HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2000/04/12
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CAWMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARl NG: ZA V-00-09; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a
wal height variance request. Luis Kaloyan.
Staff: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a 20% density bonus, eliminate the required guest
parking, and the allow 21 % of the required parking as compact
parking spaces to facilitate the construction of a maximum often (10)
low-income dwelling units for an existing 40 unit multifamily
residential development, known as Kingswood Manor, located at 54-
94 Kingswood Drive to be developed by IPMG, Inc.
Staff: Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06; Consideration of an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of
the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-
02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing
Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be
built prior to SR-125 freeway for public access. Pacific Bay Homes.
Planning Commission
-2-
Apri I 12, 2000
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Review upcoming meeting calendar.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
to a Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 2000.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 4/12/00
I
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V-00-09; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision to deny a wall height variance request. Applicant: Luis Kaloyan
The proposed project is a request for a variance from Section 19.58.150 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, and Section II.6 A of the EastLake II SPA, which limit wall heights to six feet,
for an existing 70-foot long, 8-foot high masonry block wall at 1173 Crystal Downs Drive, a .22-
acre single-family residential lot in EastLake II.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt, per
Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution ZA V -00-09 (Attachment 2) upholding
the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the wall height variance at 1173 Crystal Downs
Drive.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The .22-acre single-family, triangular-shaped parcel is 35 feet wide at the front of the lot
and 130 feet wide at the back. The eastern edge is 155 feet long, and the western edge is
98 feet long. A two-story, single-family dwelling sits on the lot, along with a swimming
pool; storage shed; fountain; trellis; barbecue; and the masonry block wall, approximately
three feet from the eastern property line, but as close as 20" in one spot. The masonry
block wall also has three feet of plywood on top of it, making its actual height 11 feet. A
5' 2" high wood fence installed by the developer sits on the western property line. The
same type of fence sits on the eastern property line, but it has been altered by the applicant,
who added 2' 1 Ih" of wooden lattice on top of it, creating a 7' 3 1/2" high fence. A view
fence constructed by the developer sits on the back property line, and has not been altered.
There are also several tall, mature trees cascading over and between the masonry block and
wood wall and the eastern perimeter fence.
Single-family residential lots are located to the north, east, and west, and the EastLake
Golf Course is located south (see Locator, Attachment 1). The resident of the lot adjacent
to the east has submitted a letter opposing the variance request (Attachment 3).
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/12/00
2. General Plan. Zoning. EastLake Greens SPA and Land Use
General Plan Zoning EastLake Greens SPA Current Land Use
Site: Residential P-C, Planned RS-7 S-F Residentiat
Low-Medium Community
North: Residential P-C, Planned RS-7 S- F Residential
Low-Medium Community
South: Residential P-C, Planned RS-7 S- F Residential
Low-Medium Community
East: Open Space P-C, Planned OS-6 Golf Course
Community
West: Residential P-C, Planned RS-7 S- F Residential
Low-Medium Community
3. Proposal
The existing 11' high masonry block and wood wall curves along the property's eastern
lot line between 20" and three feet from the actual property line, where a 7' 3 V2" wood
fence sits. The wall, which is not visible from the street, is also not visible from the
abutting golf course due to a steep slope that rises between the golf course and the subject
property. The wall is visible from the adjacent eastern lot, however. It is approximately
70 feet long, and is finished on the applicant's side and unfinished on the side facing the
adjacent property. The masonry block portion of the wall stands 8-feet high, and the
plywood portion stands 3-feet high, for a total height of 11 feet. The applicant has agreed
to remove the plywood portion of the wall, but wants to maintain the 8-foot high masonry
block portion. Therefore, he is seeking a variance from the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code (Section 19.58.150) and the EastLake II SPA (Section II.6 A) which only allow 6-
foot high walls. (Note: Applicant is not seeking a variance for the 7' 3 V2" wood fence
because he intends to remove the 2' 1 1/2" high lattice he added to it.)
On December 14, 1999, the EastLake II Community Association conditionally approved
the wall height variance, as stated in their letter to the applicant dated December 17, 1999
(Attachment 4). Conditions included the following:
. The masonry block wall referred to as an Architectural Feature on the plans shall
be approved as a variance. However, the wall must be finished on both sides to a
maximum of 8' tall.
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/12/00
. The existing wood fence [7' 3 V2" high on eastern property line] shall be returned
to and remain its original height [5' 2"], construction and materials as initially
installed by the developer.
. Obtain all permits as required by the City of Chula Vista.
. All corrective actions must occur within 90 days from the date of letter.
In his variance application submitted to the City of Chula Vista on December 21, 1999,
the applicant stated that the wall shall provide privacy and wind protection for owners to
enjoy their backyard. Wall also is considered an architectural accent to the landscaping,
fountain, and barbecue area.
On February 15, 2000, the City of Chula Vista Zoning Administrator considered the wall
height variance and denied it because the required legal fmdings could not be met
(Attachment 5). Following is a discussion of the Zoning Administrator's action:
The first required fmding is That a hardship particular to the property and not created by
any act of the owner exists.... The owner constructed the 11-foot high wall at 1173 Crystal
Downs Drive "for privacy and wind protection" prior to obtaining a building permit from
the City of Chula Vista or variances from the EastLake II Community Association and the
City of Chula Vista. The Zoning Administrator found that there is no existing hardship
particular to this property.
Section II.6 A of the EastLake II SPA states: A wall, fence or hedge not more than six (6)
feet in height may be maintained along the interior side or rear lot line, provided that such
wall, fence or hedge does not extend into a required front or side yard adjacent to a street
except for noise attenuation as required by the City and as herein provided. Section
19.58.150 of the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code states: Aftnce, wall or hedge not more
than six feet in height may be maintained and located on any part of an interior or corner
lot, to the rear of the required front and exterior side yard setbacks. At one point the II-foot
high masonry block and wood wall encroaches 16" into the required 3-foot side yard setback.
In terms of wall height, topography of 1173 Crystal Downs Drive is not unique from the
other lots in the neighborhood, whereby a 6-foot high fence, outside the. 3-foot side yard
setback, would not be adequate to provide privacy between properties.
The second required finding is That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
districts and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a
special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. Granting the variance would,
indeed, constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors who have
not constructed walls without permits or in nonconformance with the City of Chula Vista
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/12/00
Municipal Code and the EastLake II SPA.
The third required finding is That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to the acijacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter
or public interest. Authorizing the variance would be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property, primarily the eastern adjacent lot. The unfinished side of the masonry
block wall protrudes above the wood fence on the eastern property line, creating an
unprofessional, sloppy-looking barrier and blocking views of the golf course for the residents
who reside on the eastern adjacent lot.
The final required finding is that Granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. Granting of the
variance would be contrary to the provisions in Section II.6 A of the EastLake II SPA and
Section of 19.58.150 of the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code, which allow a maximum
wall height of six feet.
APPLICANT'S APPEAL
On February 25, 2000, the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Division, addressed
to the Planning Commission, appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator
(Attachment 6). In his letter, the applicant requests that Section 11.6 A of the EastLake II
SPA be disregarded. He states that the structure is not a violation because it does not run
along the property line and it is three feet inside the property line. While the wall is not on
the property line, it does, in fact, run parallel to the property line, and is close as 20" at one
point.
Additionally, the applicant states that the project is an accessory structure or architectural
feature, not a wall or fence, and that it is part of an entire landscaping theme and qualifies
as a wing wall. "Accessory Structure" is not defined in the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
In Section 19.04.290 of the Code, however, "Structure" is defined as: anything
constructed, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment
to something having a permanent location on the ground. By this broad definition, the wall
is classified as a structure, but it clearly functions as a wall, not an accessory structure.
Section 11.5 Accessory Structures: Residential Districts of the EastLake II SPA
addresses accessory structures separately from Section 11.6 Walls and Fences of the
EastLake II SPA, thereby making a distinction between structures and walls. Section II.5
states that Accessory buildings and structures, attached or detached, used either wholly or
in part for living purposes, shall meet all of the requirements for location of the main
structure as constructed or required by the District, whichever is less restrictive, except as
herein provided. Section II.5 C states that A detached accessory structure 111flY be located
within an interior side or rear yard provided that such structure is located no closer than
five (5) feet to an interior side or rear lot line and is at least six (6) feet from the main
structure and does not exceed one story in height.
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 4/12/00
The masonry block wall is not to be used either wholly or in part for living purposes and,
therefore, Section 11.5 Accessory Structures: Residential Districts does not apply to this
project. If it did apply, the wall could exceed the wall height limitation of six feet and
could be as high as one story (or at least eight feet). But it would have to be located five
feet, rather than three feet, from the interior side line.
In addition, the EastLake II Community Association, in evaluating the variance application
submitted to them, considered the masonry block wall a wall rather than an accessory
structure, as evidenced by their letter dated December 17, 1999 (Attachment 4).
Analvsis
Both the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the EastLake II SPA were adopted by the City
of Chula Vista City Council. The regulations in both documents apply to this project. The
regulations in the EastLake II SPA area specific to the EastLake II Planned Community,
while the Chula Vista Municipal Code supplements the SPA and provides for issues not
specifically addressed in the SPA.
The proposal is inconsistent with Section 19.58.150 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal
Code, which stipulates that walls on any part of the lot shall not exceed six feet in height
and shall be located to the rear of the required side yard setbacks. In addition, the proposal
is inconsistent with Section II.6 A of the EastLake II SPA, which stipulates that walls
along the interior sideline shall not exceed six feet.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance in accordance with the attached Planning
Commission Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution recommending denial
3. Letter to Planning Commission from G. Hambalko
4. Letter to L. Kaloyan from EastLake II Community Association
5. Letter to L. Kaloyan from City of Chula Vista, denying variance
6. Appeal letter from L. Kaloyan to Planning Commission
7. Disclosure Statement
8. Site Plan
EASTlAKE
GOLF COURSE
LIBRARY
w
~
~
I-
~
EASTLAKE
HIGH SCHOOL
EASTLAKE
GOLF COURSE
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT LUIS KALOYAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C!) APPUC1Mr. ZONE VARIANCE
PROJECT 1173 Crystal Downs Drive
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed 8' x 70' masonry block wall constructed
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: 3' to 4' from north property line.
NORTH No Scale ZAV - 00-09
h:\homelplanning\hectorllocatorsIZAV0009.cdr 01/18/00
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V -00-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A WALL HEIGHT
VARIANCE AT 1173 CRYSTAL DOWNS DRIVE IN EASTLAKE II.
WHEREAS, a duly verified Appeal Form was submitted to the Planning and Building Department
of the City of Chula Vista on February 25, 2000 by Luis Kaloyan ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, said appeal form requests that a variance be granted to permit an 8-foot high wall at
1173 Crystal Downs Drive; and
WHEREAS, Section 19.58.150 of the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code and Section 11.6 A of
the EastLake II SPA allow walls to be a maximum of 6-feet high; and
WHEREAS, this project is categorically exempt, per Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new
accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, on February 15,2000 the Zoning Administrator denied the wall height variance based
on the same findings as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal,
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 12, 2000 at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and said
hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented
at the public hearing with respect to this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission does hereby find, determine,
resolve, and order as follows:
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs of
1
ATTACHMENT 2
the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal,
family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations
are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits.
The owner constructed the 11-foot high wall at 1173 Crystal Downs Drive "for privacy
and wind protection" prior to obtaining a building permit from the City of Chula Vista or
variances from the EastLake II Community Association and the City of Chula Vista.
Section 11.6 A of the EastLake II SPA states: A wall, fence or hedge not more than six (6)
feet in height may be maintained along the interior side or rear lot line, provided that such
wall, fence or hedge does not extend into a required front or side yard adjacent to a street
except for noise attenuation as required by the City and as herein provided. Section
19.58.150 of the City ofChula Vista Municipal Code states: Aftnce, wall or hedge not more
than six feet in height may be maintained and located on any part of an interior or corner
lot, to the rear afthe required front and exterior side yard setbacks. At one point the II-foot
high masonry block and wood wall encroaches 16" into the required 3-foot side yard setback.
In terms of topography of 1173 Crystal Downs Drive is not unique from the other lots in the
neighborhood, whereby a 6-foot high fence, outside the 3-foot side yard setback, would not
be adequate to provide privacy between properties.
2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege
ofthe recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
Granting the variance would, indeed, constitute a special privilege of the recipient not
enjoyed by his neighbors who have not constructed walls without permits or in
nonconformance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and the EastLake II SPA.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public
interest.
Authorizing the variance would be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property,
primarily the eastern adjacent lot. The unfinished side of the masonry block wall protrudes
above the wood fence on the eastern property line, creating an unprofessional, sloppy-
looking barrier and blocking views of the golf course for the residents who reside on the
eastern adjacent lot.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City
or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this variance will be contrary to the provisions in Section II.6 A of the
EastLake II SPA, and Section 19.58.150 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. Both
allow walls to be a maximum of 6 feet high.
2
II. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
3
Geza Ham ;0
1169 Crystal Downs Dr.
Chula Vista CA 91915
(619) 656-6000
AprilS, 2000
City of Chula Vista
Planning Commission
Re: ZA V -00-09
Kaloyan Wall Height Variance
1173 Crystal Downs, Chula Vista CA 91915
Dear Gentleman:
I live at 1169 Crystal Downs Dr. in Chula Vista CA, adjacent to the Kaloyan residence where the Wall
Height Variance is being requested.
I urge the panel to reject Mr. Kaloyan's request on two important counts:
I. The block fence in question was built a couple of years ago by a brick layer who had no
knowledge of the Chula Vista codes for masonry fence specifications or fence height.
When I mentioned to him that masonry fence over 6' in height shall be designed by a
California Registered Civil or Structural Engineer, he told me that he had no blue prints or
permit to go by and he had no knowledge of codes governing wall height, footing or
reinforcing steel specifications. As a consequence the 8' masonry wall, which has grown
to over 11 ' by now by the addition of a poorly attached pieces of plywood, has partially
collapsed during two previous storms in moderate winds.
2. I have paid a premium price for this property because of its 1800 view from my backyard,
and due to this unauthorized construction we have been denied the enjoyment of this view
to the South side of our house for the past two years. This has significantly lowered the
resale value of our property.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope that this unsafe wall will be torn down and rebuilt to no
higher than 6' to exciting city requirements and inspected as needed.
Sincerely,
,
~
/
L-/'"
ATTACHMENT 3
MAR-17-2000 14:01FROM:EASTLAKE2
6194213420
TO:619 691 5171
PAGE: 02
...iEASTLAKE n COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
2405 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE. CHULA VISTA. CA 91915.619-421-3340. FAX 619-421-3420
December 17, 1999
Mr. Kaloyan
1173 Crystal Downs Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91915
Dear Mr. Kaloyan:
This letter is written on behalf of the Architectural Committee for
EastLake II community Association.
As you are aware the committee is established by the Board of
Directors and are delegated the power, authority and responsibility
of holding meetings and making subsequent determinations.
Based on the information provided by your contractor Juan Quernado
December 14, 1999 it was determined that the masonry block wall
referred to as an Architectural Feature on the plans, be approVed as
a variance. However, the wall must be finished on both sides to a
maximum of 8'- QU tall.
The existing wood fence be returned to and remain its original
height, construction and materials as initially installed by the
developer.
The storage shed design materials including roofing, sidings, and
colors must match the existing house Per II B of the Architectural
Standards.
The fountain trellis mUst be painted to match the existing house
colors and the roof must be 50% open.
The Bar-B-Que. trellis must be painted to match the existing house
colors and the roof must be 50% open.
The height of the fountain in the side yard may not exceed above the
fence line_
Please be advised that you are responsible for all corrective actions
necessary to comply with the Architectural Guidelines within 90 days
from the date of this letter, in addition to all permits as required
by the City of Chul. Vista, to avoid further action being taken by
the Board of Directors in this matter.
Should you have any questions or concern$ regarding this matter,
please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
~ 1/';)
// (aJ..L'f- 1!CCtf"rj
Mary HeaJI:h
Community Director
EastLake II
ATTACHMENT 4
~~f?
~
~~~~
,
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
February 15,2000
Juan Quemado
P.O. Box 430498
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Re: ZA V-00-09 Wall Height Variance at 1173 Crystal Downs Drive, Chula Vista
Dear Mr.Quemado:
The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to obtain approval for the existing
8-foot-high fence located approximately three feet from the side yard property line at 1173
Crystal Downs Drive, Chula Vista. This variance request is to accommodate a 2-foot fence
height increase over the allowed 6-foot fence height limitation in Section 11.6 A. of the EastLake
II SPA Plans. It has been determined that this project is categorically exempt, per Section
15303. Class 3(e), construction of new accessory structures, including fences. in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can
never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
Section 11.6 A of the EastLake II SPA states: A wall, ftnce or hedge not more than six
(6) feet in height may be maintained along the interior side or rear lot line, provided that
such wall, fence or hedge does not extend into a required front or side yard adjacent to a
street except for noise attenuation as required by the City and as herein provided. The
topography of the area does not create a situation where a 6-foot high fence would not be
adequate to provide privacy between properties.
2. That such a variance is necessary for the presenoation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the
same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege
of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The request for two additional feet of fence height would grant a special privilege to the
applicant that could not be enjoyed by neighboring properties. The additional fence
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910
ATTACHMENT 5
c-~-. po.'.Con.~....' ;;KYCAI<: ,,_,
Juan Quemado
Page 2
February] 5. 2000
height being requested in order to maintain an 8-foot high fence as measured from the
neighboring property would be a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
public interest.
The variance will cause adverse visual impacts to the adjacent property. The existing 8-
foot high fence protrudes two feet above the wooden fence on the property line between
the applicant's property and the adjoining parcel.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this variance would be contrary to the provisions in Section 11.6 A of the
EastLake II SPA, and Sections 12.12.120, 12.12.130, and 19.58.150 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allow walls to be a maximum height of 6 feet.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed form along
with a $350 deposit must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter.
Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence ofsmd appeal the decision of
the Zoning Administrator is final.
Sincerely,
(i
0J~~
Kimberly V er Bie
Associate Planner
cc: Beverly Blessent, AICP - Senior Planner
James D. Sandoval, AICP - Assistant Planning Director
Sue Gray - Code Enforcement Manager
Steve Jacobson - Code Enforcement Officer II
Luis Kaloyan
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
LUIS KALOY AN
1173 CRYSTAL DOWNS
CHULA VISTA, CA 91915
February 25, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Appeal to ZA V-00-09 Wall Height Variance at 1173 Crystal Downs Drive
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am appealing your decision regarding the structure that has been built on my property.
Your decision refers to this structure as an "8-foot-high fence" and your denial of the
variance is based on this classification. It is actually an accessory structure or
architectural feature, not a wall or fence. A six-foot fence surrounding my property is
already in place. The structure that I propose is an accessory feature that is part of an
entire landscaping theme. It is located three feet inside my property line and it does not
extend the entire length of my property, as would a fence.
I request that the Planning Commission reconsider their decision based on the following
facts in regards to Section II.6 and Section II.5 of the Eastlake SPA.
1. Section II.6 A of the Eastlake SPA states "a wall, fence of hedge not more than
six (6) feet in height m0' be maintained along the interior or rear lot line...". As
I indicated above, the accessory structure does not serve the purpose of a fence. It
is an essential part of an entire landscaping theme and does not run the entire
length of the property. Furthermore, even if it were classified as a fence or wall,
the structure is not a violation because it does not run along the property line. It is
three feet inside the property line Finally, I request that Section II.6 be
disregarded in your decision as I received a signed variance from Eastlake II
Community Association.
