Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 - Proposed Project Amendment
PDS2019-SPA-19-001; PDS2019-TM-5616R; PDS2019-STP-029; PDS2019-ER-16-19-006A; SCH NO. 2016121042
The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (PDS2019-SPA-19-001), a Vesting Revised Tentative Map (PDS2019-TM-5616R), and a Vesting Site Plan (PDS2019-STP-19-029).
The Proposed Project Amendment consists of a Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Revised Tentative Map, and Vesting Site Plan. For background, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project (Approved Project) was approved by the County’s Board of Supervisors on June 26, 2019. The Proposed Project Amendment includes land uses that are similar to the Approved Project in that both projects include residential uses, public and private parks, a mixed-use village core with a public safety site and commercial uses, and various open space and preserve uses. The number of residential units would be increased from 1,119 to 1,266 units, which represents an increase of 147 units when compared with the Approved Project. In addition, the Proposed Project Amendment includes changes as the result of discussions with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, including a proposed land exchange. The proposed land exchange would require the owner/applicant to transfer 338.8 acres to CDFW and record a conservation easement over 191.5 acres. In return, CDFW would transfer 219.4 acres in Village 14 to the owner/applicant, resulting in a consolidated, contiguous ownership in Village 14.
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining what additional environmental documentation, if any, must be completed when a previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) covers the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required. The County prepared an Environmental Review Update Checklist (Checklist) to assess whether the certified Final EIR for the Approved Project adequately covers the impacts associated with the Proposed Project Amendment or, in the alternative, whether additional environmental review is required. The Checklist determined that none of conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, the previously certified EIR is adequate with the completion of the Checklist and Addendum.
Public Meeting:
A public meeting will be held for the Draft Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Revised Tentative Map, and Vesting Site Plan on January 14, 2020, at the Oak Grove Middle School library, located at 14344 Olive Vista Drive, Jamul, CA 91935 starting at 7:30 p.m.
Project Contact: Greg Mattson | Gregory.Mattson@sdcounty.ca.gov | (858) 694-2249
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD (JANUARY 2, 2020 - FEBRUARY 17, 2020)
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Cover and Table of Contents
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Part 1
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Part 2
Specific Plan Appendices:
4. Public Facilities Finance Plan & Fiscal Impact Report
Preliminary Grading Plan Sheets 1-9
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Reader's Guide:
An Environmental Review Update Checklist Form for Projects with Previously Approved Environmental Documents has been prepared for the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 – Proposed Project Amendment (Proposed Project Amendment) that is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining what additional environmental documentation, if any, must be completed when a previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) covers the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required. In this case, the County must assess whether the certified Final EIR for the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 (Approved Project) adequately covers the impacts associated with the Proposed Project Amendment or, in the alternative, whether additional environmental review is required. This Environmental Review Update Checklist Form has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to explain the rationale for determining whether any additional environmental documentation is needed for the subject discretionary action – i.e., adoption of the Proposed Project Amendment.
ADDENDUM ATTACHMENTS
ADDENDUM TECHNICAL APPENDICES
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 14 AND PLANNING AREAS 16/19 ORIGINAL
DOCUMENTS TIED TO PROJECT APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 26, 2019.
PDS2016-SP-16-002; PDS2016-GPA-16-008; PDS2016-REZ-16-006; PDS2016-TM-5616; PDS2016-STP-16-027; PDS2016-ER-16-19-006
The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PDS2016-GPA-16-008), a Specific Plan (PDS2016-SP-16-002), a Rezone (PDS2016-REZ-16-006), and a Tentative Map (PDS2016-TM-5616).
The project proposes to develop 1,119 homes on approximately 1,284 total acres within an approximately 860 acre development footprint that lies within Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 & 19 (PAs 16 & 19). Approximately 994 of the 1,119 homes will be located in Village 14, set in three district neighborhoods (referred to herein as the South, Central and North Villages). Homes will be single-family detached homes. Within Village 14 there are 878 homes located within gated neighborhood enclaves and 116 non-gated homes located in the South Village area. In addition, there are 13 one-acre estates in PA 19 and 112 Ranchettes located in PA 16.
The Village core will comprise a 9.7 acre elementary school, a 2.3 acre public safety site with a fire station, a 7.2 acre Village Green, and a 1.7 acre mixed use site with 10,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. The project's recreational opportunities will include three public parks and three swimclubs, as well as trails and other recreational facilities situated throughout the South, Central, and North Villages. Public parks would include a 7.2 acre Village Green in the Village Core area, a 3.8 acre scenic park in the Central Village, and a 2.9 acre park in the South Village. In addition, smaller pocket parks will be situated throughout Village 14. The project also includes approximately 4.5 miles of Community Pathway that is along Proctor Valley Road between Chula Vista and Jamul and an internal neighborhood pedestrian network. The project does not include the "Inverted L" Village 14 property because it is located within the City of Chula Vista.
