utilities and improvements) is the Applicant's responsibility, and that construction,
maintenance and demolition bonds will be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(Engineering)
159. Within 30 days of the City Council approval of these Final Map conditions, or prior to the
submittal of the first Final Map for the Project, whichever occurs earlier, the Developer shall
submit a digital drawing file of the tentative map in its approved form. The drawing
projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The
digital file shall combine all Map sheets into a single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or
ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the following individual layers:
a. Tentative Map Limits (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
c. Street Centerlines (polylines)
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 3Y2" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
160. Submit copies of all subsequent Tentative Maps, Final Maps, grading and improvement plans
in a digital format. The drawing projection shall be in California State Plane Coordinate
System (NAD 83, Zone 6). The digital file of the maps shall combine all map sheets into a
single CADD drawing, in DXF, DWG or ArcView (GIS) format and shall contain the
following individual layers:
a Tentative and/or Final Map Boundaries (closed polygons)
b. Lot Lines (closed polygons)
Page 32 of 35
Draft of May 4,2006
c. Street Centerlines (polylines)
d. Easements (polylines)
e. Street Names (annotation)
f. Lot Numbers (annotation)
g. Open Space maintenance areas with maintenance codes (polygons, annotation)
h. Public and private structural BMP's (annotation)
The Tentative Map, Final Map, grading plan and improvement plan digital files shall also
conform to the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual requirements therefore. The digital
drawing files shall be submitted in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal
on 3112" disks or CD, as an e-mail attachment to the City Engineer or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. (Engineering)
161. On each Final Map, the boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California State Plane
Coordinate System (NAD 83, Zone 6). (Engineering)
162. The owners of each Village shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate
the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and
submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal
package required of each Developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure
consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project
manager shall have a well-rounded educational background and experience, including but not
limited to land use planning and architecture. (Planning)
163. If Developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map
but prior to recordation of the Final "A" Map and/or applicable Final"B" Map, they may do
so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be
approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations
and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., Final
"A" Map, Final"B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work performed by
the Developer prior to approval of the Final "A" Map; the applicable "B" Maps shall be at the
developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the Developer shall acknowledge in writing
that subsequent submittals (i.e., Final "B" Map and improvement plans) may require
extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. Prior to the
issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City
in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the
applicable Final "A" Map and/or Final"B" Map does not record. (Engineering)
PHASING
164. Phasing approved with the SPA Plan may be amended subject to approval by the Director of
Planning & Building and the City Engineer. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to
reflect the revised phasing plan. (Planning & Building, Engineering)
165. 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 & Building prior to approval of any Final Map.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of
Page 33 of 35
Draft of May 4, 2006
development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning &
Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or
dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of
police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning & 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. (Engineering)
166. The Public Facility Finance Plan or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and
tentative maps with improvements installed by Applicant in accordance with said plan or as
required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The PFFP identifies
a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of
development within and outside of the Project area. Throughout the build-out of Village
Seven SPA, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP.
Neither the PFFP nor any other Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA Plan
document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the
Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA's facility improvement requirements to those
identified in the PFFP. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based
on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements
and market conditions, shall govern Village Two, Three and a Portion of Four SPA
development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development.
In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any
transportation phasing plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and
Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer and Director of Planning & Building
may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment and design of
improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision.
(Engineering)
167. Unless access, drainage and utilities are shown on the master Tentative Map to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Planning & Building, prior to approval
of any Final Map proposing the creation of multi-family housing for the Project, including
any condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative, as defined in
the applicable sections of the Government Code, Developer shall agree to process, and
thereafter process, a subsequent tentative map for said proposed condominium, community
apartment, or stock cooperative project within the Project pursuant to Section 66426 of the
Subdivision Map Act, unless waived in writing by the Director of Planning & Building and
the City Engineer. (Engineering, Planning)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
168. The Applicant shall 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. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements. (Engineering)
169. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation Impact Fees,
Page 34 of 35
Draft of May 4,2006
b. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
c. Signal Participation Fees.
d. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
e. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee.
f. Poggi Canyon or Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF as applicable.
Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
(Engineering)
170. 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. (Engineering)
171. 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.
(Engineering)
H:\PLANNING\sCOITD\ VILLAGE Two TM CONDmONS - DRAFT.DOC
Page 35 of35
OCT. 13, 2005 11: 03AM
NO. 732
p, 4
~u?-
-.
~
CflY OF
CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
Disclosure Statement
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Pursuant to Council Policy 1Q1-01. prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by
the Council, Planning Commission and all other offIcial bodies of the City. a statement of disclosure of certain
ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must
be filed. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest In the property that is the subject of the
applicatlon or the contract. e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Otav Proiect. LP
2. If any person\\' Identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
Individuals with a $2000 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 nonwprofit 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 matter.
Hunsaker & Assoc. ... Lex Willi man Kim John Kilkenny
Ranje Hunter Rob Cameron
Kent Aden
5. Has any person. associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official"'''' of the Cjty
of Chu1a Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes D- No ~
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 t81 Yes 0 If yes, which Council Member?
276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California I 91910 I (619) 691-5101
~
~2C.~, .1l.. 2~~,5J91.! : 01~~-VI~L^GE DEVELOP~NT
949S~4Te67
F~9. 7?2)OS/ooP. .5'AAA
..,.... 1111- "''''''fI. ... ~'''II
-
cH6\i ~~
Plal11!ing " Building Department
flanninS D2viililm I Dm1;ptnen' Pmoauinl
APPLtCATION APPENDIX a
Disclosure Statemen' - P~B' 2
7. Havs ~u provided more 1hal1 i340 (Dr an item of equivalent VIIu') to Cin off'lCial"'" of 'hI CItY Qf Chula
Vista In the paet twelve (1g) monU18?JJnlllncluda& being a source ofln!;Qme, money to reUre IleBal
debt. gift, loan, etc.) YeS D- No ~
If Vss. Which officiar- and wha~ was me natUre of Item prQVi"ed?
~
WI
Cite: P'!tJ?J I t;;O()~_ - ~~~
s~J~f
~ ISJlke~. ot~y ~i~, loP. Print or
tfpe name of ConU'ISC\Or/Appftcsnt
Peraon IS defined aa: any it'lQivid, l.Ial firm, co-partnerehlp, JoInt venture, ~6GO'ia~cm, social club,
hiemal organizatJon, ccrporatlon, estate. trust, rllr,;itlver, syndlcakt, .ny othf!r CDUntY, CIty,
municipality, district. or otner pOlitical subdiVision, -or an, omar gTOUp ar comblna1ign acting as a
uni~.
Official incluQss, but is not limited '0: Mayor, Council member, Planning commisslonlr, MembQr of
a board, commiesloo, Dr committee or Ihe CiM employee. or staff members.
If
276 rClul1!'l AvtnUiI I CIMS VIS1B I Oamomia 1 a,810 I (11'9) &91.51111