2. Section II.5 of the Eastlake SPA regarding accessory structures states: "Porches,
steps, architectural features such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, balconies,
stairways, wing walls or b0' windows m0' project not more than four (4) feet into
any required front or rear yard area, and not into any required side yard more
than one-half of said required side yard." The accessory structure qualifies as a
wing wall and is not more than one-half into the required side yard.
ATTACHMENT 6
In summary, the proposed architectural feature is an essential part of a landscaping theme
and does not serve as a fence. It is an aesthetically pleasing feature that fits with the
landscaping, does not visually impact the neighborhood and is not in view from any point
on the street. I was required to go through a lengthy and meticulous process in order to
receive a variance from the Eastlake Community Association. As part of the process the
adjacent owners had the opportunity to comment and without any objections I was
granted the variance. It is my understanding, based on information my architect received
from your department, that a variance is not needed for an accessory structure or
architectural feature so I am confused as to why this entire process is now necessary.
I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission consider this appeal based on the facts
set forth. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your decision.
incerely,
,
~
uis Kaloyan
Cc: Juan TG Quemado
Project Designer
PO Box 430498
San Ysidro, CA 92143
619-921-4433
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item :J
Meeting Date 04/12/00
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution recommending that the City Council grant a twenty
percent (20%) density bonus, eliminate the required guest parking, and allow 16
percent of the required parking as compact parking spaces to facilitate the
construction of a maximum of ten (10) low-income dwelling units for an existing 40
unit multifamily residential development, known as Kingswood Manor, located at 54-
94 Kingswood Drive to be developed by IPMG, Inc.
STAFF CONTACT:
Leilani Hines, Community Development Department
On March 22, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request for a twenty percent (20%)
density bonus and modifications of certain development standards pursuant to California Government Code Section
65915 for a proposed project known as Kingswood Manor located at 54-94 Kingswood Drive. Specifically, the applicant
is requesting the elimination of guest parking, as required under the Precise Plan (76-14) for the property, and the design
of 16 percent of the parking spaces as compact spaces. All public comments were received on March 22n' and the
hearing was continued to the Planning Commission's regular meeting on April 12, 2000 for further discussion and
consideration.
Since the public hearing on March 22, 2000, the applicant has revised the proposed site plan to address concerns raised
by surrounding property owners and residents and Planning Commission members. Additionally, staff has researched
other issues raised by the Commission regarding parking, traffic, and calls for service.
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the requested 20
percent increase in density, the elimination of the required guest parking, and the allowance of 16 percent of the required
parking be compact parking spaces to facilitate the construction of a maximum often (10) low-income dwelling units for
an existing 40 unit multifamily residential development, known as Kingswood Manor, based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution.
1. Revised Site Plan
The property is currently developed with five two-story buildings and 100 parking spaces. Each building consists of eight
dwelling units. The applicant is proposing the development of two additional two-story buildings, one building with eight
dwelling units and one with two dwelling units. Originally, the applicant proposed orienting the two new buildings north-
south, with the front entrances and windows of these buildings having direct views to those private residences located
along Sherwood Street. Based upon the privacy and view concerns raised by these residents, the applicant is now
proposing to orient these buildings with their front entrances and windows facing east-west; thereby minimizing the
number of windows with direct views to the adjacent private residences (Exhibit 1).
Additionally, the applicant is now proposing 23 parking spaces for the eastern parking lot located along Tobias Drive, an
increase of six (6) spaces. The additional parking can be created by eliminating the existing open space area between
the parking and the adjacent private residences and extending the parking into this area. It has been noted by
I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 04/12/00
neighboring residents that this open area because of the existing trees, other shrubbery, and poor lighting provide for a
conducive environment for loitering and other illegal activities in the evening hours.
2. Parkina
Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code requires two parking spaces for each three-bedroom unit, guest parking is
inclusive, and one space for every ten spaces may be compact. In accordance with the standards set forth by the
Municipal Code the proposed project would require a total of 1 00 parking spaces, of which five spaces are to be reserved
for persons with disabilities. The applicant is providing the required 100 parking spaces, in compliance with Section
19.62.050 of the Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting a modification of the compact parking standard of one
compact space for every 10 standard spaces. The applicant is proposing 17 compact spaces, an increase of 7 compact
spaces. The increase in compact spaces is requested in order to comply with the current requirements of five
handicapped parking spaces for those parking areas in excess of 1 00 spaces. Only two spaces are currently reserved for
handicapped parking. A total of 107 parking spaces are proposed, with five of these spaces provided for
handicapped/accessible parking.
Parking Requirements
(as set forth in the City's Municipal Code)
No. of Required Proposed
Descriotion Units Parking Standard Parking Parking
Three-Bedroom 50 2 SnaceslDU 100 108
Guest Parkino Inclusive 0 0
Handicao Inclusive 5 5
Comoact Soaces 100 1 Space/10 Standard Soaces 10 21
The original Precise Plan (76-14) provides for one half-guest parking space for each unit. The project should conform to
the development standards of the Precise Plan. Therefore, in conformance with the Precise Plan, the project would
require a total of 100 spaces and 25 guest-parking spaces. The applicant is providing the required 100 parking spaces
for residents and is requesting the elimination of the provisions of the Precise Plan for guest parking spaces.
Should the City require compliance with the Precise Plan's guest parking standards, the project would not be feasible.
The elimination of guest parking and provision of compact spaces is required to develop any additional units on the site
and to meet the current requirements for handicapped parking.
The applicant contends that the existing parking facilities are notfuliy utilized. The applicant's survey of vehicles owned
by residents found that the total number of vehicles for the 40 units is 61 or 1.5 vehicles per unit (See Exhibit 2). Staff
anticipates that the underutilization of the parking faciiities would continue, even with the additional development of ten
three bedroom units. Based upon the applicant's survey, the additional 1 0 units would generate a need for 15 additional
spaces to the existing 61 spaces currently in use. Therefore, based upon the 1.5 vehicles per unit, 50 units would
generate a need for 75 parking spaces for residents and the remaining parking proposed, 33 spaces, would be available
to accommodate guests.
To verify the underutilization of on site parking, staff has made direct observations of the parking during various hours of
the day.
~
Page 3. Item
Meeting Date 04/12/00
uay 01 me TaSfVaillngTot west l-'arK1ng Lot lota1
Date Week Time (Tobias) (First Ave) Vehicles
03/08/00 Wednesdav 7a.m. 12 39 51
03/13/00 Mondav 10a.m. 9 30 39
04/02/00 Sundav 9:30 a.m. 13 44 57
04/02/00 Sundav 7 C.m. 10 45 55
It has been noted that the project is gated and therefore, in effect, guests would not be able to use the guest parking
provided on site. Although the project is gated, the gates are open during the day hours and are closed in the evening.
Residents must make arrangements with their guests to access on site parking in the evening hours.
Parking is available on the streets directiy adjacentto the project (Kingswood Drive, Tobias Drive and First Avenue). As
observed by staff, on street parking along Kingswood Drive, Tobias Drive and Sherwood Street is already well used.
On street parking available along First Avenue would not significantly impact residents on FirstAvenue. There are only a
few residences with frontage along First Avenue. Palace Garden Mobilehome Park directly abuts First Avenue, just west
of the project. There is no access from Palace Garden to First Avenue. As observed by staff, on street parking is readily
available along First Avenue from the park to the south to Quintard on the North.
Staff supports the proposed elimination of the guest parking required under the original Precise Plan and allowing 16
percent of the parking spaces provided as compact spaces. The additional 1 0 units will not significantly impact parking
for the project. The project is able to meetthe number of parking spaces required under Section 19.62.050 of the City's
Municipal Code. The applicant's survey of residents' vehicles and field observations reveal that onsite parking is currently
underutilized. On street parking is available, if needed, along First Avenue.
3. Traffic
Many residents voiced their concerns regarding the high volume of traffic in the area and the presence of children. The
City has received correspondence from residents of this neighborhood in the past. The addition of ten units to the
property would therefore, increase traffic in the area. The Engineering Department has determined that the proposed
project will generate a total of 60 trip ends per day based on a generation rate of 6 trips per unit for multifamily
developments with a density of 20 dus per acre, as set forth in the Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates published
by the San Diego Association of Governments. Furthermore, the additional ten units will generate approximately 6
vehicles during the morning or evening peak traffic hours. The evening peak hours do not coincide with the period when
the schools release their students.
No unusual traffic conditions were observed in the area during the 30 minutes in the moming and the mid afternoon when
students are present. A review of accident records indicates that no accidents have occurred at the intersection of
Tobias and Kingswood Drive.
In the past, residents have requested speed humps and or stop signs in this area to mitigate traffic speed issues. To
date, this area has not met the requirements stipulated within City Council Policy "Installation of Speed Humps for
Residential Streets. The intersection of Kingswood Drive and Tobias Drive is characterized as a knuckle type intersection
(I.e.: consists of only two (2) legs at approximately a right angles to each other) and therefore does not rneetthe criteria
for stop or yield signs. Stop or yield signs are restrictive controls which are used only when necessary to assign right-or-
way. In the case of a knuckle intersection, vehicles do not cross paths and therefore the assignment of right-of-way is not
required. To improve visibility at this intersection, Traffic Engineering will paint a red curb on the northeast comer of this
intersection adjacent to the existing fire hydrant and at the driveway of the project.
3
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 04/12/00
The field observations of the Traffic Engineering Division revealed that there are motorists who have ignored the Not a
Through Street sign along First Avenue and are driving across SDG& E park and entering Kim Place on the south side of
the park as a means to access Orange Avenue. Traffic Engineering Division will place a "Road Closed" sign at the end of
First Avenue and at Kim Place to prevent motorists form entering or exiting Kim Place at the park.
As in previous occasions, the traffic enforcement division ofthe Police Departmentis being asked to monitor the area for
compliance with speed limit regulations, jay walking and parking restrictions. At this point in time, staff feels that no
unusual traffic conditions have been observed, with the exception of the motorists crossing through SDG&E park.
Although the development of 10 additional units to the project will generate additional traffic, no significant traffic
concems are anticipated. The anticipated traffic generated will not coincide with the period when the schools release
their students.
4. Calls for Service ReDort
During the March 22nd public hearing, a speaker referred to a Calls for Service Report generated by the City's Police
Department for the Kingswood Manor. This report is provided as Exhibit 3.
During the period beginning September 1998 to February 2000, there were 103 calls for service for Kingswood Manor.
Of the 103 calls, 33 calls for service were regarding criminal activities, 21 were for noise/disturbances, and the remaining
49 were for other service calls. The other calls for service include such services as welfare check of residents, runaway
juveniles, pedestrian stops, and 911 hang ups.
The calls for service reported for Kingswood Manor is consistent with calls for service associated with two neighboring
and similar sized multifamily developments, Castle Park Townhomes and Hidden Pines Apartments.
Calls for Service
No. of Calls
150
100
50
o
. Kingswood Manor
.Castlepark Townhomes
o Hidden Pines Apts
Crimes Noise/Dist Other Total
Although the number of calls for service for Kingswood Manor appears to be high, this is typical for apartment
communities. Ofthose calls for service, 32 percent were for crimes and 21 percent were for noise/disturbances. More
calls for service for crimes and noise/disturbances were received for Castlepark Townhomes located across the street
from Kingswood Manor on Tobias Drive.
This project is in the process of certifying under the City of Chuia Vista's Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. As a term of
the Housing Cooperation Agreement for the density bonus and other additional incentives, the project will be required to
annually recertify as a participant in this program or other similar program which may be adopted by the City.
The Crime Free Multi-Housing Program was designed to help tenants, owners and managers of rental property keep
drugs and other illegal activity off their property. It is anticipated that the project's participation in this Program will
facilitate strong property management, eviction of problem tenants, screening of applicants, and maintenance of the
if
Page S, Item
Meeting Date 04/12/00
property. Even with the increase in units and families, it is expected that the number of calls for seIVice associated with
the project will see a significant decrease due to the project's participation in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program,
which calls for the eviction of problem tenants and the screening or applicants.
1. Site Plan
2. Inventory of Residents Vehicles
3. Calls for SeIVice Report (54-94 Kingswood Dr)
4. Calls for SeIVice Report (1420 Hilltop Dr)
5. Calls for SeIVice Report (1434-1436 Hilltop Dr)
(LH) H:\Shared\Planning\Kingswood den Bonus rpt [312212000]
s-
EJIRt
^'rJAN
'" '0 >
~ 0 ;< >-
II .c ill ~ I;;
II. U z a:
"II> ::> ~ '"
- " ~ a: Z
~ - <5 <
~ " '"
II "
U .-
:E
OJ
I I I I I I I I I \1 I I I I I I \ I
11111\11\ IIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
\ I \ I I I \ I I I \I I I \I \
011\\1\1\1\11
\\1\1\1\\1
~II\'\I\I\I'\H'
1\ \ \ \ \I \I \
I',\\\\\\\H\\
z.~
;;<
~
z-+-"
~
I-
I
I
f 'l \ \.J i t t ), "::;Jj
. u ~ .....) ~BIT<':t-'"- .
~___~___.. .____,.__'._ .U" __-"~_....._--...... __...,,-..__...
,~,
.1 ,j:i
of d~' J.u". 'but. ls
s.. 11 aliI. . survey 0.1y .... is it.
~.,Lh4 for \.afo~t~;. foliC; tD vlt.l.cla
. part of tb. ".p 4
1 t ..Y " '~~;~~CE AND nuSt
TITLE 120 "A," Su..t 01
S.. 011.0, CIluorall, III
, .
IL_
L
,
,
~ FIRST
,
-.....-.....-
AVE'fflIc
. ..
,,Ii ':Ii _
~?i '.:U~
r ... it. 1
II ,- '..
. 11
L; h' J
fJ , Ii
~"i :.:~ .
L 1!1 ~i., J
M -,
, .~ ,
r----,.-j ._
Ll I!U
I J .I r;;J
i IIJII
I I :1 I
1___1 .....1
r...:::~
"
........~
.
~
~
.
. I~
t
~
~~
.r-..:
i :..
a~
, ~~
~
8 UNIlIS
I
I
UNI
!
i
!
i i
~
.., , ~-~
, -.
, ~J~ .
. -
~ " ..~
,.,
. ...
. I. .""
.; ...f~ ...,.....-
, .~ a :;'i~
r it, ", i!:
. .......:. '"
, -:, L""'=--J
.
,
Z;! ~
- ,
. ,
. .
.
[ , \
.
:
" .
,
I"
. 'I
".
.
~
; ~
,2
~~
.
\.-::::"..1
L.~..l
.
.,
L::-:J l.."':'...l
,
\
--'-
,
I
It
'}
I
i
~
lit.... ....
Ui
8'
...,..... _N'
TOIIIAS
- .
DI/IVC
'.--'r=
-
;..... .;'
......
'f'
.
I
I -
!/(j~
I _~ .
\
\
i
I
I
!
I
...
u
...
I
.
~
.
I
,~
.'
,
'.___ J
,"
,......