Project Contact: Greg Mattson | Gregory.Mattson@sdcounty.ca.gov | (858) 694-2249
Note regarding the June 26, 2019 Board of Supervisors Hearing:
The Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19 project hearing (Item #7) will begin no earlier than 2:00 PM tomorrow, June 26, 2019 and will start upon the conclusion of the other items on the agenda.
(*) Document links with an asterisk have been revised since the Planning Commission Hearing on October 19, 2018.
10/19/18 Planning Commission Staff Report (With Attachments)
10/19/18 Planning Commission Staff Report (With Attachments, Optimized File)
10/19/18 Planning Commission Staff Report (No Attachments)
CEQA and Environmental Findings are found in the applicable attachments of the Staff Report.
WEBSITE SHORTCUT TABLE
Please use the following table as a guidance tool to navigate the website.
| Click Here | Draft Final Environmental Impact Report with Appendices |
| Click Here | Draft Environmental Impact Report |
| Click Here | Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices (Section A) |
| Click Here | Draft Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices - Land Exchange Alternative (Section B) |
Click Here for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
*
Title Page
Table
of Contents
*
Summary
CHAPTER
1 - Project Description
CHAPTER 2 - Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
2.1
Aesthetics
2.2
Agricultural Resources
*
2.3
Air Quality
2.4 Biological Resources (Part: 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19)
2.5
Cultural Resources
2.6
Geology, Soils, and Seismology
*
2.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.8 Noise
*
2.9 Transportation
and Traffic
2.10
Paleontological Resources
2.11
Tribal Cultural Resources
CHAPTER 3 - Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
3.1.1
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.1.2
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.1.3
Land Use and Planning
3.1.4
Mineral Resources
3.1.5
Population and Housing
3.1.6
Public Services
3.1.7
Recreation
3.1.8
Utilities and Service Systems
3.1.9
Energy
3.1.10
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Resultant From
Project Implementation
3.2
Effects Found Not Significant During Initial Study
CHAPTER 4 - Project Alternatives
CHAPTER 5 - List of References
* CHAPTER 7 - List of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Design Considerations
* CHAPTER 8 - Letters of Comment and Responses (Including Thematic Responses)
SPECIFIC PLAN (Cover
& Table of Contents, Part
1, Part
2)
SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDICES
1.
Preserve Edge Plan
2.
Fire Protection Plan
3.
Energy Conservation Plan
4.
Public Facilities Finance Plan
5.
Village Design Plan
6.
Water Conservation Plan
7.
Design Guidelines
8.
Agricultural Plan
Comments & Responses to Comments
Agencies
A-1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Response)
A-2
California Department of Transportation (Response)
A-3
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Response)
A-3.1
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 1 (Response)
A-3.2
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 2 (Response)
A-3.3
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 3 (Response)
A-3.4
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 4 (Response)
A-3.5
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 5 (Response)
A-3.6
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 6 (Response)
A-3.7
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 7 (Response)
A-3.8
California Fish and Wildlife Attachment 8 (Response)
A-4
City of Chula Vista (Response)
A-5
Jamul-Dulzura Union School District (Response)
A-5.1
Jamul-Dulzura Union School District (Response)
A-6
SANDAG (Response)
A-7
Grossmont Union High School District (Response)
Tribal Organizations
T-1
Viejas Tribal Government (Response)
T-2
Sycuan Band (Response)
Organizations
O-1
San Diego County Archaeological Society (Response)
*O-2
Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group (*Response)
O-3
Sierra Club San Diego (Response)
O-4
Buena Vista Audubon Society (Response)
*O-5
California Native Plant Society San Diego (*Response,
Response
Attachment A)
*O-6 Endangered Habitats League (Shute
Mihaly) Part: 1,
2
(*Response)
O-6.1 Biological Review Part: 1,
2
(Response)
O-6.2
Quino Review (Response)
O-6.3
Hydrology/Stormwater (Response)
O-6.4
Reax (Response)
O-6.5
Griffin Cove Transportation Consulting, PLLC (Response)
O-6.6
to O-6.39 EHL Attachment List (Response)
*O-7
Center for Biological Diversity, Preserve Wild Santee, California
Chaparral Institute (*Response)
O-8 The Chaparral Lands Conservancy Part: 1,
2
(Response)
O-9
The Nature Conservancy (Response)
Individuals
I-1
Dana Blasi (Response)
I-2
Jean Stouf 1 (Response)
I-3
Jean Stouf 2 (Response)
I-4
Laura Rockwood (Response)
I-5
Frank Ohrmund (Response)
I-6
Barbara Swanson (Response)
I-7
Patti Roesch (Response)