C:.. .\Kingswood\Kingswood-Autos
KINGSWOOD MANOR
Inventory of Residents' Vehicles
(as of November 1999)
EXHIBIT 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Unit No. No. of No. of Avg No. of
Children Automobiles Automobiles
64-3 0 1 2.00
64-5 0 2
74-4 0 2
94-8 0 3
64-8 1 1 1.50
94-6 . 1 2
54-1 2 1 1.50
54-2 2 2
54-7 2 1
64-6 2 1
74-6 2 2
84-4 2 1
84-7 2 2
94-3 2 2
94-4 2 2
94-5 2 1
54-3 3 2 1.65
54-4 3 3
54-5 3 1
54-8 3 2
64-2 3 2
64-4 3 2
64-7 3 1
74-1 3 1
74-2 3 2
74-3 3 2
74-8 3 1
84-2 3 2
84-3 3 2
84-5 3 1
84-8 3 1
94-1 3 1
94-7 3 2
54-6 4 1 1.00
64-1 4 0
74-5 4 2
74-7 4 2
84-1 4 1
84-6 4 1
94-2 4 0
TOTAL 101 61
Average 2.53 1.53
9'
EXHIBIT 3
ID
CALLS FOR SERVICE REPORT
SUMMARY
Kingswood Manor
(Septembe, 1998 to February 2000)
Date No. of Crime % Noise/Disturbance % Other
Calls Crimes Noise/Dist
September-98 4 1 25% 2 50% 1
October-98 2 1 50% 1 50% 0
November-98 5 1 20% 0 0% 4
December-98 5 0 0% 1 20% 4
January-99 5 2 40% 1 20% 2
February-99 4 1 25% 1 25% 2
March-99 5 2 40% 1 20% 2
April-99 10 4 40% 4 40% 2
May-99 9 4 44% 2 22% 3
June-99 7 2 29% 1 14% 4
July-99 7 4 57% 0 0% 3
Auqust-99 4 1 25% 0 0% 3
September-99 2 0 0% 0 0% 2
October-99 3 0 0% 0 0% 3
November-99 4 1 25% 0 0% 3
December-99 10 2 20% 4 40% 4
January-OO 13 5 38% 3 23% 5
Februarv-OO 4 2 50% 0 0% 2
TOTAL 103 33 32% 21 20% 49
Avg per Month 5.72 1.83 1.17 2.72
f I
C:...\Kingswood\Kingswood-Calls for Service
CALLS FOR SERVICE
COMPARISON REPORT
~ CRIMEANAYSIS UNIT
,.;~ CHUU VISTA POllCE DEPARTMENT
54.64. 74. 84 and 94 KINGSWOOD DR
Date Range: 09/01198 - 02/29/00
Dale Generated: 03/1012000
SEPTEMBER 1998 - FEBRUARY 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 25
v DV ASSAULT JUST 01/03/99 19:01 990000853
. 415 FAMILY 01/06/99 23:30 990001846
v GRAND THEFT REPORT 01/08/99 09:07 990000376 990002218
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 01/15/99 12:08 990000788 990004394
CHECK THE AREA 01/26/99 11:30 990007942
PEDESTRIAN STOP 02/05/99 00:38 990010957
, 415 02/08/99 10:26 990011949
/ BURGLARY REPORT 02/18/99 20:22 990002932 990015299
REPOSSESSED VEH 02/19/99 20:57 990015654
. 415 FAMILY 09/01/98 19:29 980005459
. 415 NOISE 09/05/98 13:04 980006671
./ DV ASSAULT NOW 09/13/98 01:15 980015416 980009023
ASSIST OT AGENCY 09/27/98 07:11 980013597
./ BURGLARY NOW 10/17198 22:58 980017347 980020580
. 415 FAMILY 1 0/27/98 21:29 980023818
./ ASSAULT JUST 11/01/98 12:34 980025391
INC CALL FOR HELP 11/10/98 20:08 980028284
VISCIOUS DOG 11/10/98 22:38 980028313
UNDER INFLUENCE 11/12/98 18:59 980028858
PRIVATE IMPOUND 11/27/98 10:36 980033522
SHOTS FIRED 12/12/98 21:57 980038473
SHOTS FIRED 12/12/98 22:52 980038497
ANIMAL BITE 12/15/98 14:28 980020770 980039304
MISC. ASSIST 12/18/98 17:59 980040268
. 415 12/30/98 18:06 980043914
MARCH 1999 - AUGUST 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 42
./ VANDALISM REPORT 03/10/99 20:23 990004205 990021523
. 415 JUVENILE 03/17/99 20:48 990023669
./ DRUNK IN PUBLIC 03/20/99 23:41 990024685
INC CALL FOR HELP 03/20/99 09:00 990024449
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 03/22/99 19:21 990025272
./ ASSAUL'T REPORT 04/03/99 17:39 990028952
. 415 NEIGHBORS 04/04/99 18:51 990029258
v' ASSAULT REPORT 04/04/99 10:38 990028952
. 415 FIGHT 04/11/99 21:15 990031341
SHOTS HEARD 04/24/99 23:33 990035362
, 415 04/25/99 15:14 990035529
./ DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 04/29/99 22:16 990036821
, 415 04/29/99 17:57 990036735
Page 1 of 3 (~
INFORMATION CVC 04/29/99 18:35 990036748
/ GRAND THEFT REPORT 04/30/99 13:36 990007220 990036994
tI bOM VIOLENCE VKtiL 851GIi!8e 12',}3 990038528
/ BURGLARY NOW 05/08/99 11:37 990039481
. 415 FAMILY 05/12/99 18:42 990040831
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 05/18/99 21:15 990008367 990042780
SHOTS HEARD OS/22/99 23:05 990044105
./" VEHICLE BURGLARY OS/24/99 08:42 990044478
, 415 JUVENILE 05/30/99 17:45 990046495
./ AUTO THEFT REPORT 05/31/99 17:29 990009135 990046817
10851 RECOVERY 05/31/99 18:43 QQOn4RR<\<\
9-1-1 HANG UP 06/02/99 23:34 990047495
WANTED SUBJECT 06/06/99 13:01 990048600
. 415 06/08/99 19:04 990049440
COVER FD/MEDICS 06/11/99 19:06 990050410
./ DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 06/19/99 17:36 990010353 990052990
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 06/28/99 09:34 990010857 990055640
./ VANDALISM REPORT 06/29/99 11:27 990056004
./ AUTO THEFT REPORT 07/03/99 12:43 990057343
./" GRAND THEFT REPORT 07/04/99 10:06 990011224 990057677
REPOSSESSED VEH 07/08/99 07:33 990058855
./ BURGLARY REPORT 07/09/99 22:55 990011554 990059502
PRESERVE PEACE 07/13/99 16:26 990060762
./ AUTO THEFT REPORT 07/29/99 14:15 990012758 990066131
.10851 RECOVERY 07/29/99 16:23 990066180
STAKEOUT 08/06/99 09:00 990068764
ASSIST OT AGENCY 08/06/99 14:22 990068764
9-1-1 HANG UP 08/08/99 08:31 990069470
tI DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 08/17/99 20:42 990072573
SEPTEMBER 1999 - FEBRUARY 2000 TOTAL CALLS: 36
;/ AUTO THEFT REPORT 01/02/00 09:48 000000058 000000478
./ DRUNK IN PUBLIC 01/02/00 18:12 000000570
-/ DOM VIOLENCE JUST 01/03/00 15:57 000000836
. 415 FAMILY 01/04/00 14:38 000001105
9-1-1 HANG UP 01/08/00 19:38 000002418
PEDESTRIAN STOP 01/12/00 11:19 000003428
/ VEHICLE BURGLARY 01/14/00 15:05 000000785 000004128
. 415 FAMILY 01/19/00 22:23 000005891
EXTRA PATROL 01/21/00 21:22 000006556
. 415 NOISE 01/22/00 20:29 000001274 000006888
./ DOM VIOLENCE REP 01/25/00 17:10 000001447 000007733
INFORMATION CVC 01/26/00 15:48 000008026
COVER FD/MEDICS 01/29/00 19:40 000009014
...... AUTO THEFT REPORT 02/05/00 23:42 000011292
,/ DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 02/15/00 16:28 000014372
CHECK THE AREA 02/17/00 09:23 000014847
9-1-1 HANG UP 02/22/00 15:03 000016527
ASSIST OT AGENCY 09/16/99 10:36 990082025
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 09/22/99 08:12 990016177 990083930
SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE 10/04/99 00:00 990087861
Page 2 of 3 (3
... .._._~.~--_._._~--_._----~-
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 10/14/99 08:36 990017668 990091111
MENTAL SUBJECT 10/24/99 19:33 990018332 990094581
f'OLLOW UP 11/01/99 13:48 990097078
,/ DOM VIOLENCE REP 11/06/99 14:24 990019134 990098661
9-1-1 HANG UP 11/26/99 14:38 990104656
9-1-1 HANG UP 11/28/99 14'48 990105259
. 415 JUVENILE 12/03/99 16:45 990106922
. 415 FAMILY 12/07/99 18:47 990021074 990108224
ARREST FELONY 12/09/99 14:58 990021237 990108801
-./ VANDALISM REPORT 12/14/99 07:19 990021468 990110172
. 415 FAMILY 12/15/99 21:11 990110661
. 415 FAMILY 12/16/99 08:41 990110762
WELFARE CHECK 12/16/99 18:04 990110943
MISSING PERSON 12/19/99 19:20 990021814 990111958
,/ VANDALISM REPORT 12/27/99 00:50 990114244
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 12/28/99 11:14 990022289 990114622
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE: 103
,/ '::"12-1 t--I~ ==-
. >40'~ Ip,<s,~
Page 3 of 3
IjL
~ CRIMEANAYSIS UNIT
.~ CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
CALLS FOR SERVICE LOCATION REPORT
Date Range: 09/01/98 - 02/29/00
Dale Generated: 03/10/2000
54 KINGSWOOD DR TOTAL CALLS: 26
PEDESTRIAN STOP 01/12/00 11:19 000003428
.....VEHICLE BURGLARY 01/14/00 15:05 000000785 000004128
PEDESTRIAN STOP 02/05/99 00:38 990010957
vBURGLARY REPORT 02/18/99 20:22 990002932 990015299
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 03/22/99 19:21 990025272
415 NEIGHBORS 04/04/99 18:51 990029258
415 FIGHT 04/11/99 21:15 990031341
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 06/28/99 09:34 990010857 990055640
.....VANDALlSM REPORT 06/29/99 11:27 990056004
REPOSSESSED VEH 07/08/99 07:33 990058855
STAKEOUT 08/06/99 09:00 990068764
ASSIST OT AGENCY 08/06/99 14:22 990068764
9-1-1 HANG UP 08/08/99 08:31 990069470
415 NOISE 09/05/98 13:04 980006671
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 09/22/99 08:12 990016177 990083930
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 10/14/99 08:36 990017668 990091111
vASSAUL T JUST 11/01/98 12:34 980025391
415 JUVENILE 12/03/99 16:45 990106922
ARREST FELONY"':- 12/09/99 14:58 990021237 990108801
SHOTS FIRED J 12/12/98 21:57 980038473
SHOTS FIRED 12/12/98 22:52 980038497
415 FAMILY 12/15/99 21:11 990110661
415 FAMILY 12/16/99 08:41 990110762
WELFARE CHECK 12/16/99 18:04 990110943
VVANDALlSM REPORT 12/27/99 00:50 990114244
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 12/28/99 11:14 990022289 990114622
64 KINGSWOOD DR TOTAL CALLS: 34
....-DaM VIOLENCE JUST 01/03/00 15:57 000000836
415 FAMILY 01/06/99 23:30 990001846
9-1-1 HANG UP 01/08/00 19:38 000002418
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 01/15/99 12:08 990000788 990004394
415 FAMILY 01/19/00 22:23 000005891
EXTRA PATROL 01/21/00 21:22 000006556
v-DOM VIOLENCE REP 01/25/00 17:10 000001447 000007733
CHECK THE AREA 01/26/99 11:30 990007942
.....-QOM VIOLENCE VRBL 02/15/00 16:28 000014372
...-\fANDALlSM REPORT 03/10/99 20:23 990004205 990021523
Page 1 of 3 (5
---_._,~-"-
415 JUVENILE 03/17/99 20:48 990023669
DRUNK IN PUBLIC 03/20/99 23:41 990024685
""'1\SSAUL T REPORT 04/03/99 17:39 990028952
.......ASSAUL T REPORT 04/04/99 10:38 990028952
SHOTS HEARD 04/24/99 23:33 990035362
415 04/25/99 15:14 990035529
...-oOM VIOLENCE VRBL 04/29/99 22:16 990036821
SHOTS HEARD OS/22/99 23:05 990044105
.....vEHICLE BURGLARY OS/24/99 08:42 990044478
415 JUVENILE 05/30/99 17:45 990046495
....-AUTO THEFT REPORT 05/31/99 17:29 990009135 990046817
10851 RECOVERY_ 05/31/99 18:43 990046833
WANTED SUBJECT - 06/06/99 13:01 990048600
vDOM VIOLENCE VRBL 06/19/99 17:36 990010353 990052990
V7\UTO THEFT REPORT 07/03/99 12:43 990057343
v6RAND THEFT REPORT 07/04/99 10:06 990011224 990057677
...AUTO THEFT REPORT 07/29/99 14:15 990012758 990066131
10851 RECOVERY 07/29/99 16:23 990066180
-DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 08/17/99 20:42 990072573
ASSIST OT AGENCY 09/16/99 10:36 990082025
415 FAMILY 10/27/98 21:29 980023818
""DOM VIOLENCE REP 11/06/99 14:24 990019134 990098661
415 FAMILY 12/07/99 18:47 990021074 990108224
415 12/30/98 18:06 980043914
74 KINGSWOOD DR TOTAL CALLS: 12
-'"AUTO THEFT REPORT 01/02/00 09:48 000000058 000000478
415 FAMILY 01/04/00 14:38 000001105
</GRAND THEFT REPORT 01/08/99 09:07 990000376 990002218
INFORMATION CVC 01/26/00 15:48 000008026
\/AUTO THEFT REPORT 02/05/00 23:42 000011292
9-1-1 HANG UP 02/22/00 15:03 000016527
VSURGLARY NOW 05/08/99 11:37 990039481
vtJURGLARY REPORT 07/09/99 22:55 990011554 990059502
PRESERVE PEACE 07/13/99 16:26 990060762
415 FAMILY 09/01/98 19:29 980005459
ASSIST OT AGENCY 09/27/98 07:11 980013597
9-1-1 HANG UP 11/26/99 14:38 990104656
84 KINGSWOOD DR TOTAL CALLS: 15
'-"OV ASSAULT JUST 01/03/99 19:01 990000853
415 NOISE 01/22/00 20:29 000001274 000006888
COVER FD/MEDICS 01/29/00 19:40 000009014
CHECK THE AREA 02/17/00 09:23 000014847
REPOSSESSED VEH 02/19/99 20:57 990015654
..-GRAND THEFT REPORT 04/30/99 13:36 990007220 990036994
415 FAMILY 05/12/99 18:42 990040831
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 05/18/99 21:15 990008367 990042780
9-1-1 HANG UP 06/02/99 23:34 990047495
Page 2 of 3 (ip
COVER FD/MEDICS 06/11/99 19:06 990050410
VDV ASSAULT NOW 09/13/98 01:15 980015416 980009023
SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE 10/04/99 00:00 990087861
INC CALL FOR HELP 11/10/98 20:08 980028284
9-1-1 HANG UP 11/28/99 14:48 990105259
MISSING PERSON 12/19/99 19:20 990021814 990111958
94 KINGSWOOD DR TOTAL CALLS: 16
........DRUNK IN PUBLIC 01/02/00 18:12 000000570
415 02108/99 10:26 990011949
INC CALL FOR HELP 03/20/99 09:00 990024449
415 04/29/99 17:57 990036735
INFORMATION c;ve 04/29/99 18:35 990036748
...-1:>OM VIOLENCE VRBL 05/05/99 12:53 990038528
415 06/08/99 19:04 990049440
..-'BURGLARY NOW 10/17/98 22:58 980017347 980020580
MENTAL SUBJECT 10/24/99 19:33 990018332 990094581
FOLLOW UP 11/01/99 13:48 990097078
VISCIOUS DOG 11/10/98 22:38 980028313
UNDER INFLUENCE 11/12/98 18:59 980028858
PRIVATE IMPOUND 11/27/98 10:36 980033522
v'I'IANDALlSM REPORT 12/14/99 07:19 990021468 990110172
ANIMAL BITE 12/15/98 14:28 980020770 980039304
MISC. ASSIST 12/18/98 17:59 980040268
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE: 103
Page 3 of 3
17
EXHIBIT 4
I 'if
CALLS FOR SERVICE
COMPARISON REPORT
~ CRIMEANAYSIS UNIT
,~ CHULA VISTA POUCE DEPARTMENT
1420 IDLLTOP DR
Date Range: 09/01/98 - 02/29/00
Date Generated: 03/2112000
SEPTEMBER 1998 - FEBRUARY 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 42
9-1-1 HANG UP 01/05/99 16:32 990001436
REPOSSESSED VEH 01/05/99 19:49 990001496
ATTEMPT SUICIDE 01/07/99 01:44 990001869
""'DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 01/11/99 00:28 990003075
vTERR. THREATS RPT 01/14/99 19:48 990004179
PEDESTRIAN STOP 01/18/99 15:39 990005530
REPOSSESSED VEH 01/20/99 06:13 990006029
PRIVATE IMPOUND 01/25/99 15:40 990007733
MISSING PERSON 01/27/99 11:45 990001492 990008212
PR CONTACT 01/28/99 08:00 990008468
PEDESTRIAN STOP 02/02199 11:30 990010145
PRESERVE PEACE 02103/99 19:29 990010589
9-1-1 HANG UP 02/05/99 09:15 990011020
V'\!EHICLE BURGLARY 02/10/99 23:43 990002434 990012756
vAtJTO THEFT NOW 02/17/99 23:29 990015003
REPOSSESSED VEH 02/18/99 00:01 990015009
VISCIOUS DOG 02/21/99 13:13 990016179
ANIMAL BITE 02/22/99 12:15 990003152 990016491
415 FAMILY 02/28/99 11:28 990018359
PEDESTRIAN STOP 09/09/98 18:57 980007918
v-DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 09/13/98 19:21 980009235
....-ASSAULT JUST 09/18/98 23:56 980010944
I./APW REPORT 09/19/98 22:57 980011253
....-uNDERAGE DRINKING 09/25/98 21:32 980013108
ASSIST OT AGENCY 09/30/98 07:59 980014543
WELFARE CHECK 10/07/98 21:13 980017216
\/PETTY THEFT REPORT 10/14/98 10:56 980017169 980019369
!.-AUTO THEFT REPORT 10/15/98 11:06 980017225 980019689
POLICE IMPOUND 10/18/98 11:15 980017374 980020724
vVANDALlSM REPORT 1 0/23/98 18:54 980022397
vBURGLARY REPORT 10/31/98 14:10 980018165 980025044
vDOM VIOLENCE NOW 11/01/98 03:18 980025291
WELFARE CHECK 11/03/98 20:24 980018349 980026141
ASSIST OT AGENCY 11/04/98 10:59 980026270
WARRANT SERVICE 11/16/98 09:36 980019051 980030028
vDOM VIOLENCE NOW 11/22/98 04:48 980019430 980031930
415 11/22/98 15:25 980019454 980032067
415 12/03/98 23:12 980035664
ASSIST OT AGENCY 12/14/98 09:37 980038887
ASSIST OT AGENCY 12/14/98 09:40 980038889
REPOSSESSED VEH 12/16/98 05:34 980039490
Page 1 of 3 19
---,~-_._.-
BOL 12/18/98 13:06 980040185
MARCH 1999 - AUGUST 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 29
SUSPICIOUS PERSON 03/01/99 18:47 990018792
415 03/03/99 09:36 990019221
........AUTO THEFT REPORT 03/04/99 20:02 990019716
vDOM VIOLENCE JUST 03/04/99 21:28 990019735
v1\SSAUL T REPORT 03/06/99 03:42 990003938 990020146
.....-.a.SSAUL T REPORT 03/16/99 08:55 990023166
9-1-1 HANG UP 03/31/99 16:56 990028070
a.'QANDALlSM JUST 04/10/99 23:26 990006038 990031098
V1\.NNOY/OBS PHONE 04/27/99 12:15 990007028 990036086
FOLLOW UP 05/02/99 15:14 990037683
415 NOISE 05/06/99 03:30 990038738
ARREST FELONY 05/06/99 21:13 990007613 990038990
ASSIST OT AGENCY 05/18/99 10:36 990042637
9-1-1 HANG UP OS/26/99 08:59 990045104
415 NOISE 06/06/99 01:38 990048479
POLICE IMPOUND 06/14/99 06:21 990009952 990051200
v-VANDALlSM JUST 06/15/99 12:45 990051630
VDOM VIOLENCE RPT 06/25/99 13:32 990010711 990054743
PRESERVE PEACE 06/27/99 13:40 990055387
L--6V ASSAULT JUST 07/20/99 13:38 990012181 990063058
......oOM VIOLENCE VRBL 08/02/99 10:58 990067475
MDC TEST INC 2 08/02/99 13:13 990067520
FOLLOW UP 08/05/99 13:08 990068500
9-1-1 HANG UP 08/05/99 20:21 990068613
\/!"ELONY DV BATTERY 08/15/99 08:01 990013791 990071758
ASSIST OT AGENCY 08/21/99 21:06 990073901
415 08/21/99 22:14 990073917
COVER FD/MEDICS 08/24/99 15:23 990074744
v<3RAND THEFT REPORT 08/28/99 02:52 990014597 990075962
SEPTEMBER 1999 - FEBRUARY 2000 TOTAL CALLS: 28
..-"BURGLARY REPORT 01/02/00 18:01 000000566
ARREST FELONY 01/03/00 09:35 000000101 000000741
ARREST FELONY 01/03/00 13:03 000000795
EXTRA PATROL 01/21/00 18:53 000006511
INC CALL FOR HELP 02/12/00 15:25 000013412
...-PETTY THEFT REPORT 09/02/99 10:49 990014902 990077583
415 NOISE 09/05/99 22:49 990078779
415 JUVENILE 09/06/99 16:55 990078986
'-4:)V ASSAULT NOW 09/12/99 16:05 990015522 990080886
415 JUVENILE 09/28/99 01:37 990085882
.A>V ASSAULT REPORT 09/28/99 13:51 990016620 990086012
415 JUVENILE 10/16/99 17:39 990091971
POLICE IMPOUND 10/17/99 01:49 990017837 990092118
415 PARTY 10/23/99 22:34 990094300
PRIVATE IMPOUND 10/29/99 22:43 990096244
Page 2 of 3 ;;>"'D
TRUANT CHILD 11/08/99 09:12 990099209
VGRAND THEFT REPORT 11/08/99 08:51 990019250 990099202
MISSING PERSON 11/10/99 02:14 990099756
CHECK THE AREA 11/10/99 07:45 990099784
9-1-1 HANG UP 11/20/99 09:47 990102892
. LOST PROPERTY 11/22/99 16:56 990020165 990103570
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 11/26/99 07:53 990020345 990104575
FOUND PROP 11/28/99 13:33 990105239
PRIVATE IMPOUND 12/01/99 10:01 990106149
415 NOISE 12/07/99 03:09 990107989
9-1-1 HANG UP 12/12/99 02:33 990109621
415 THREATS 12/13/99 15:32 990110014
9-1-1 HANG UP 12/14/99 07:17 990110169
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE: 99
~(
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 5
~~
CALLS FOR SERVICE
COMPARISON REPORT
~ CRIMEANAYSISUNIT
,~ CHULA VISTA POllCE DEPARTMENT
1434 HILLTOP DR
Date Range: 09/01/98 - 02/29/00
Date Generated: 03/2112000
SEPTEMBER 1998 - FEBRUARY 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 25
vFETTY THEFT JUST 01/01/99 00:56 990000028
SUSPICIOUS PERSON 01/01/99 01:49 990000045
SUSPICIOUS PERSON 01/01/99 02:39 990000056
. 415 JUVENILE 01/01/99 04:06 990000083
. 415 SUBJECT 01/01/99 18:39 990000263
.415 JUVENILE 01/09/99 16:28 990002650
~OSS. MARIJUANA 01/09/99 17:09 990002665
REPOSSESSED VEH 01/13/99 08:46 990003747
. 415 NOISE 01/17/99 01:27 990005064
INJURED ANIMAL 01/25/99 23:14 990007834
....pETTY THEFT REPORT 09/10/98 10:25 980008084
'-I'ETTY THEFT REPORT 09/11/98 13:57 980015344 980008476
. 415 NOISE 09/30/98 16:55 980014678
< 415 JUVENILE 10/11/98 20:27 980018561
PEDESTRIAN STOP 10/18/98 00:21 980020601
'-'VEHICLE BURGLARY 1 0/23/98 09:38 980017655 980022252
. 415 FAMILY 11/15/98 16:18 980029840
, 415 SUBJECT 11/18/98 12:27 980030723
. 415 JUVENILE 11/23/98 14:08 980032375
vUNDERAGE DRINKING 11/23/98 14:31 980032392
. 415 SUBJECT 12/04/98 20:27 980035979
. 415 JUVENILE 12/06/98 00:57 980036356
I--1XSSAUL T JUST 12/14/98 20:07 980020725 980039070
INFORMATION CVC 12/22/98 19:18 980041608
PRIVATE IMPOUND 12/25/98 21:31 980042402
MARCH 1999 -AUGUST 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 19
--POSS. MARIJUANA 03/20/99 21:04 990024639
VlJNDERAGE DRINKING 03/26/99 16:46 990026441
,415FAMILY 03/28/99 18:42 990027120
. 415 PARTY 04/08/99 19:02 990030424
REPOSSESSED VEH 04/23/99 07:13 990034755
ylJOM VIOLENCE RPT 04/26/99 19:04 990035897
e 415 NOISE 05/07/99 11:33 990039136
Vfl.UTO THEFT REPORT 05/10/99 10:25 990007809 990040056
v\lEHICLE BURGLARY 05/12/99 08:05 990007940 990040628
~HICLE BURGLARY 05/12/99 10:50 990007948 990040672
CHECK THE AREA 06/06/99 20:49 990048731
FOUND CHILD 06/12/99 12:48 990050652
. 415 NOISE 06/25/99 21:37 990054868
Page 1 of 2 -23
-----....._---~.-
.."
V1>ETTY THEFT REPORT 06/27/99 11:20 990010810 990055358
TRAFFIC STOP 07/09/99 20:52 990059450
REpOSSESSED VEH 07/12/99 21:35 990060527
.415 FAMILY 08/11/99 18:53 990070547
-6RAND THEFT JUST 08/14/99 20:40 990071569
WELFARE CHECK 08/24/99 19:36 990074819
SEpTEMBER 1999 - FEBRUARY 2000 TOTAL CALLS: 12
!/PETTY THEFT REPORT 01/02/00 11:37 000000064 000000504
ARREST FELONY 01/11/00 19:45 000000586 000003266
PEDESTRIAN STOP 09/08/99 13:52 990079552
· 415 NOISE 09/09/99 21:19 990079970
"'---NARCOTICS 09/30/99 06:34 990016741 990086565
FOLLOW UP 1 0/03/99 22:48 990087869
OVERDOSE 1 0/15/99 13:23 990017763 990091551
..roOM VIOLENCE VRBL 11/08/99 05:55 990019232 990099172
FOUND PROP 11/08/99 08:23 990099196
< 415 SUBJECT 11/19/99 17:44 990102688
. 415 FAMILY 11/19/99 19:28 990102721
PEDESTRIAN STOP 12/18/99 20:19 990111659
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE: 56
Page 2 of 2
~y::
CALLS FOR SERVICE
COMPARISON REPORT
@r:n....
. .,'"' CRIMEANAYSISUNIT
,',-" CHULA VISTA POllCE DEPARTMENT
1436 HILLTOP DR
Date Range: 09/01/98 - 02/29/00
Dale Generated: 03121/2000
SEPTEMBER 1998 - FEBRUARY 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 14
PRESERVE PEACE 01/04/99 15:14 990001101
LOST PROPERTY 01/05/99 09:19 990001314
LOST PROPERTY 01/10/99 10:03 990002851
V PROWLER NOW 01/23/99 00:37 990006946
vVANDALlSM JUST 02107/99 00:04 990011569
. 415 FIGHT 02128/99 03:17 990018293
INC CALL FOR HELP 09/18/98 19:00 980010829
vASSAUL T REPORT 10/06/98 11:08 980016706 980016690
vPETTY THEFT REPORT 10/23/98 09:31 980022248
, 415 NEIGHBORS 11/01/98 15:32 980025419
. 415 JUVENILE 11/13/98 22:30 980029262
. 415 JUVENILE 11/20/98 21:06 980031465
, 415 SUBJECT 12/04/98 20:26 980035981
SHOTS FIRED 12/08/98 20:56 980037236
MARCH 1999 - AUGUST 1999 TOTAL CALLS: 24
RUNAWAY JUVENILE 03/05/99 10:28 990019870
....-t)OM VIOLENCE VRBL 03/05/99 22:19 990020080
SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMS 03/30/99 03:00 990027567
. 415 JUVENILE 04/05/99 16:13 990029509
, 415 JUVENILE 04/16/99 21:42 990032800
.....-pETTY THEFT REPORT 04/21/99 09:40 990006641 990034191
. 415 GANG MEMBER 04/22/99 21:53 990034690
. 415 SUBJECT 05/01/99 23:04 990037507
FOLLOW UP 05/07/99 15:18 990039197
WELFARE CHECK 05/16/99 11:26 990041967
NO DETAIL ACCIDENT OS/24/99 07:15 990044460
NON INJ ACCIDENT OS/24/99 07:15 990008684 990044459
LOST PROPERTY OS/27/99 14:02 990008906 990045457
. 415 05/31/99 00:00 990046618
FOLLOW UP 06/06/99 18:42 990048682
FOLLOW UP 06/06/99 22:59 990048774
9-1-1 HANG UP 07/16/99 22:21 990061836
v-flV ASSAULT JUST 07/19/99 09:43 990012100 990062672
PRESERVE PEACE 07/19/99 13:40 990062746
9-1-1 HANG UP 07/23/99 19:54 990064199
'-DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 07/27/99 23:28 990012644 990065634
'-FELONY DV BATTERY 08/13/99 18:30 990013714 990071182
o..-BV ASSAULT NOW 08/13/99 20:25 990013718 990071219
9-1-1 HANG UP 08/29/99 21:50 990076568
Page 1 of 2 ,;;( S-
SEPTEMBER 1999 - FEBRUARY 2000 TOTAL CALLS: 20
VDOM VIOLENCE VRBL 01/02/00 11:46 000000506
..--GRAND THEFT REPORT 01/02/00 12:13 000000065 000000513
KNOCK AND TALK 01/20/00 10:44 000001119 000006010
L.<tJV ASSAULT JUST 02/07/00 10:45 000002199 000011717
I,.-e\I ASSAULT NOW 02/08/00 21:32 000002322 000012235
< 415 THREATS 02/11/00 23:11 000013211
. 415 SUBJECT 02/28/00 20:54 000018501
VOOM VIOLENCE NOW 09/07/99 15:16 990079271
415 JUVENILE 09/10/99 22:40 990080342
...,pETTY THEFT REPORT 09/19/99 11:34 990016004 990083110
.....wEAPON THREAT JUST 09/20/99 10:40 990016051 990083355
REPOSSESSED VEH 10/05/99 05:46 990088219
vL>V ASSAULT REPORT 10/08/99 14:32 990017289 990089228
......DOM VIOLENCE VRBL 12/06/99 08:07 990107740
......-vEHICLE BURGLARY 12/10/99 01:48 990021254 990108966
v-VEHICLE BURGLARY 12/16/99 12:49 990110835
vPETTY THEFT REPORT 12/27/99 16:33 990022251 990114424
IYBURGLARY REPORT 12/28/99 18:49 990022318 990114764
v.-sURGLARY REPORT 12/29/99 00:54 990022318 990114764
9-1-1 HANG UP 12/30/99 18:56 990115368
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE: 58
Page 2 of 2
02.~
A1TAt.HMEJJT ~
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-99-06
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS
TO CONDITIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 AND SECTIONS 3.2 OF
THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN TO
ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT
MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY OPENING FOR PUBLIC
ACCESS, PACIFIC BAY HOMES.
WHEREAS, duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on December 18, 1998 by Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") requesting
approval of amendments to conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision
Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Sections 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance
Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125
freeway opening for public access ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject to this Resolution is commonly known as
Rolling Hills Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately
1,200 acres located east of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of the existing Eastlake Business
Center ("Site); and,
,
WHEREAS the Enviromnental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and
determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been
incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared: and,
WHEREAS the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the
Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on April 3, 2000. The RCC expressed concern about
cumulative traffic impacts on city streets and I-80S. Discussion regarding direct project impacts
focused on the intersection of "H" Street and I-80S. After extensive discussion, the RCC voted
(5-0) to recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to
allow the increased building cap provided the traffic mitigation is revised to require the
completion of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street prior to the issuance of
any building permits beyond the current cap; and.
WHEREAS THE Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-
00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Enviromnental
Quality Act, and the Enviromnental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS The Planning Commission finds that the Project impacts with respect to
potential environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures
I
described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program; and,
WHEREAS the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on April 12, 2000,
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-99-06 herein, and recommended to
the City Council the approval of the Project based on certain tenns and conditions, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning 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 it mailing to property owners and within 500 feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
April 12, 2000, 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
amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula
Vista Tract 92-02 and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12 day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
John Willett, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H,IHOMEIPLANNINGlLUISIRHR PCS-9906.PCR. wpd
;t
-_._~_.._--_.._~
Rolling Hills Ranch Boundarv
!m__~__-;
i
I
I
I
1
1
1
,
1
l
~,--".,_.. --
-1
i 1
"i !
- '-"'---"'-'--'-'-'-"'--1
1
-'-"_'_m__...,_,_,_..~.,,~..
.....--.--j
-~,-,._,.._._-
,
I
...__~,..,..,._'_'__m'...._
t-~---
I
I
,
[./'
j
~~
i~1
L--r-;f . rj -I
:-----... "; , ---".~
. I ·
Iii
;! .
l;j-ti
"."-j
,.....J~l
I I" ,1
; , if
.-_M.'.'n'..'.'."r--..'...T-!i.....
t I
.
.
.~_. i
____,..,_....__..m.'''''.,___
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PACIFIC BAY HOMES
C) APPLlCA~
PROJECT Rolling Hills Ranch
LOCATION:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: 3
NORTH No Scale RHR AMENDMENT
h :\home\plann ing\hector\luis\is0005.cdr 04/26/00
ATTACHMENT 2
---,~_.~_._-------------"
ATTACHMENT 3
Figures
f
~
o
~g
C)t:!
s~
\,~ 2
~~
2:
~QO
~.S
~j
U~
CI:I
~'"
........to
C'dg.
C/.)~
!! .i
..Q 13
~ .i~
g 13 g
;:! O;:!... <: ~
O~..84)_NN~
i ~~!J <I> <I> <I> <I>
"0 'S '2"s .... ] ] ] ]
S::=Zl!:;z.3l>.<l>.<l>.<P-.
CI:I
38 I 1 IIDDllii
:1'
'71-' :.
~ .1
I
en. , i
I'! "
ffi<;1
~g~ j!i
%~. I
:foil!: h
_III
s-
-
w
0::
::)
C)
-
u.
I
~
I
~
~, I~~ 0>
~l ~~ e~
u
I!
oil
1Qt>
#'
'&~
~
"
N
W
a::
::)
C)
-
LL.
pASSO~
,
il
'"
o
1i
~~ iI05
:<
~I~~~ O~
~ ~N' ~..r
'IJ ~/t u~
u
fAS11.AKE:
-,
.'1
.,
'.'
,
:-, Q
. .' Of,'" :::J
I~\~; ;
~O C5
;fS If'"
O~ 0::
Qj~
~
\
Iii
..4
~
Pt<WY
...................
^' '\. '\. '\. .... ~....
(""",,,-
," '\. '\. '\. '\. '-'" '\.,
"""'...."\
I, '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '\. '" '\.
.""""""
I, '\..... '\. '\." '\. '\. '\. \. '\
~"""""'''\
~ q/1.. ",__
, I("i;. """,
~"'" ....",
\"""""""\
"""""""
""" """"
"'" """','
"'" """,,\
~""""""~
"" ""~"\
,," "" "'\
"" ,," "",
~""'" ",,\
- '" "'.1...""'\
" "~\.,"''\
'\. "5""''1.
'\. '\. '\. '\. .... '\. '\. '\. '\
" """"'\
"""""'"
"""""'~
"""""'~
" """"':1
" """"'"
""",,'\..J'
\. '\." '\. '\. '\. ,>'
"'V
---
:ERO
~
o
~
aJlii
....
~
o
aJ~
C")
w
a=
::>>
C)
-
&I.
tji
~'I' 0>
~~ = e~
u
ATIACHMENT 4
Linscott, Law & Greenspan
East 'H' Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005
May 17, 1999
9'
EAST H STREET
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1999-2005
Prepared by:
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 299-3090
April 14, 1999
Revised April 30, 1999
Revised May 7, 1999
Revised May 17, 1999
JB/JR
3-980861
,
LI~S( 'OTT
I :\\ \' c\:
CI\.EEt'.JSIJ,\N
ENGINEERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NO.
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
Methodology... .................................................................................................................. 1
Existing Conditions....................................................,. ..........................................................1
Cumulative Projects........................................................................... ...................................5
Future Conditions .................................................................................................................8
Conclusions........................................................ ......... ...................................................... .11
APPENDICES
Appendix A - ADT Volumes
Appendix B - Traffic Monitoring Program Data
Appendix C - Rolling Hills Ranch Select Zone Assignment
Appendix D - Linear Regression Plots
Appendix E - Year 2004 Future Hourly Volumes by Month
If)
II~SC()TT
I r\\\' 0<.
I
C~EENSP!\N
E N G r NEE R 5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NO.
1. East H Street ADT Volumes ....................................................................................... 4
2. Existing East H Street TMP Average Speeds and LOS Conditions ........................... 4
3. Proposed Major Eastern Territory Projects 1999-2005.............................................. 7
4. East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourly Volumes..............................................................8
5. East H Street Hourly Percentage of ADT ......................................................................9
6. East H Street Hourly Cumulative Volumes ..................................................................9
7. East H Street Total Future Hourly Volumes and LOS ...............................................1 0
8. Number of Homes for Rolling Hills Ranch Proposed by Year ..................................10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
NO.
1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 2
2. City of Chula Vista TMP Analysis Segment................................................................ 3
3. Cumulative Project Locations ..................................................................................... 6
II
L/\:';C() rr
I. \\ \ c\:
CI\.f:f \:Sl~\i\
ENGINEERS
EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1999 . 2005
INTRODUCTION
The following report determines if East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern
College Entrance has additional capacity between 1999 and 2005 to accommodate
additional Rolling Hills Ranch homes above an existing cap set at 1137 homes. East H
Street provides a main access to 1-805 for Rolling Hills Ranch. If additional capacity is
found to exist, this capacity will be translated into an equivalent number of dwelling units
that may be built per year. The limits of East H Street between 1-805 and Southwestern
College were based on the City of Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program definition.
This analysis incorporated most if not all the proposed future eastern'territory residential
projects as cumulative projects and assumed that Olympic Parkway and SR 125 was
not constructed. This report is structured as follows:
. Methodology
. Existing Conditions
. Cumulative Projects
. Future Conditions
. Conclusions
The general study area is East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern College
entrance. Figure 1 is a map showing the general location of the study area. Figure 2_
shows the limits of the existing TMP analysis segnient.
METHODOLOGY
The future capacity of East H Street was determined by 1) utilizing the Traffic Monitoring
Program (TMP) floating car technique to establish LOS thresholds, 2) creating an hourly
Level of Service (LOS) "look-up table" through applying linear regression techniques to
historical floating car data, 3) adding traffic year-by-year from anticipated cumulative
projects, and 4) comparing the future volumes against the look up-table for possible
LOS degradations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ADT volumes for East H Street were obtained for past years from the City of Chula
Vista and machine counts were conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers on
January 19, 20, and 21, 1999. The ADT volume data are contained in Appendix A and
are shown in Table 1.
I~
-1-
r-------~
,/ ,
r--' ...........
I ~___
--
-----a;.rDiiOCCUiiY
CNIIP
PENDlf1CN
illf!IIIk
...............-....................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
......................................................
......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
::::::::~::~:~:~:::~::~:::::::~:::::::::::::::~::::::::::::~::~:::::~::~:::::~:.
...........................................................
...........................................................
............................................................
...........................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
':::::::::::::::::'ifI.'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~:~:~:::~:::::~:::~:~:::~:~~~:~::::~~:~~:~~:~:::::::::::~::~:::::~:~~::~::~~:~\~~~.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i::::::a:::::::::::::::i::::::::::i::i::i::i::::::ii::::::::::::::::::::
:::::~:::::i::::::::::::::::i::i::::::::i::~::::i::::::::::::i:::::::~:i::ii::::::i::i:~::::::::::::::
::::::::::~::::::::~::~::~::~::::~::::::::~:~:::::::::~::~::::::~::::::~:::::::~::::::::::::::/:::.
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:w;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
::;:~:::::::::::::::;::::;::::::::;::::;::i::::;::~::;::::;::::::~:;::;:::~;fM::;:::
.........................................................
........................................................
.......................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
.........................................................
........................................................
.........................................................
..........................................................
...........................................................
............................................................
::::::~:::::i:~::~:~:i~:i:m:i::ii::i::::::~:::i~:::::::~:~:i::i::i::::::::~:
::i:.:::::~:::::::::::::::i::::::::::::i::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::~.f::::i:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'.:::::::::::':'.
..........-................................................... ...
::::~::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::y.::~::::::.:::.::::,;::::::::a::::~::::::::::::~::::::::::.::::::::::::::
................................................................
::i::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::~:::i::i:::::::.i:P.i:.:::::.:::.::::::::::::::::::i:::::::~::
::;::~::;:::::::::::::::~::::::::;::;;::::::::::::::::::::::::;::;:::~::;::;::::::::;::::::::j,Jif.
.:,.:.:.,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:".:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,.:imM-:':
...................................................................
..................................................................
................................................................... .
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
.....................................................................................
....................................................................................
....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
........................................................................................
.......................................................................................
......................................................................................
.........................................................................................
........................................................................................
...........................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................... . .
PROJECT SITE
......
IIDICO
~
8
,
o
SOURCE: L.LG EngIMel'S, 1998
MILES
IIN'-,( Oil
I j" \\ ,\.
CREl::i\.'-.I'AN
Figure 1
13
VlCINIlY MAP
ENCINEERS
-2-
EAST "H- STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS
~~ N ffi (/)
I i
CD ~
0
z
I L.. LiJ
:J (I) ~
21 C')~ ~
.- ~ ~
lL. ~
t:i
!oj
~
0- Iii
j! .
;:.
p)stP ~ ~ ~
:>
:5
::)
:E:
0
t ~
0
II: ~
~
0
1'1
-3-
~~606
I-
Z
!oj
::;;
&3
In
In
~
<(
z
<(
Q..
~
I
ffi~
~1S1
f-
z
:::
...