I-8
Joseph Coppola (Response)
I-9
Jane Mygatt (Response)
I-10
George Hetzel (Response)
I-11
Diana Carson (Response)
I-12
Patrick Sullivan (Response)
I-13
Cynthia Evans (Response)
I-14
Jan McBride (Response)
I-15
Bill Fair (Response)
I-16
Stephanie Dillon (Response)
I-17
Sandy Zelasko (Response)
I-18
Robert and Debbie Merrill (Response)
I-19
Marcia and Michael Spurgeon (Response)
I-20
Natalie Shapiro (Response)
I-21
Jill Powell (Response)
I-22
Linea Peltola (Response)
I-23
Preston Brown (Response)
I-24
Matthew Norris (Response)
I-25
Michael Dehart (Response)
I-26
Charlotte Johnson 1 (Response)
I-27
Charlotte Johnson 2 (Response)
I-28
Marek L Winiarz (Response)
I-29
David Buller (Response)
I-30
Jocelyn Parker (Response)
I-31
Andrea Harris (Response)
Late Letters
X-1
City of San Diego (Response)
X-2
Robert and Norma Foor (Response)
*Late Letters Received After Planning Commission
*Compiled Late Letters Received After Planning Commission
*Compliled Late Letter Responses After Planning Commission
*LL-1
United States Fish and Wildlife Service to San Diego County Letter
(11-20-18) (Response)
*LL-2
California Department of Fish and Wildlife to San Diego County
Letter (11-26-18) (Response)
*LL-3
Endangered Habitats League to San Diego County Letter (11-26-18)
(Response)
*LL-4
Endangered Habitats League to San Diego County Letter (12-5-18)
(Response)
*LL-5
Endangered Habitats League to California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Letter (12-21-18) (Response)
*LL-6
Endangered Habitats League to San Diego County Letter (1-3-19)
(Response)
*LL-7
Robert T. Foor and Norma Trost Foor to San Diego County Letter
(2-5-19) (Response)
*LL-8
Shute Mihaly to San Diego County (3-1-19) (Response)
*LL-9
Harris Letter to San Diego County (3-2-19) (Response)
*LL-10
May Letter to San Diego County (3-2-19) (Response)
*LL-11
Ms. Paula Ames to San Diego County (3-11-19) (Response)
*LL-12
Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Coalition (4-1-19) (Response)
*LL-13
Novinskey to San Diego County (4-8-19) (Response)
*LL-14
US Fish and Wildlife Service to San Diego County (5-2-19) (Response)
*LL-15
Mr. Clark Hudston to San Diego County (5-24-19) (Response)
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
TECHNICAL APPENDICES - LAND EXCHANGE ALTERNATIVE (LEA)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (LEA)
Readers Guide:
This Guide is provided to facilitate the review of the Proposed Project and to introduce a project level alternative, which means that the lead agency as part of its range of reasonable alternatives has included a project alternative that has met all applicable CEQA and County requirements, and thus could be approved by the Board of Supervisors without further environmental review.
Due to this project level alternative, the reader will see that there are two sets of project level technical documents, associated Appendices, and Tentative Maps/Preliminary Grading Plans. Section A will be the presentation of the Proposed Project and its required associated support documents and Section B will be the project level alternative with its supporting documents.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD (March 1, 2018 - April 16, 2018)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Title
Page
Table
of Contents
Summary
CHAPTER
1 - Project Description
CHAPTER 2 - Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
2.1
Aesthetics
2.2
Agricultural Resources
2.3
Air Quality
2.4 Biological Resources (Part: 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13)
2.5
Cultural Resources
2.6
Geology, Soils, and Seismology
2.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.8 Noise
2.9 Transportation
and Traffic
2.10
Paleontological Resources
2.11
Tribal Cultural Resources
CHAPTER 3 - Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
3.1.1
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.1.2
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.1.3
Land Use and Planning
3.1.4
Mineral Resources
3.1.5
Population and Housing
3.1.6
Public Services
3.1.7
Recreation
3.1.8
Utilities and Service Systems
3.1.9
Energy
3.1.10
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Resultant From
Project Implementation
3.2
Effects Found Not Significant During Initial Study
CHAPTER 4 - Project Alternatives
CHAPTER 5 - List of References
CHAPTER 7 - List of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Design Considerations
SPECIFIC PLAN (Cover
& Table of Contents, Part
1, Part
2)
SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDICES
1.
Preserve Edge Plan
2.
Fire Protection Plan
Fire Protection Plan
Appendices: A-F,
G-L
3.
Energy Conservation Plan
4.
Public Facilities Finance Plan
5.
Village Design Plan
6.
Water Conservation Plan
7.
Design Guidelines
8.
Agricultural Plan
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (SECTION A)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (SECTION B)
Popular Services