~
~~
G:i .!.
a:: :g
r- .f:
:::~z:
J'. >::::
z.-~
- <'( ,.,
.-J ~ '-'
L/:\.,SCOTT
L \\\' ~
GREEI~SmN
ENGINEERS
Year 1-805 to Terra Nova Paseo Del Rey Paseo Ranchero to 1-805 to
Terra Nova Drive to Paseo to Paseo Southwestern Southwestern
Drive Del Rev Ranchero Colleae Colleae Averaae
1996 60440' 41600' 32,480' 23 880 39.600
1997 NA NA NA NA NA
1998 63,540 NA NA 26,520 45,030
1999 62,850. 49,270. 42,660 32,470. 46813
., .
Table 1
East H Street ACT Volumes
Source. City of Chula Vista, Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, NA. Not Available (data was not
collected for that year)
CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
The Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program assesses the operating performance of the
City's arterial street system for compliance with the Threshold Standards of the Growth
Management Plan. The threshold standards specify that a Level of Service (LOS) of C
or better, as measured by average travel speeds on the arterial, shall be maintained on
all signalized arterial segments with an exception during peak hours where LOS D can
occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) conducted a two-day floating car speed
study on East H Street in January 1999, westbound during the morning peak hour and
eastbound during the afternoon peak hour. The floating car speed data was collected
with Southwestern College in session. Collection of the floating car data was performed
in the same fashion as collected by the City of ChiJla Vista staff for their TMP efforts. A-
sufficient amount of data was collected to maintain an 80% confidence interval as per
the City of Chula Vista standards. Historical City of Chula Vista TMP data sheets, new
data sheets and statistical significance summaries are included in Appendix B. The
1999 conditions and historical City of Chula Vista TMP runs are shown below in Table 2
for East H Street.
Istma East H Street TMP Average )peeds and OS Conditions
Time and Direction 1996 1997 1998 1999
MPH LOS MPH LOS MPH LOS MPH LOS
AM Westbound ISWC - 805 NB Ramos) 35.3 A' 32.5 B' 31.2 B' 32.1 B"
PM Eastbound 1805 NB Ramos-SWC\ 33.0 B' 30.3 B' 28.7 B' 26.5 C.
." "
Ex" .
Table 2
S
L
SourGe. Based on City of Chula Vista TMP Data Based on field data collected In January 1999
I-S-
-4-
LI~SC()TT
L \\\ c\:
G~EE'\':SI', \r'--.:
ENGINEERS
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
There are numerous projects in the eastem territories of Chula Vista, which will add
traffic to the subject section for East H Street. A list of cumulative projects was
assembled to include all major future residential, commercial and industrial projects
planned for development between 1999 and 2005 in the eastern territories. The
approximate locations of these projects are shown in Figure 3.
January of 1999 was established as a baseline to coincide with the traffic count data
collection. East H Street ADT volumes were collected on January 19, 20 and 21, 1999.
All projects built and occupied prior to February 1, 1999 were assumed to be accounted
for in the existing traffic data. Projects propos~d after February 1, 1999 were
summarized as 1999' projects. This baseline helps insure that all proposed
developments will be accounted for between 1999 and 2005.
Cumulative project information for residential, commercial and industrial uses were
obtained from the following sources:
· SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table dated 12/1/97,
· City of Chula Vista Staff,
· Site Specific Developer Staff, and
· Project Specific Traffic Impact Reports
The SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table (used to prepare the latest traffic studies
for Eastlake Trails, San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch) was used to develop a-
cumulative information base but was updated by obtaining the latest information from
City of Chula Vista staff, site specific developer staff, and from site specific traffic impact
reports. This process provided the most up to date estimate of the total number of
hom'es forecasted to be built between 1999 and 2005. As a factor of safety, the most
conservative number of anticipated forecasted homes was used.
For the forecasted,homes, an ADT volume was determined using a trip rate of 10 trips
per dwelling unit for single family homes and 8 trips for multi family units. For the
forecasted commercial projects, an ADT volume was based on the project size with
1200 trips/acre for sites less than 10 acres and 700 trips/acre for site greater than 10
acres. For the forecasted industrial sites, a trip rate of 4 trips per 1000 S.F. was utilized.
The future cumulative volumes were assigned annually to East H Street based on
SANDAG Select Zone Assignment plots, specific project traffic impact analysis, or by
engineering judgement. Each assignment includes a reference source.
A year 2000 select zone assignment without SR-125 and without Olympic Parkway was
performed for Rolling Hills Ranch, which forecasted that 23% of their traffic would be
assigned to East H Street. A copy showing a portion of the Select Zone Assignment for
Rolling Hills Ranch is included in Appendix C. Th~ SANDAG Select Zone Assignment
used the SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 for all Traffic Analysis
I~
-5-
~~ tot') (I)
z
0
~ CD ~
L.
-'C :J 9
~'" .~ ~
!.!
::I
~ lL. a
a::
~ a..
II)
i
?:
~
~
~
w
~
~ ~
i ~
:J
(.)
,-
. .)
..
. I
"
:-1
. .1 ~
. .,
. .., :>'
\~\ ~ i
~~ g:c
Z a::
o
m::E
~
'i
...
..v.
... ...
...
~ ~ IK
17 ~ ~
i:i I
-6- a;
II: CD
-<
-
~ .r
'- ~~
'-'
f;-~
Z--~
...-r:-=
::::i~~
LI\:SCOTT
L \\\' c\:
G~EEI'!SP;\0J
ENGINEERS
Zone (TAZ) inputs with the exception of Otay Ranch, which assumed the number of
proposed single and multi-family units proposed by the Otay Ranch Company for their
SPA One Amendment EIR.
Rolling Hills Ranch had 102 homes built and occupied through February 1, 1999 and
anticipates the completion and occupancy of 280 additional homes between February
and December of 1999. Between 2000 and 2005, Rolling Hills Ranch anticipates to
build about 350 homes per year. Therefore, between 1999 and 2005, Rolling Hills
Ranch anticipates the completion of about 2380 homes being the sum of 280 homes for
1999, plus 350 homes per year between 2000 and 2005 (350"6 years = 2100). The
SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 had a total of about 2600 homes
at buildout for Rolling Hills Ranch.
The cumulative projects, traffic assignments, and ADTs for eastern territory projects are
shown below in Table 3.
Pro
Proposed
Development
Total
ADT
2900
11,058
3,400
o
61,932
2,620
o
23,200
8,094
16,580
Assignment
on East H
Street
30%
18%
18%
18%
11%
90%
23%
23%
23%
11%
ADT on
EastH
Street
870
1,990
612
o
6,813
2,358
o
5,336
1,862
1,824
23,108
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Avera e er Year 23,135 NA 3,301
Sources: City of Chula Vista staff, February 1999 SANDAG Master Land Use Phasin~ Table 1211/97
30tay Ranch SPA I Amendment, LLG 6/30/98 'Pacific Bay Homes staff, February 1999 San Miguel
RanGh SPA Transportation Study, BRW Inc. 8/10/98, .6LLG Leviton Report, 7 Assignment based on
knowledge of study area and engineering judgement. 8Assignment from LLG Eastlake work. 9Assignment
obtained fron. SANDAG select zone assignment for Rolling Hills Ranch (Appendix C).
If
-7 -
LI"-SCO iT
I \\\ 0<.
GI\.EEI~SP-\\;
ENGINEERS
Based on these assumptions, the total number of residential units assumed to be built
Der year between 1999 and 2005 for all major eastern territory residential projects,
based on the latest available project-by-project data, is about 2000 units.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
In order to assess the future conditions, an hourly look-up table was created specifically
for East H Street from historical TMP data. Next, cumulative traffic was added year-by-
year to base 1999 volumes. Finally, future volumes were compared against the
generated look-up table for possible LOS degradations.
LOOK-UP TABLE
An hourly level of service look-up table was created by applying linear regression to the
historical floating car data to generate future volumes for each LOS. By utilizing linear
regression, a formula can be derived that can describe the dependence of one variable
on another. For example, as the volume increases on East H Street, the average travel
speed and LOS will decrease. Linear regression equations were derived for the
Westbound traffic as MPH = 48.4 - 0.0101*Volume and for the Eastbound traffic as
MPH = 45.6 - 0.0111*Volume. Linear regression plots are included in Appendix D.
The Westbound, Eastbound, total hourly volumes and respective LOS are shown below
in Table 4.
Table 4
East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourlv Volumes
LOS A B C D E
MPH >35 >28 >22 > 17 < 13
Westbound Hourly Volume 1330 2020 2610 3110 3500
Eastbound HourlY Volume 950 1590 2100 2580 2940
Total HourlY Volume 2280 3610 4710 5690 6400
Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calGUlation: LOS A for Westbound volume uSing MPH = 48.4-
0.0101*Volume becomes 35 = 48.4-0.0101*Volume => -13.4 = -0.0101*Volume => Volume = 1326.
As shown above in Table 4, East H Street volumes are correlated to speed and
respective LOS. For example, when the hourly volume on East H Street exceeds 5690,
then the LOS will decrease to LOS E.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
Cumulative project traffic was added to East H Street in hourly segments from 7:00 AM
to 7:00 PM. The hourly percentages were derived from 1999 machine counts as a
percentage of ADT as shown below in Table 5.
I'
- 8-
,
LL'-.;SC()H
L \\\ c\:
GI\.EEj~SP-\N
ENGINEERS
ast treet ourlv ercen ace 0
Time 1999 Volumes Percent of ACT
7:00-8:00 3440 7%
8:00-9:00 2811 6%
9:00-10:00 2371 5%
10:00-11 :00 2408 5%
11 :00-12:00 2920 6%
12:00-13:00 3046 7%
13:00-14:00 3008 6%
14:00-15:00 3130 7%
15:00-16:00 3514 8%
. 16:00-17:00 3339 7%
17:00-18:00 3430 7%
18:00-19:00 3157 7%
19:00-07:00 (remainder) 10241 . 22%
Total 46813 100%
E
HS
Table 5
HIP
t
fACT
SourGe: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: 7:00-8:00 percentage of ADT is from 3440/46813
= 7%. The ADT of 46,813 is the overall East H Street average ADT from Table 1.
Using the hourly percentages from Table 5, the cumulative project traffic was calculated
on an hourly basis as shown in Table 6.
ast treet ourlv urnu a Ive o urnes
Time Total Cumulative Percent Cumulative Project
ACT of ACT Hourly Volumes
7:00-8:00 7% 231
8:00-9:00 6% 198
9:00' 10:00 5% 165
1 0:00-11 :00 5% 165
11 :00-12:00 6% 198
12:00-13 :00 7% 231
13:00-14:00 3,301 6% 198
14:00-15:00 7% 231
15:00-16:00 8% 264
16:00-17:00 7% 231
17:00-18:00 7% 231
18:00-19:00 7% 231 .
19:00-07:00 (remainder) 22% 727
Total 3.301 100% 3301
E
HS
Table 6
H I C I r V I
Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Exampie calculation: 7:00-8:00 cumulative project hourly volume is from
3294 . 7% = 231. '
FUTURE VOLUMES
The year-by-year volumes on East H Street were calculated by adding the cumulative
project hourly volumes, from Table 6 above, to base 1999 volumes from 7:00 AM to
~()
-9-
II~SCOT r
L,\\\ ~
GREEi\SP,\f\;
ENGINEERS
7:00 PM. These volumes and respective LOS are shown below in Table 7. The LOS is
estimated based on the correlation between volume and LOS as derived in Table 4.
st treet ata uture aurlY 0 umes an
TIME Jan 1999 End of End of End of End of End of End of End of
Base 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS
7:00-8:00 3440 B 3670 C 3900 C 4130 C 4360 C 4600 C 48300 5060 0
8:00-9:00 2811 B 3010 B 3210 B 3410 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C
9:00-10:00 2371 B 2540 B 2700 B 2870 B 3030 B 3200 B 3360 B 3530 B
10:00-11 :00 2408 B 2570 B 2740 B 2900 B 3070 B 3230 B 3400 B 3560 B
11 :00-12:00 2920 B 3120 B 3320 B 3510 B 3710 C 3910 C' 4110 C 4310 C
12:00-13:00 3046 B 3280 B 3510 B 3740 C 3970 C 4200 C 4430 C 4660 'C
13:00-14:00 3008 B 3210 B 3400 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C 4390 C
14:00-15:00 3130 B 3360 B 3590 B 3820 C 4050 C 4290 C 4520 C 4750 0
15:00-16:00 3514 B 3780 C 4040 C 4310 C 4570 C 4830 0 5100 0 5360 0
16:00-17:00 3339 B 3570 B 3800 C 4030 C 4260 C 4490 C 4720 0 4960 0
17:00-18:00 3430 B 3660 C 3890 C 4120 C 4350 C 4580 C 4820 0 5050 0
18:00-19:00 3157 B 3390 B 3620 C 3850 C 4080 C 4310 C 4540 C 4770 0
Ea HS
Table 7
T IF H I V I
dLOS
Source: LLG Engineers, 1999.
As shown above in Table 7, one hour (between 3:00-4:00 PM) is forecasted to degrade
to LOS D in 2003. In 2004, four hours are forecasted to degrade to LOS D thereby
making East H Street not meet the City of Chula Vista TMP standards.
The forecasted future hourly volumes are year-end volumes, which means the volumes-
will be lower during the beginning of the forecast year. East H Street was forecasted to
degrade to three hours of LOS D by Julv 2004 as shown in Appendix E. By July 2004,
Rolling Hills Ranch could have 1850 homes built as shown in Table 8.
,
um ero omes or o mg I S anc ropos )v ear
Year . Number of Homes
1999 Februarv - December) 280
2000 Januarv - DeGember\ 350
2001 January - December) 350
2002 Januarv - December\ 350
2003 Januarv - December) 350
2004 Januarv-June) 170
Total 1850
N b fH
Table 8
f R II" H"U R h P
edbY
Source: LlG Engineers, 1999.
As shown in Table 8, it is forecasted that Rolling Hills Ranch could have the existing cap
of 1137 raised to 1850 homes before East H Street would degrade to LOS D. This
translates to about 713 additional homes above the existing cap of 1137.
~
-10-
UNSCOTT
L,\\ V c\:
C~EEi\iSI~'\N
ENGINEERS
CONCLUSIONS
The assumptions for cumulative projects assumed in this analysis can be considered as
conservative. The total number of residential units assumed to be built per year for all
the eastern territory projects, based on project-by-project data, was about 2000 units.
City of Chula Vista staff indicated that current absorption rates are more in the order of
1500 units per year. The cumulative projects included the assumption that Rolling Hills
Ranch would sell 280 homes during the remainder of 1999 and 350 homes per year
from 2000 through 2005.
The analysis indicates that East H Street is forecasted to operate at LOS C until 2002.
In 2003, one hour is forecasted to degrade to LOS D. In July 2004, three hours are
forecasted to degrade to LOS D making East H Street not meet the City of Chula Vista
TMP standards.
The analysis assumed that Rolling Hills Ranch would have 1850 homes built and
occupied between February 1999 and July 2004. The cap on Rolling Hills Ranch can be
raised to 1850 homes before SR 125 would be needed.
861 rapon.doc
J- -
~
-11-
ATIACHMENT r
Linscott, Law & Greenspan
East 'H' Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista, CA
March 8,2000
-2..3
EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Prepared by:
LI NSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 299-3090
March 8, 2000
JB/NPfja
3-000955
.J.Jt
LINSCOTT
L,\\V 0<.
CREENSI'/\N
. ENGINEERS
EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed a traffic analysis of the East H
Street corridor between 1-805 and the Southwestern College Entrance to determine
approximately when Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) standards would be exceeded
and to also determine the approximate maximum number of homes in Rolling Hills
Ranch that could be built prior to the completion of SR 125. The results of the segment
study indicated that a cap of 1850 homes should be placed on Rolling Hills Ranch
based on a 2004 "failure" year for East H Street.
Subsequent to that report, the City of Chula Vista has requested a similar analysis of
the intersections along East H Street. This analysis addresses the following four
intersections, which are the "busiest" (non-interchange) intersections along East H
Street between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road.
. East H StreetlHidden Vista Drive
. East H StreetlPaseo Del Rey
. East H StreetlPaseo Ranchero
. East H StreetlOtay Lakes Road
This report is structured as follows:
. Methodology;
. Existing'conditions;
. Baseline conditions;
. Raising cap from 1,137 to 1,850 units;
. Cumulative analysis;
. Ramp meter assessment; and
. Conclusions
METHODOLOGY
Since the East H Street seament analysis (LLG traffic study dated May 1999) indicated
that the unit cap could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,850 units, this intersection
analysis assesses whether or not the intersections along East H Street would operate at
adequate Level of Service (LOS D or better) with this additional 713 units. Since the
Rolling Hills Ranch project is not yet built out to 1,137 units (about 400 are currently
built), the first step was to add the existing balance of Rolling Hills Ranch units (737
1 -2.s-
LlNSCC HT
L/\\ V 0<.
GREENSP/\~
ENGINEERS
units) onto the street system. This was termed the "baseline" scenario. As a second
step, traffic from the additional 713 units (1,137 to 1,850 units) was then added to the
baseline condition to determine if adequate intersection LOS would be maintained.
Finally, since there are several "cumulative" projects (as listed below) which will add
traffic to East H Street in the next few years, an approximate year was determined for
when the intersection LOS D standard would be exceeded with the addition of all
cumulative project traffic.
A list of cumulative projects planned for development between 1999 and 2005 in the
eastern territories was assembled as part the East H Street Segment Capacity Analysis.
This list includes all major future residential, commercial and industrial projects as
shown below.
. Bonita Meadows
. Eastlake Trails
. Eastlake III Vistas
. Eastlake III Woods
. Otay Ranch SPA I and SPA I West
. Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and III
. Salt Creek I
. Salt Creek Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch)
. San Miguel RanchNista Mother Miguel
. Sunbow II
. Commercial- East Lake Vistas
. Commercial- Otay
. Commercial- Rancho Del Rey
. Commercial- San Miguel
. Commercial-Sunbow II
. Industrial- Eastlake
. Industrial- Rancho Del Rey
The intersection operations were analyzed by determining the average delay per vehicle
entering the intersection. The delay was determined using a computer program which
utilized the methodology found in Chapter 9 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). The delay values (seconds) were qualified by giving a Level of Service (LOS)
or "Grade" to the intersection.
2 .J.~
11)?
;- q'V ?
~v/
jJY
~~}
~tf
LlNSCOTl
L/\\V 0<.
C;~EENS~)!\N
ENGINEERS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
AM, Midday and PM Peak hour volumes for the key intersections were collected by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers in January and December of 1999. The manual
count sheets are included in Appendix A. The peak hour volumes were collected with
Southwestern College in session. Figure 1 shows the existing traffic volumes for AM,
Midday, and PM periods. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection lane configurations.
Table 1 shows that LOS D or better operations is' calculated at each of the four
intersections during the three time periods under existing conditions. Appendix B
includes the LOS calculations.
BASELINE CONDITIONS
The "baseline" scenario was determined by adding the remaining Rolling Hills Ranch
unit traffic up to the current 1,137 unit cap (about 737 units) onto existing conditions.
Table 2 shows that LOS D or better intersection operations is maintained during each
time period. Figure 3 shows the baseline traffic volumes.
RAISING CAP FROM 1,137 UNITS TO 1,850 UNITS
The East H Street seament analysis indicated that the unit cap could be raised from
1,137 units to 1,850 units. The addition of 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units equates to 92
peak direction trips on East H Street, as shown in Table 3. Figure 4 shows'lfie
assignment of 713 HOlling Hills Ranch unit traffic. Figure 5 shows the baseline plus
713 Rolling Hills Ranch units traffic volumes. Table 4 shows the results of adding 713
Rolling Hills Ranch units to the baseline conditions. This table shows that LOS D or
better operations is maintained during each time period.
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
As previously discussed, there are several other "cumulative" projects which will add
traffic to East H Street in the next few years. Based on projections for these projects, it
was determined that the East H Street segment would fail to meet TMP standards some
time within the Year 2004. Therefore, the key intersections along East H Street were
analyzed with the addition of four years of cumulative project traffic (including Rolling
Hills Ranch traffic). Future intersection volumes were forecasted from existing counts
by adding trips generated from the cumulative projects to the eastbound and westbound
through movements and factoring up all other turning movements by 1 % per year to
account for background growth. The East H Street Capacity Analysis Study
documented the AM, Midday, and PM peak periods to each have 231 trips added to
East H Street from the cumulative projects. These 231 vehicle trips were divided into
eastbound and westbound trips based on directional splits from 24-hour tube counts.
-1,
3
LINSCOTT
L'\\V &.
GREENSPAN
ENGINEERS
The forecasted intersection movement volumes for 2004 are included in Figure 6.
Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. This table shows that LOS D or better
operations are calculated at each intersection with the exception of the East H
StreeVHidden Vista Drive intersection during the AM peak period where LOS F is
,calculated. In order to maintain LOS D or better operations at this intersection, one of
three mitigation measures would be necessary.
1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H StreeVHidden Vista
Drive intersection; or
2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street;
or
3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed.
The provision of an additional westbound thru lane at the East H StreeVHidden Vista
Drive intersection would mitigate impacts at this intersection by providing additional
capacity in the westbound direction, the peak direction in the morning.
The extension of Olympic Parkway will enable commuters to divert from East H Street
and Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, thereby decreasing through traffic on
East H Street at the Hidden Vista Drive intersection. This extension would serve to
mitigate East H StreeVHidden Vista Drive intersection impacts.
The provision of SR 125 would substantially decrease traffic on East H Street, thereby
mitigating impacts at the East H StreeVHidden Vista Drive intersection.
It is desired to ascertain at what point in time the East H StreeVHidden Vista Drive
intersection will degrade to LOS E. In order to determine this, the total traffic from the
Rolling Hills Ranch project and the other cumulative projects was forecasted on an.
annual basis and assigned to East H Street. Appendix C (Table A-1) shows the
detailed calculations. The annual traffic volumes were first assigned to eastbound and
westbound East H Street and then added to the baseline traffic volumes to obtain yearly
peak hour volumes. Appendix C (Table A-2) shows the peak hour turning movement
volumes at the East H StreeVHidden Vista Drive intersection. Peak hour analysis at the
East H StreeVHidden Vista Drive intersection indicates that this intersection deteriorates
from LOS D to LOS E in about 2002. This corresponds to about 330 Rolling Hills Ranch
units. Therefore, the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch could be raised from 1,137 units to
1,467 units at which time one of the three mitigation measures listed above would need
to be implemented. At this time the cap could be raised to 1,850 units.
~f
4
II~SCc) r 1-
L,\\ V &
GREENSI';\N
ENGINEERS
RAMP METER ASSESSMENT
According to a letter from Caltrans to the City of Chula Vista dated November 19, 1999,
Caltrans plans to install ramp meters at several locations along 1-805 in 2001, including
the westbound to northbound on-ramp at East H Street. Caltrans states that the
metering rate will be approximately 1,450 vehicles per hour, 85% of the current AM
peak hour demand of about 1,700 vehicles per hour. The westbound to northbound on-
ramp is a one lane ramp which may be widened for an HOV lane.
Assuming the AM peak hour volume on this ramp increases by 2% by Year 2001 to
1,730 vehicles per hour, the following delay and queue calculations would result.
Demand = 1,730 vehicles/hour
Rate = 1,450 vehicles/hour
Excess Demand = 280 vehicles/hour
Average delay = 280 x 60 minutes = 11.6 minutes
1,450 hour
Average queue = 280 vehicles x 25 feet = 7,000 feet
vehicle
The above calculations assume an HOV ramp lane is not provided. The distance on the
ramp between the approximate placement of the ramp meter and East H Street i?
approximately 800 feet. The distance between- the northbound on-ramp and Hidden
Vista Drive is about 1,400 feet. Therefore, based on the above assumptions, the queue
from the ramp meter would extend past the East H StreetlHidden Vista Drive
intersection and will negatively impact operations on East H Street. If in fact a 7,000
foot queue did develop, the queue would extend eastward from 1-805 to approximately
half-way between Del Rey Boulevard and Paseo Del Rey. However, it should be noted
that the impact of the installation of ramp meters by Caltrans is not a project impact.
CONCLUSIONS
The following four "key" intersections along East H Street were analyzed in this report.
. East H StreetlHidden Vista Drive
. East H StreetlPaseo Del Rey
. East H StreetlPaseo Ranchero
. East H StreetlOtay Lakes Road
The analysis indicated that adequate intersection operations could be maintained with
the addition of Rolling Hills Ranch traffic only assuming a raise in the Rolling Hills
.J.'f
5
LI:'\SCOTT
Lr\\V &
GREEt'-JSPAN
ENGINEERS
Ranch cap from 1,137 units to 1,850 units (92 AM peak hour westbound trips).
However, with the addition of all cumulative project traffic, mitigation would be
necessary at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. One of three measures
would be necessary.
1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista
Drive intersection; or
2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street;
or
3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed.
The analysis shows that the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch units could be raised to 1,467
units with no mitigation. One of the three mitigation measures listed above would need
to be implemented before the 1,467 unit cap could be exceeded. At this time, the cap
could be raised to 1,850 units.
There are many assumptions that need to be made in this type of analysis, including the
distribution of Rolling Hills Ranch and cumulative project traffic, the timing of cumulative
projects and the future ramp meter rates. For this reason, a 10% "factor of safety" could
be applied to the ultimate 1,850 unit cap, resulting in an overall cap of 1,665 units.
Based on assumptions provided by Caltrans, it is possible that the installation of a ramp
meter on the westbound to northbound on-ramp will result in traffic queues extending
past Hidden Vista Drive, thereby negatively impacting East H Street operations.
955.doc
36
6
..'
....
..'
.
..
"~r
~"i'i I~.
"-~_ .... 1J.I .\ rg,' '.
~'f." -;.~,#.fi:I""
;\'- ' . .
.... ~.J ..N
..~~~/~~ \i~
.~/~ ~'9.
': ~~
....
......
.J'~ .....
..'
..'
..,
..'
..'
"
.....
'i~~~
t>
:z=
... .....
.....
......
~;;;'" ....
-_01
~'If
~~,
-~: .
./i... ~::~"I/,"':
. t, ~rv~lfl:z ;
. eU/ez,' .
: '''1.. ~.,~ ...1
. 0ttI....~""- I I"
: ..~... ~".
. f')~~
.= ~~;:,.
. ~~,..
-~~
. .... CD:","
......
.....
......
a..'
... ..
.~;...;..........
;;CD ....
~,: ..
-sH ..........
~~,
-~a
"'<I, :
- t, ?>I/I'O :
,... m;;f!!..~LI :
-'~""":
....11"
MiJM
~'"
~~R
.............~~.
.....
1$
~~
m~
~1-'rS 805
.,.JII..
;;j:IZs:J
!"I/"'~"
~I
~~
o
z
'"
CD
E
::J
-0",
><:
L...Q
::J-
0(,)
.<:CD
'"
...
""CD
0-
IUS
c..
CD
:::;:.<:
c..-
):c-15
<(
c<:
I~
CO
-.<:
:::;:'"
'IU
:::;:...
<0
w
b
z
-- (I) (I) (/)
.....0::: -
~::;) ~~
Q) 30
L. o::C
:::s ::> ~ z
O)~oit~
._ I.LI
u.. :E~
C)~~
z~ I:i:i
~ I I.LI
_0 ~
~:i.
.........J:
~.
<~
~
co (!)
~~
o :g
Gi '"
'" ~
z
<
~ .r
',-, ~z
i..- u..;
..I> u..;
z::;:::::::
= ~ lJ
'.
: '. I;
, ~~
'.
0
'. z
'.
.....
.' '.
ti::8 '.
'.
:
. ......
'i"i:$0 ~~
E
~
~
a
1
&;
......
....
....
, c.....
; ,.Iml.-I.-:;:: "~
: VIr:
. J .
; J "'\"'\llt ;
" ::: ;-:
..
...
........... :
.......
:z:
~ .'
%
o
~~
'..
!~Jh..'. '('" .....
: ... 7 :
~ JVlr ~
.......i..... ~ rl"ttt~!
....... .
.... :
'..
.....
'"
~t.'rE e06
C
<::
c>
Vi
u
~
o ~
is I
C)
~@)
3.)..
~
CD C>
~~
o ui
It)
~ ~
N ~
Q) ~
L.. c
::J en
C)~
.- E
l&.. c
z
o
(.)
C)
z
ffi ·
~ r-
~
v.
~
<
:z
<
2
C
t!
&.J
~
~
~
w
~
z
<
I-
~ 'J,
-~z
'-'
...r;-;..;...J
z:=:;::::::
_ _J_ /_
--.: --oJ ........
.....
.......
.......
!:;a
~~
~~S;
-~QI :
,- I..."v"v",:
"I'.. -toVoov .
. rH:Vtu/~ :
: :nf:f~~~:!. ~ t t'
: ~GZ'/6Q"""" a""G
: ' ;;~!ii
: ......,......
~-~
C"oI~,...
~~
.....~~,...
.......
..'
..'
.."
....
.
,,~r
::"-::'$ .
'1;0'(1._ oN "'~"i
o'7S1. "- "".l~, "
'";.Vt '- -r '2....!>~,. "',
'. )\ \r '".
'. ) ""' .
....,:.r,r~ ,,~~ ....
'~f.Ii' ~c.'l
. -lIP....
.... <;;..."....
..'
.."
.'
..'
..
'.
'.
....
&;
::r:
a
." -.
.:.;;,;~...........
I: -~QI -',
~-
....-
Q~~
!j&:
~,~
-~s
C'\I o\...t'91ffl .
.II'.. -., 1..11" :
'"' r roo;.,.f," .
~~..~~ 60<:
~..v::,~" ;;lc
: ~S':!
: ......:~~
aa!i
~"
.......... _i;
.....~....
.....
.......
33
'.
'.
p.
'.
'.
'.
'.
~o
1'~o ~
... 806
~~,..
~!
z
.,
.,
E
:J
o .,
> <=
L...Q
:J.....
o ()
.r::.~
'-
.Yo"
0.....
.,.s
0..
.,
::;;.r::.
0.......
~c
<(
0<=
13:
00
_.r::.
::;;.,
.........,
::;;'-
<co
LJ
I-
o
Z
tt') ~ VI
~
~
Q) ~ <c
-J ~
L. ~ z
:J (.) 0
~~ ~
VI
II:
~
0::: t:i
~
0 w
:I: ~
~ .
:I:
.
c.. ~
I.IJ
Z
::J
I.IJ
~
~~
~~
o :g
. '"
~ ~
z
~
I"" l'
--~z
\...;"
'f; ;.... u.J
z~~
-' -' '-'
......
..'
(\\ ....
... ~ .'.
". \ ".
'. \"
. .
. .
'. ". '.
. ' .
. -'
" i':"
". ~
I
II / ~ ..
"'''' . ~ .
.x'
". \ ".
~" ,"
<9W..t!!~ ". .. '.
~.:l ......... \ ..,
. ". "....
.........
. .
~~
o
z
f~O iJjo~O
~
~
~
&
~
......
:'" <.:.........
S; ~+. ~ .~
~ j ~
tI: ~ t ~
S; . ~.
i3) ~ ~
.... ". ~;
......
." .
...
: m
iii
. m
; J
~ t
: :g
: ~
. ~
...... .'
.........
3>"
(/)
II>
E
:J
O(/)
>c
~,.'rE 805 5 ~
nn"'- 0 0
..c:~
....
,;,L.II>
c....
~.~
II>
:::;:..c:
a......
............
~c
oc
I~
0.2
:::;:(/)
........11>
~5
I
w
o
z
~ t5~ ~
~2 ~
Q) ~3 ~
L- U1~
:::J:::I ~
C):i:O~
~~U
3~ -
~;:) ti
01&.1
~:J: ~
,,~.
LJ.. iAJ ~
oa.. ~
~
::E
Z
C)
(i)
~
o
~
8
~~
o "!
......m
a J,
It)
~ ~
z
.-:::
i-
,.., .I
-~z
-' ...w
..r/~
z:;: '""::,
.......1~'-'
..III", ~~:~~:~,~
,1<1/r"~ ;
QUI.' ''''''Co.
: m/:i'I,<I,J "t
. sa/ar;z'iOZ- \ r
. ,sa. cu....
: ;;;:;;~
: .......::::........
. ": ~8::?
.... ~s.~ .
....... ClU""~ .
.......1:00......... "
%
o
~~
,.'
,.'
....
..'
..'
.
,,~...
::"."i .
~~- --, .,I_~'.
_-" "- 'P<r!!!!.'''''- .
t~ "f'::!Jf'J."~""
'. )\'-- ' .
.... j ..M
"~~~~ \\\
':II>~ ~~l
~\
~"
..'
"
..'
..'
..'
..'
....
.....
&j
It:
a
", '.
.:,;..........
. -1! .......
~s.;:;. . .........
311
~:,:,
-~t .
;;;- '-.1:8 :
..IJI", -./~I?tf : i!i
'"' ' ,~,..."lI':Z:
""IIOOht J -_00l:~,c
:..,7.;,~" '"It,.. SE::
: ~:;;:: tij5:
: ,~-
..-,...;~
~I::i
:-~~
........ _~IS
.......,..-
.....
a~-
.....
'.
~o p.t.~
,'". . .....,,!!I. ......
::~OI ..... ".
~~~
-!-
8'~::;:'
_;CII
~t.'rE 606
~~
z
rn
0)
E
:>
'Om
>c
.....Q
:>-
00
.s::.0)
E
~O)
0-
ClL~
a.
0)
::E.s::.
0.-
........-
>-:0
<(
cc
I ~
CO
_.s::.
::Ern
........0)
::E...
<co
w
b
z
LO ~~Yl
Z~ ~
Q) ::>3~
L.. :I: 0
::J O=>z
.~ ~ ~ ~
lL. ~~ ~
:I: I:t: -
C)::> ti
zO w
3:I:~
~~~
gQ. ~
+
lLI
Z
::J
lLI
~
~~
Q .
;:,.If
Q :g
Gi '"
a: ~
z
<
~
...
IIC
...
...
r-
!-
,-. J
~~Z
'-' :....:..J
'J :- ~
Z--,...,
-<;-::
--i .....: '"-'
..'
..'
..'
..'
....
~~1!-
'1:..-
1~~ .
..."'_ ~'!JJ'
':'~ L~.,-">j;i""""
~~ _.~J'I-"""
. ;\~ .'" ".
". 0 j -oM ",
"~~~ 'f.\~ ..,
~/- ~.~
. .~1"1
~j, ,.,..:
~~ ....
..'
..'
..'
.,'
.,'
"'~
'&"
~
&3
:z:
a
.......
...:,;....;,.........
.' ...~~ ....
~,~
~~
~~~
-~::;
~- '-.n :
..,Ill.. ->L'~I/'" :
: r~tv"l:
.~..,.." J ..........:
}~,~~'"\'r
. " 2~~
. tIj,..1IP
: ,~-
ii~~
'" ~~~
..... --~
.....(\1.:..
.....
I!i
....
"&
.,.
~
.......
a<-
....
'.
~
'.
.....
v~ i#-~
........\II5<r...........
-Dtof "
!:i'! ".
~::::......
....:!I
~fl.. ~~ffiJffg'!
. J' Kl/.1 Vttt .
: ftff:E'f"'J ..., .
. <>v,../"- \ r
: K, =...:=
; "::!..,
. ....~
,': ~~~
..... G~
....::....... "
~~80fi
~~ CD o (I) (I)
01.&.1 -
0:& ;
Q) N~
0 ...J
z
L. ~g z
:J 00
C) U
.-
lL..
D:: I;j
~
0 I.&J
:I: ~
~ .
r
a.. ~
II>
CI)
E
"
'Oil>
><:
....Q
,,-
0<.)
~CI)
f!
,>o:CI)
0-
CI).=
D..
CI)
::;:~
D..-
.......-
>-0
<(
0<:
I ~
00
-~
::;:11>
.......CI)
::;:...
<0
W
I-
o
Z
o
~~
o .
,III
'" I
o "'
"'
~ ~
z
..-r
...
IK
III
III
-
'-
~
.r
-~z
'-' ..w
..r;-'..J...:.
Z -- ""...
_-1:,-
....J~ ~
EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS
TABLE!
EXISTING ANALYSIS
PERIOD SCENARIO
Existing
Delay LOS
East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive
AM 32,0 sec. D
MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C
PM 27.6 sec. D
East H Street/Paseo Del Rey
AM 15.2 sec, C
MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C
PM 17.6 sec. C
East H Street/Paseo Ranchero
AM 16.3 sec, C
MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B
PM 16.3 sec. C
East H Street/Otay lakes Road
AM 20.0 sec. C
MIDDAY 19.9 sec. C
PM 20.9 sec. C
Delay is measured in seconds.
LOS = Level of Service
NB = Northbound
DELAY
0.0 to 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25,1 to 40,0
40.1 to 60.0
>60.0
37
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
EAST H STREET CAPAOTY ANALYSIS
TABLE 2
PERIOD SCENARIO
Existing Baseline*
Delay LOS Delay LOS
East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive
AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D
MIDDAY 24.2 sec. e 24.6 sec. e
PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. . D
East H StreetJPaseo Del Rey
AM 15.2 sec. e 15.2 sec. e
MIDDAY 18.1 see, e 18.7 sec. e
PM 17.6 sec. e 18.2 sec. e
East H StreetJPaseo Ranchero
AM 16.3 sec. e 16.4 sec. e
MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B
PM 16.3 sec. e 16.6 sec. e
East H Street/Otay lakes Road
AM 20.0 sec. e 20.2 sec. e
MIDDAY 19,9 sec. e 20.4 sec. e
PM 20,9 sec. e 21.4 sec. e
* Baseline represents eXISting volumes With the balance of
Rolling Hills Ranch built outto 1,137 units,
Delay is measured in seconds.
LOS = Level of Service
NB = Northbound
DELAY
0.0 to 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
>60.0
LOS
A
B
e
D
E
F
Bt
TABLE 3
GENERATION /DISTRIBUTION OF 713 UNITS
ADT=7130
(713 Units. 10 ADT/Unit)
Additional ADT on "H" Street = 1640 (23% utilize East "H" Street per prior Traffic Study)
PERIOD PERCENT PEAK HOUR SPLIT
OFADT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS
ED WB ED I WB
AM 8% 131 0.30 0.70 39 92
Midday 7% 115 0.52 0.48 60 55
.
PM 10% 164 0,70 0.30 115 49
Source: SANDAG.
EB = Eastbound
WB = Westbound
-',
TABLE 4
EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS
PERIOD SCENARIO
Existing Baseline * Baseline + 713 Units **
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
East H StreetlHidden Vista Drive
AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D 34.7 see, D
MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 sec. C 24.9 sec. C
PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D 28,1 sec. D
East H StreetJPaseo Del Rey
AM 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C 15.3 sec. C
MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C 18.7 sec. C 19.1 sec. C
PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 see, C 18.6 sec. C
East H StreetJPaseo Ranchero
AM 16.3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C 16.7 sec. C
MIDDAY 14.6 see, B 14.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B
PM 16.3 sec. C 16.6 sec. C 17,1 sec. C
East H Street/Otay lakes Road
AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 20.9 sec. C
MIDDAY 19.9 see, C 20.4 see, C 21.1 sec. C
PM 20,9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C 21.5 sec. C
. Baseline resents existin volumes with the balance of Rollin Hills Ranch built out
rep g g
to 1,13 7 units.
.. Baseline + 713 Units represents an additional 713 uits of Rolling Hills Ranch built out
for a total of 1,850 units.
Delay is measured in seconds.
LOS = Level of Service
NB = Northbound
~o
DELAY
0.0 to 5.0
5.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
>60.0
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS
TABLES
SCENARIO .
PERIOD
Existing Baseline Baseline + 713 Units Year 2004
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive
AM 32.0 sec. D 32,6 sec. D 34.7 sec. D 61.2 sec. F
MIDDAY 24.2 sec. e 24.6 sec. e 24.9 sec. e 25.9 sec, D
PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D 28,1 sec. D 31.1 sec, D
East H StreetJPaseo Del Rey
AM 15.2 sec. e 15.2 sec. e 15,3 sec. e 16.7 sec. e
MIDDAY 18.1 sec. e 18.7 sec. e 19.1 sec. e 20.2 sec, e
PM 17,6 sec. e 18,2 sec, e 18.6 sec. e 19.9 sec. e
East H StreetlPaseo Ranchero
AM 16.3 sec. e 16.4 sec. e 16,7 sec. e 20,5 sec. e
MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B 15.7 sec, B
PM 16,3 sec, e 16.6 sec, e 17.1 sec, e 18.1 sec. C
East H Street/Otay lakes Road
AM 20.0 sec. e 20.2 sec. e 20.9 sec. C 22.7 sec. C
MIDDAY 19.9 sec. e 20.4 sec. e 21.1 sec. e 21.6 sec. e
PM 20.9 sec. e 21.4 sec, e 21.6 sec. e 25.0 sec, e
Delay is measured in seconds.
LOS = Level of Service
NB = Northbound
DELAY
0.0 to 5.0
5.1 to 15,0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 40.0
40.1 to 60.0
>60.0
LOS
A
B
e
D
E
F
Iff
ATTACHMENT"
Mitigated Negative Declaration
~l..
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: An amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative
Subdivision Map 92-02 Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 of
Section 7 to grant an increase in the building cap ITom
1,137 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,665 equivalent
dwelling units (EDU's) prior to the completion ofSR-125.
PROJECT LOCATION: Rolling Hills Ranch, east of San Miguel Road, north
and south of Proctor Valley Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: PaGific Bay Homes
CASE NO:
IS-00-05
DATE:
March 30, 2000
A Proiect SettinE
The project site is within the I ,I 97-acre Rolling Hills Ranch (AKA, Salt Creek
Ranch) master planned co=unity on the eastern urbanizing mnge of the City,
The approved Sectional Planning Area plan (SPA) includes 2,095 single family,
61 single family attached, and 390 multiple fannly dwelling units. It also includes
two elementary schools, a fire station, two GO=unity purpose facilities, two
public parks, one private park, and natural open space.
The project is regionally located in the southern foothills of San Miguel Mountain,
north ofEastLake Business Center and northwest of Upper Otay Lake. The
recently approved 738-acre San Miguel Ranch master planned co=unity is
located immediately northwest of the project site and the proposed State Route 125
(SR-125) toll road is planned approximately 2 miles east.
Much of the surrounding area is developed with single family homes. N; of
January 1, 2000 approximately 400 homes have been constructed in Rolling Hills
Ranch as a part of Phase 1. T=ain in the project area consists of gently rolling
hills with historic agricultural uses. In general, the undeveloped portions of
Rolling Hills Ranch consist of open sparsely vegetated areas with some areas
disturbed by historic agricultural uses, recent disGing and construction activity.
Based on the current phasing plan, if the building cap is increased the additional
528 EDU's would be constructed in portions of Neighborhoods 1, 4a, 7 a, 7b, and
8. Neighborhood 1 consists of 93.9 acres on the north side of Proctor Valley
Road, west of Hunte Parkway. Neighborhood 4 consists of 18.7 acres located at
the tenninus ofMt. Miguel Road and south of McKenzie Creek Road.
1 Cf-3
Neighborhood ./" consists of IS,S acres. Neighborhood 'IiJ consists of 59,9 acres
located on the north side of Proctor Valley Road east of Hunte Park-way; and
Neighborhood 8 is 74.4 acres in size and is located immediately south of
Neighborhoods 7a & 7b on the south side of Proctor Valky Road, east of Hunte
Park-way.
B. Proiect Description
This Initial Study has been prepared to provide additional information and analysis
of potential environmental impaGts as a result of the proposed amendment to the
Tentative Subdivision Map covered under the Salt Creek RanGh Annexation!
General Development Plan! Pre-Zone Final Environmentallmpact Report (FEIR-
89-3) and the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final
Supplemental Environmental ImpaGt Report (FSEIR-91-3).
The proposal is an amendment to Conditions of Approval I and 2 Section 7 of
Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02. The condition, (identified as a mitigation
measure) in FSEIR 91-3, limits development in phase I to 1,137 dwelling uni,.ts.._
prior to the construction of SR-125 in order to mitigate potentiiu significant traffic
impacts at the intersection of East "H" S1reet/Hidden Vista Drive. Specifically,
Section 7, Item I specifies that the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) shall be
modified to indicate a reduction in Phase I to 1,13 7 units, Section 7, Item 2
specifies the sequence of transportation improvements are required to correspond
to any future eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended by final
SR-125 Financing Study (HNTB, May 1993). The PFFP will be amended to
reflect the increase accordingly.
The proposed amendment will allow Rolling ,Hills RanGh to increase the limit on
development by 528 EDU's and initiate GOns1ruction of a portion of Phase II for a
total of 1,665 EDU's. The 528 EDU's will be constructed in Neighborhoods I, 4a,
7a, Th, and 8 in aGcordance with the approved Tentative Subdivision Map. The
amendment constitutes a change in the phasing of residential development and an
amendment to a previous traffic mitigation measure and does not result in a net
increase in the total number of approved dwelling units or density.
C. Compatibility with Zoning. General Plan, and Sectional Planning Area Plan
The subject property is currently zoned for residential uses. Neighborhoods I and
7a are zoned LM, Low Medium Residential. Neighborhood 4a is M, Medium
Residential and Neighborhoods Th & 8 are zoned L, Low Residential. The
General Plan designation is LMR, Low Medium Residential. The proposed
project is in compliance with the approved Sectional Area Plan zoning
designations, and the General Plan
D. Identification ofEnvironmentaJ Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached
Environmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental ImpaGt Report
will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in
2C1-Cf
accordance with Secrio!. 15070 of the State California Environn."ntal Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
1. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION/ TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD
The proposal would result in the amendment to a previous mitigation measure in FSEIR
91-3 (page 3-106, Scenario 2) that was required in order to reduce traffic impacts at the
intersection of East "H" Street and Hidden Vista Drive to a level below significance. The
mitigation measure in FSElR 91-3 limits the amount of development in Rolling Hills
Ranch to 1,137 dwelling units (phase 1) prior to the construction of SR-125.
AGGording to the Engineering Division the basis for the requested amendment stems from
the following:
I. The recent traffic studies are focused analysis which were done with actual counts for
the existing conditions and growth rates from the various projects throughout the City
based on historical data and a shorter projected future year scenario analysis, whereas
the previous studies in the ElR were long range forecasts;
2. The unifonn growth rate of development assumed over the last decade did not occur
due to an economic slow down in the early 1990's resulting in a reserve of anticipated
trips on the roadways;
3. Tne segment improvements to the City's cirGulation system have continued beyond
those improvements anticipated in the original traffic study such as the widening of
Bonita road at the interchange with 1-805, Otay Lake Road and, Telegraph Canyon
Road; and
4. Intersection improvements to add additional turn-lanes and/or through lanes to the
major intersections have also been completed, some of which are beyond what was
originally anticipated to be constructed at build-out at:
. East "H" Street at: Hilltop Drive, Hidden Vista Drive, Mount Miguel Road, Paseo
Del Rey, and Tierra Del Rey.
. Otay Lakes road at: Bonita Road, East H Street, EastLake Parkway, and
Telegraph Canyon Road.
. Telegraph Canyon Road at: Medical Center Drive, Paseo Ranchero and the almost
completed improvements in the vicinity of the I-80S interchange with Halecrest
Drive.
To dete=iDe how much capacity street capacity was available on East "H" the City
. required the applicant to enter into a 3-party agreement with the City to hire a traffic
consultant to conduct a traffic study. Linscott, Law and GTeenspan Engineers (LLG)
prepared both a segment analysis and intersection analysis.
The City of Chula Vista Land Development Section of the Engineering Division
reviewed and Goncurred with the findings and conclusions of the LLG traffic studies
(Engineering Division memorandum dated March 29, 2000 on file in the Planning
Division). The findings and conclusion of the East "H" Street Segment Analysis and
Intersection Analysis conducted by LLG are discussed in more detail below:
"'Ir
3
East H Street Intersection Anal~'sis, March 2000 (Intersection Analysis)
The initial building cap of 1 ,137 was established based upon an intersection analysis,
Therefore, a focused intersection anaJysis was conducted to ensure that levels of service
at the most criticaJ intersections along East "H" Street will not deteriorate beyond the
limits set by FSEIR 9]-03. at the "East "H" Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista,
California", dated March 8, 2000, to determined the available traffic capacity at four
intersections of East "H" Street. These intersections were at Hidden Vista Drive, Paseo
De] Rey, Paseo Ranchero, and Otay Lakes Road. The most critical location found in the
study was the intersection of East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Drive.
This study concluded that an additional 330 EDU's (Cumu]ative 1,467 EDU's) can be
added by the project before a cumulative impact is indicated at the subjeGt intersection.
The study further concluded that if one of the following improvements is constructed the
threshold limit can be increased by another 198 EDU's in addition to the above-noted 330
EDU's (Cumulative 1,665 EDU's):
1. Provide additional westbound thru lane at the East "II" StreetlHidden Vista Drive
intersection; or
2. Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street.
According to the Engineering Division the widening of East "II" Street has not been
evaluated (scheduled) for improvement and therefore is not considered feasible at this
time. The e1.'1ension of OJympic Parh.-way to East Palomar Street is considered highJy
feasible and is currently underway and scheduled for completion by the end of December
2001.
Based on the constraints at the intersection of East "H" Street and Hidden Vista Drive no
building permits will be approved beyond an initial 330 EDU's (project cumulative 1,467
EDU's) unless one of the two improvements noted-above in the Intersection Analysis is
cGmp]eted.
Mitigation:
1) Provided biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased
from 1,137 dwelling units to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 EDU's
(an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional
528 EDU's).
2) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665
EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements:
a. Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or
b. Widen East "II" Street to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the
East "II" StreetlHidden Vista Drive intersection.
~"
4
East "H" Street Capacit)' Analysis 1999-2005, Ma)' 1999 (Segment Analysis)
The May 1999 report titled "East "H" Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005" included
conservative assumptions that all other projects in the City would also contribute their
share of traffic to this corridor (Table 3 of Segment Analysis). The East "H" Street
Capacity Analysis concluded that there is additional segment capacity based on the
existing circulation element and the Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) guidelines for
the East "If' Street corridor to allow for a maximum of 1,665 EDU's prior to the
completion of SR-125--an increase of 528 EDU's beyond the initial 1,137 dwelling units.
At this time, the. construction of SR-125 is Gonsidered feasible, but not under the direct
control of the City. SR-125 is currently SGheduled for construction to commence later
this year and is antiGipated to open by the end of Dec=ber 2003.
Mitigation:
I) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of
SR-125.
2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The habitats, biological resources, and sensitive species occurring onsite have been
detailed in both FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. Final EIR-89-3 evaluated the project's
approved General Development Plan (GDP) and Final Subsequent EIR-91-3 addressed
additional impacts to habitats from the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. Since the
preparation of these environmental dOGuments, the Quino CheGkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas edita quina) has been listed as Federally Endangered (1997); the Otay
tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens) has been listed as State Endangered and Federally
Threatened (1998); and the burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) has been Federally
listed as a Species of Special Concern. A$ a result, biological surveys were required to
address these additional sensitive biological resources.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. was retained by the applicant to identify any
additional biologically sensitive resources and potential impacts to those resources
(Attachment "A", HELIX, Letters summarizing survey findings, November 11, 1999,
September 29,1999 September 23,1999). These surveys covered the majority of
Neighborhoods I, 7a, 7b, and 8. The boundaries of the survey area are identified in
Attachment ''B''. Neighborhood 4a was not covered by the surveys since it was
previously graded. Environmental Planning staff and the City's biologist have reviewed
the above-noted surveys. The findings of these surveys, potential impacts to biological
resources, and required mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a level below
significance are discussed below.
<1.'7
5
NEIGHBORHOOD 1
Otav TaJ:Plant
Surveved Area
Twenty (20) individual Otay tarplants were observed in the mid-eastern portion of
Neighborhood 1. The tarplants are surrounded on three sides by unconsolidated soil
stockpiles and on the fourth side by a moderately traveled, hard packed, dirt road used to
access the Otay Water District property to the north. Due to the presence of Otay tarplant
take authorization is required by the California Department ofFish and Game and the
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, grading permits and Final Map approval shall
not be approved by the City until the applicant has obtained take authorization for the
identified Otay tarplants in Neighborhood 1.
The remainder of the surveyed portions of Neighborhood 1 is highly disturbed by
decades of farming-related activities including discing, cultivation, and cattle grazing.
The soil has been amended by adding sludge as fertilizer to improve the land for grazing
and discing typically occurs three or more times a year. According Helix, the probability
of Otay tarplant occurring in the remaining surveyed portions of neighborhood I is very
low because 1) no Otay tarplant was observed during surveys conducted during the
plant's flowering period (except for the 20 individual tarplants observed in the mid-
eastern portion of Neighborhood I); and 2) the long history of frequent agricultural
activities has severely altered the potential habitat, likely rendering it unsuitable for the
specIes.
Mitigation:
I) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood I
shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the
California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant.
Unsurveved Area
A$ shown on Attachment "B" the 1999 Spring Survey for Otay tarplant did not include
all the areas within the boundaries of Neighborhood 1. According to the City's biologist,
the unsurveyed area at the southeastern property line is highly disturbed and has a low
potential for Otay tarplant. The unsurveyed area at the western property line has a high
potential for Otay tarplant since in the past several years the City's biologist has observed
Otay tarplant in this area. A rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed
areas of Neighborhood 1.
Mitigation:
Potential impacts to Otay tarplant will be mitigated to a level below significance by the
following mitigation measures:
1) An Otay tarplant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of
Neighborhood 1 to det=ine the presence of Otay tarplant; and
6 ~V-
2) The approval ofFinii! Maps and the issuance of grading penults for Neighborhood 1
shall not be granted untiJ the applicant has obtained take authorization from the
California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
any identified bioJogical sensitive resource including Otay tarplant.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat
Surveyed Area
The spring survey for Quino habitat found that due to decades of agricultural operations
and past stockpile activities, there is a low potential for Quino Gheckerspot habitat within
the surveyed area of Neighborhood 1.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measure wiil serve to reduce any potential impacts to Quino
Gheckerspot butterfly and Quino checkerspot habitat to below a level of significance:
I) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
Unsurveved Area
The surveyed area of Neighborhood I contains open, sparsely vegetated areas, which
may support moderate Quino checkerspot habitat. Due to the moderate potential for
Quino checkerspot habitat, the City shall not authorize grading permits or Final Map
approval for Neighborhood 1 until a survey is conducted for all areas within the
boundaries of Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly
and Quino checkerspot habitat.
Mitigation:
Potential impacts to Quine checkerspot butterfly and Quino habitat in the unsurveyed
portion of Neighborhood 1 will be reduced to below a level of significance by the
following mitigation measure:
1) Prior to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading pennits for
Neighborhood 1 the applicant shall be required to conduct a protocolleveJ survey to
determine the presence of Quine checkerspot butterfly and Quino cheGkerspot
habitat.
2) In the event that biologically sensitive resources inGluding Quino checkerspot
butterfly and/or Quino checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and
the issuance of grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained
take authorization from the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
7'-1'
BUJTo\\~nv Ow]
Tbe 1999 Spring survey did not include Neighborhood I, Tbe applicant will be required
to conduct a protocol level pre-construction survey in Neighborhood 1 to determine the
presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measure will serve to reduce potential impacts to burrowing
owl to below a level of significance:
1) The applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1
to determine the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows.
2) In the event that biologiGalIy sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active
burrowing owl burrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuanGe of
grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take
authorization from the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
3) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
NEIGHBORHOODS 7a, Th, and 8
Otav Tm:plant & Quino CheckeniPot
Surveved Area
In the surveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8 the biological surveys did not
find the presence of Otay tarplant, Quino cheGkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat. The .
surveyed areas have been disturbed by decades of agricultural operations and past
stockpile activities. Due to the low potential for Otay tarplant and Quino checkerspot to
occur only in the surveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8 grading will be
allowed to occur in the surveyed areas based on Gompliance with the following mitigation
measures,
Mitigation:
Grading shall be limited to the surveyed areas 'with the following mitigation measure
which serve to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance:
1) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8.
2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a,
Th, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for
approval to protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance;
S"'Z)
8
3) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operatious and maintenance rows
for heavy machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a,
Th, and 8;
4) No clearing ofbrush shaH be allowed in the adjacent unsurveyed sensitive habitat
areas (as identified in Att:ac:hment "B")ofNeighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 until a rare
plant survey is conducted and the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization
from the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
ServiGe for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino
checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat.
Unsurveyed Area
As shown on Att:ac:hment "B", the Spring Survey for Otay tarplant and Quino
checkerspot did not cover several portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. A small
sliver of sparsely vegetated habitat that may support moderate Quino checkerspot habitat
occurs along the eastern edge of Neighborhood 7a and 7b.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measures will serve to reduce any potential impaGts to the
unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 to below a level of significance:
I) Prior to the issuance of grading pennits for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods
7a, 7b, and 8. a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of
Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and
2) In the event that sensitive biological resources including Otay tarplant, Quino
cheGkerspot butterfly and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of
Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be
, issued until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California
Department ofFish 'and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any
identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot
butterfly, or Quino habitat.
3) Upon the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the
applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of
Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
Burro",':in~ Owl
Surveved Area
Neighborhoods 7a, 7b and 8 were surveyed for burrowing owl burrows. The survey
efforts concentrated on the areas in eaGh neighborhood that have the highest potential for
burrows and that were not disturbed in approximately May 1999 by discing. No sign of
burrowing owls or their burrows was observed in Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8.
~I
9
Mitigation:
The follov.ing mitigation measures shalJ serve to reduce potential impacts to the
burrowing owl to below a level of significance:
I) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 73, 7b, and 8;
2) Prior to the issuance of grading p=its the applicant shalJ submit an approved
fencing plan to'protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; and
3) Site preparation activities, specifiGally staging area operations and maintenance rows
for heavy machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 73,
Th, and 8.
Unsurveyed Area
The 1999 Spring Survey Area boundary, as ShOVlIl on "B", excludes some areas to the
east and west of Neighborhoods 7a and Th and also excludes the most eastern portion of
Neighborhood 8. Therefore, there remains a potential for the presence of burrowing owl
in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 73, Th, and 8, In order to address any
potential impacts to burrowing owls or their burrows the City will not authorize grading
in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7 a, Th, and 8 until a protocol level pre-
Gonstruction survey is conducted for burrowing owl and active burrows and any
necessary take authorization is obtained from the California Department ofFish and
Game and the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measures shall serve to reduce potential impacts to the
burrowing owl to below a level of significance:
I) Prior to the issuance of grading p=its for the areas outside the biological survey
boundary the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 73, Th, and 8 shall be surveyed
for the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows;
<) In the event that sensitive biological resources including burrowing owl or active
burrowing owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 73, Th,
and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has
obtained necessary take authorization from the California Department ofFish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
E. Miti~ation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental
impacts identified in the Initial Study to a level below significance. The mitigation
measures will be made a condition of approval and shalJ be incorporated in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "C")
~~
10
TRI\.FFICICIRCULA TJONrrRAFFIC THRESHOLD ST A!\"DARD
1) Provided biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be
increased from 1,13 7 dwelling units to allow building permit issuance for up to
1,467 EDU's (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665
EDU's (an additiona1528 EDU's),
2) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665
EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements:
a, Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or
b. Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the
East "H" StreetlHidden Vista Drive intersection.
3) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of SR-
125.
BIOLOGIC 1\.1 ~ RESOURCES
1) The approval of Final Maps and the issuanGe of grading permits for Neighborhood 1
shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the
California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
any identified biologiGal sensitive resource including Otay tarplant.
2) An Otay tarp1ant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of
Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of Otay tarplant; and
3) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading p=its for Neighborhood 1
shall not be granted until the appliGant has obtained take authorization from the
California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant.
4) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
5) Prior to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading p=its for
Neighborhood 1 the applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey to
determine the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly and Quino checkerspot habitat,
6) In the event that biologically sensitive resources including Quino checkerspot
butterfly and/or Quino Gheckerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and
the issuance of grading p=its shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained
take authorization from the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
7) The applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1
to determine the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows.
11 S3
8) In the event that biologicalJy sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active
burrowing owl burrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of
grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take
authorization ITom the California Department ofFish and Game and the V.S, Fish and
Wildlife Service.
9) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
10) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
II) Prior to the issuance of grading penmts for the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7 a,
7b, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for
approval to protect the unsurveyed areas ITom disturbance;
12) Site preparation activities, specifiGally staging area operations and maintenanGe rows
for heavy machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7 a,
7b, and 8;
13)No clearing of brush shall be allowed in the adjacent unsurveyed sensitive habitat
areas (as identified in Attachment "B")ofNeighbOthoods 7a, 7b, and 8 until a rare
plant survey is conducted and the applicant has obtained neGessary take authorization
ITom the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino
checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat.
14)Prior to the issuance of grading p=its for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods
7a, Th, and 8. a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of
Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and
15)In the event that sensitive biological resources including Otay taIplant, Quino
checkerspot butterfly and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of
Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be
issued until the applicant has obtained take authorization fTom the California
Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any
identified biological sensitive resource including Otay taIplant, Quino checkerspot
butterfly, or Quino habitat.
16) Upon the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the
applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of
Neighborhoods 7a, Th, and 8.
17) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas
are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8;
18) Prior to the issuance of grading p=its the applicant shall submit an approved
fencing plan to protect the unsurveyed areas fTom disturbanGe; and
12sY
19) Site preparation acu vlties, specifically staging area operatiolio and maintenance rows
for heavy machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a,
7b, and 8,
20)Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the areas outside the biological survey
boundary the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 shaH be surveyed
for the presence of burrowing owl and aGtive burrowing owl burrows;
21) In the event that sensitive biological reSOUI'Ges including burrowing owl or active
burrowing owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b,
and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has
obtained necessary take authorization from the California Department ofFish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
. F. Summarv of Public Comments
A Notice of Initial Study was circulated on December 7, 1999 to all property owners
within 300-foot radius. The comment period ended on December 16,1999. The
department received comments from a total of 4 property owners. Three owners verbally
expressed their concerns with the additional traffic generated from the proposal prior to
the completion of SR-125 and the timing of approved amenities for their respective
neighborhoods, The traffic concerns were in regards to the impacts on Otay Lakes Road
and Proctor Valley Road, and East "H" Street.
One owner provided written comments concerning traffic impacts and potential safety
hazard on Bonita Road. The property owner was particularly GOncerned about the current
heavy traffic volumes, which make it difficult to acGess Bonita Road from Dory Drive
and the concern that the proposed projeGt will exacerbate this current congestion. The
property owner requests assuranGe from the review board that traffic volume will not
increase as a result of this building project.
Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Environmental Planning
Stan DoDD, Community Planning
Luis Hernandez, Community Planning
Anne Moore, City Attorney's Office
Peggy McCarberg, City Attorney's Office
George Kremple, City Manager's Office
Frank Rivera, Land Development, Engineering
Sohaib "Alex" Al-Agba, Land Development, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineering
Dave Kaplan, Land Development, Engineering
Samir Nubaily, Advance Planning! Wastewater Engineering
Beverly Blessent, Development Planning
13 s-r-
Gary Williams, DevelOpment Plarming
Rick Rosaler, Community Plarming
Doug Perry, Fire Marshall
Richard Preuss, Police Crime Prevention
Brad Remp, Building
Duane Bazzel, Advance Planning
Chula Vista Elementary School District:
Dr. Lowell Billings
Sweetwater Union High School District:
Katy Wright
Applicant's Agent: Dave Gatzke, Rolling Hills RanGh
Kim Baranek, Helix Environmental
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/GDPlPre-Zone FEIR-89-3 (1990)
Salt Creek Ranch SPA FSEIR-91-3 (1992)
Salt Creek Ranch SPA Mitigation Monitoring Program
East H Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005 (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, May 17, 1999)
East H Street Intersection Analysis (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, March 8, 2000)
Results of Biological Surveys (HELIX, Letters dated 11/11/99,9/29/99, and 9/23/99)
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments
received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period
for this Negative DeGiaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City
ofChula Vista. Further inio=ation regarding the environmental review of this project is
available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
~~/r9~~
Marilyn F. Ponseggi
Environment Review Coordinator
Date: .3/tR6/0D
I
(H:\horrn:,!>1anning\edalia\lschecklistlIS-OO-OSND,doc)
145""'
ATTACHMENT "A"
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Biological Survey
Results
6'"7
.--------.
,
~------- ~-_.
8700 Lo Mesa BJud" Suite 150
~oveciber11. 1999
~IE II: IE I \'H IE ~
NOV 1 5 1999
!
PLANNING
Lo Mesa, CA 91941-6452
fOJ: (619) 462-0552
pbone (619) 462-1515
Ms, Marilyn Ponseggi
Planning Department
City of OlUla Vista
276 4th Avenue
OlUla Vista, CA 91910
Subject Potential for Otay tarplant and Quino checkerspot butterfly in
~eighborhoods 1, 7 and 8 on the Rolling Hills Ranch.
Dear Marilyn:
As a point of clarification, in the spring 1999, HEllX surveyed the majority of
neighborhoods 1,7 and 8 for rare plants, in particular the Otay tarplant (hemizonia
conjugens) and the host plant for the quino checkspot butterfly (plantago erecta),
The attached figure outlines the areas that were surveyed. Two sma]] areas, totaling
13.7 acres, that will be impacted by future development were not surveyed; 1) a
sma]] area west of the existing orange fence and Otay Water District road in
nei&hborhood 1 and 2) a sma]] strip of land east of the agricultural operations in
nei&hborhood 7. A sma]] extant population of Otay tarplant was noted in
neighborhood 1 and is surrounded by a dirt road stockpiled soil and orange fencing,
The excluded areas and this extant population are highlighted in the attached figure.
The portion of these neighborhoods surveyed for quino checkerspot butterfly
potential during the Spring 1999 flight season is the disposal site in the center of
neighborhood 7, As noted in our previous letter, the portions of neighborhoods 1, 7
and 8 covered off in the rare plant survey have a low potential for the quino habitat
due to decades of agricultural operations and past stockpile activities, The 13.7 acres
of unsurveyed area in neighborhoods 1 aJid 7 have moderate potential for quino
habitat, . ,
For the purposes of Rolling Hills Ranch's CUITent application for a Public Facilities
Financing Plan Amendment, we would accept mitigation that would require rare
plant and quino surveys in the areas that have not been surveyed on site,
y,
Enclosure; 1999 Spring Survey Areas
cc: Dave Gatske, Pacific Bay Homes
Tom Huffman, HEllX
S"t
.-'-"'-'--_...~
- ,
.. .', '. '''''' ~~
",.0" . '-......~. ,,"~,
. , . , ~~
'I ~,
'er/lf,-;-],l',1 : ,f-'fe Ire "
=-
~"<;;7
~
~
-'..
---------
8100 La JoleSQ Biud., Suite 150
La Mesa, C.1 91941-6452
fax (619) 462-0552
phone (619) 462-1515
September 29, 1999
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi
Planning Department
City of ChuJa Vista
276 4th Avenue
ChuJa Vista, CA 91910
fB)1E~lEn\WlErm
II1l OCT - 4 1999 tW
PLANNING
Subject Potential for Quino checkerspot butterfly to occur in neighborhoods
1, 7 and 8 on the Rolling Hills Ranch Project site.
Dear Ms. Ponseggi:
As requested, this letter provides a brief snmm"T)' of biological conditions on
the Rolling Hills Ranch site as they relate to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS's) regulatory requirements to conduct quino, checkerspot butterfly
(QCB) (Euphydryas edita qujno) surveys. -Pacific Bay Homes proposes to
impact portions of neighborhoods 1, 7, and 8 within the next year. The
entire site is within1:be USFWS's "Adult Foci1sedSurvey Area" (USFWS
1999). Within the Adult Focused Survey Area, Surveys are generally required
unless an entire'-sitecan be shown to harbor no potential for the QCB. A
general assessment to det=ine the site's suitability to support QCB may be
conducted at any time of the' year, Such a survey can determine the
potential for a site to support the QCB. The USFWS allows for a more
formal QCB habitat assessment to be conducted. between February 1 and
May 31 to determine if suitable habitat components do occur on site. If
suitable habitat does not occur on site, a habitat assessment report can be
submitted to the USFWS for authorization from the USFWS to waive QCB
surveys. HELIX submitted a habitat assessment to the USFWS in March of
1999 for a portion of Neighborhood 7. The USFWS accepted this assessment
and no focused QCB surveYs are required within this area.
Based on previous site surveys, review of an aerial photograph, and because
an adult QCB was observed near Lower Otay Reservoir (approximateJy 3.5
miles to the south-southeast of the project site) there is the potential for the
QCB to occur within the proposed impact areas of neighborhoods 1, 7 and 8.
The area of proposed impact within Neighborhood 1 does contain open,
sparsely vegetated areas, which may support moderate QCB habitat. The
majority of Neighborhood 7 and all of Neighborhood 8 have a low potential for
the QCB to occur due .to the historic and on-going agricu1tural operations. A
small. 'sliver -of open, 'sparsely vegetated. habitat occiJrS 'along the =stern edge
of Ne'~ghb6rh,Ood 7 that_ may support moderate QCB llabitat.-
.'. . -., -'. .
IIi Sl,mrn"T)', th~ USFWS will require a: focused habitat assessment (which
may need to be conducted in conjunction with the first QCB survey of the
s--,
..,_.":--,.._'~
. - ". ,
... . ~: -' \ "
.,Im.. .,..~,
~. ' . I . ....,',..~,
I ' . " .,
~
'-f I . ". f' - -I'n-I-' ,. .
:: , II Ill: t': I II::: IL t
. ,. .
~"-""="-.
"Q
----~------
,
4,'- to Marilyn Ponseggi
Cit. [ Chum Vista
September 29, 1999
year 2000 flight season) to verif:y the presence or lack of appropriate habitat
on site. If QCB habitat does occur on site, it will be necessary to do a full
flight season of focused surveys. If you have any questions please call me at
this office.
Sincerely,
-E--.~
Biology Group Manager
USFWS 1999. Survey Protocol for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly (EuphydryaS editha quino) for the 1999 Field Season.
60
--,
--....
SlOO La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6452
fax (619) 462-0552
pbone (619) 462-1515
September 23,1999
Ms. Marilyn Ponseggi
276 4th Avenue
Planning Department
Otula Vista, CA 91910
Subject
OIay tarplant and burrowing owl surveys for Rolling Hills Ranch
neighborhoods 1, 7, and 8.
Dear Ms, Ponseggi:
This letter report provides the results of OIay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens)
surveys for most of Neighborhood 1 and all of neighborhoods 7 and 8 (including the
community park site and seWer crossing) at the Rolling Hills Ranch site in ChuJa
Vista, California. It aJso provides the results of a survey for active burrows of the
burrowing ow] (Speotyto cunicularia) in neighborhoods 7 and 8, The attached maps
show the areas surveyed and the location of the known stand of OIay tarpJant in
Neighborhood 1 discovered in 1997, A$ noted in the attached figures, HELIx
surveyed the disturbed portions of neighborhoods 7 and 8, including the road and
sewer line crossings of Salt Creek (north and south of Proctor Valley Road,
respectively) and the community park site. For Neighborhood 1, the survey was
conducted east of the existing orange fence and cUrt access road,
OIay Tarplant
Harold Wier of Dudek and Associates conducted a survey for OIay tarpJant in Inost
of Neighborhood 1 on May 7, 1997 (letter report attached), He walked parallel
i:ransects over the area and used the cUrt road in the western portion of
Neighborhood 1 as his western boundary. He did not know that this was not the
western boundary of Neighborhood 1, On this date, he counted approximately 126
individual OIay tarpJants in the known stand of the Species.
Larry Sward, Sally Trnka, and Fred Sproul of HELIX conducted another Otay
tarplant survey on May 28, 1999 for neighborhoods 1, 7, and 8, This survey also
consisted of walking parallel transects. The area that served as a materiaJ stockpile in
Neighborhood 1 was not surveyed because it was devoid of vegetation. The western
boundary of future grading for Neighborhood 1 was believed to be the existing
orange fencing that designates the open space boundary on the rest of the Rolling
Hills Ranch site, so the tarplant survey did not cross west of this fence. It was
discovered subsequently that the future grading for Neighborhood 1 extends west of
this fence. Therefore, the area west of the orange fence was not surveyed ~,~ or
1999, and a rare plant ~w-yey snOiiId iJe-conducte<!- Jr., )),1aY/J~ 2~00 ~~ the species
in this area.. ,. ., -' '--
OIay tarplant was not observed in the areas surveyed with the exception of the extent
stand in Neighborhood 1 identified by Mr. Wier in 1997. This stand contained
approximately 20 individUal plants on May 28, 1999. The stand is surrounded on
three sides byunconsoJidated soil stockpiles and on the fourth side by a moderately
hi
.'--d-------....~
I ' . . I' -
',' .. ''-.. ~.....
".. ,'. ,'-..;....,\~
.. ~
I ~f .!!rnTlf~;ci L ~nllr p '1[ ;'
.~ , ..-
-?"
~._--
".
-~_w__.______
=
rl. +n Marilyn PC1TISCggi
Ci ~ ::hulQ Vistl1
Scptcmbcr 23, 1999
Pacu- ? 0"
. C>~ - .I....
traveled, hard packed, dirt road used to access the Otay Water District (OVVD)
property to the north. This stand was observed growing with non-native grasses and
forbs typical of disturbed land. Most of the areas surveyed have been altered by
decades of farming-related activities including discing. c:ultivaticm, and cattle
grazing, The soil has been amended by adding sludge as fertilizer to improve the
land for grazing, Discing typically OCCUIS three or ID.cv::e_~~-Y~, and the most
re~ent ~ ~ u:.II~h,~ds 7 ~~ ~,~!:'.r~~~~t~y Orr9~-1ili~
WIer reported m 1997 that the relative cover of non-native plant specre51hroug'hout
the area surveyed in Neighborhood 1 and in the known stand of Otay tarplant Was
very high and probably in excess of 95 percent. Since surveyed portions of
neighborhoods 7 and 8 have been similarly disturbed, the non-native vegetation
cover is comparable,
The probability of Otay tarplant occurring in the areas surveyed (most of
neighborhood 1 and neighborhoods 7 and 8) is very low because: 1) no tarplant was
observed during surveys conducted during the plant's flowering periodl (except for
those Otay tarplants known in Neighborhood 1; and 2) the long history of frequent
agricultural activities has severely altered the potential habitat, likely rendering it
unsuitable for the species,
Burrowing Owl
Deborah Pudoff surveyed Neighborhoods 7 and 8 on July 6, 1999 to look for active
burro,,'ing owl burrows. The survey date also occurs within the period (April 15
through July 15) when one is most likely to observe burrowing owls according to the
California Department of Fish and Game (1995)2. Neighborhood 1 was not surveyed
since it is already addressed in the bmrowing owl mitigation plan (HELIX 1998). The
survey effort concentrated on the ~ in each neighborhood that have the highest
potential for burrows and that were not disturbed in approximately May 1999 by
discing (for example, along fence lines and in Salt Creek open space). The rest of the
neighborhoods were so recently disturbed that even ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beechep) burrow excavation was limited, In both neighborhoods no sign of
burrowing owls or theh- burrows was observed--only that of ground squirrels,
Conclusions
In conclusicm, Otay tarplant was not found in neighborhoods 7 and. 8, and the only
plants found are in the known stand found in the portion of Neighborhood 1
surveyed.. Active burrowing owl bmrows were not found in Neighborhoods 7 and 8.
With the negative results of these surveys, Pacific Bay Homes should be allowed to
proceed with their cultural resources testing and development at this time in the
surveyed portions of neighborhoods 1, 7 and. 8.
,
"
1 May through June.
2 California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. October 17.
II)..
c--d-'-------;-'K1'~:.:, ~
.... ~,. l' _ .~...,~,
~
<-?
~ .~.:-,
',"~lfmiif~t,1 [llflr~ .C,'
.. ~
-="
--~.
-------p
J. fO MlIrilyn Ponseggi
Cil); JzulQ VistD
September 23, 1999
Pag~ 3 of3
With regard to authorizing take of the OIay taIpJant population in Neighborhood 1,
the City prepared and certified the Salt Creek Ranch SPA EIR docwnent
(SOi#89092721) in 1992. The biology analysis in the EIR anticipated the potential for
rare plant species and identified a potentially significant impact Mitigation in the
certified EIR requires spring SUTVeys for rare plants. This SUTVey report is prepared
in response to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Therefore,
to authorize the take, the aty should require the implementation of a mitigation plan
to offset impacts to the Otay taIplant caused by the proposed grading. Preparation
and adoption of a mitigation plan wouJd satisfy any reguJa.tory compliance needed
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Native Plant Protection Act
(which was incorporated into the CESA by the State Legislature),
Based on the regulations, Section 2081 authorization from the California Department
of Fish and Game or DB. Fish and Wildlife Service shouJd not be required for Rolling
Hills Ranch to proceed with its development. Due to its poor quality, the removal of
the known stand of OIay tarplant would not Ujeopardize the continued existence of
the speciesu (Section 2081 (b) and (c)). TIierefore, the City can authorize the removal
of the listed plant species without a take permit provided the developer notifies the
California Department of Fish and Game at least 10 days in advance of the removal
(in accordance with the Native Plant Protection Act) and implements a plan (in
accordance with the California Endangered Species Act) to mitigate for impacts of the
removal.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments on the information that is
presented in this letter.
Sincerely,
~~
Tom Huffman
Biology Group Manager
Attachments:
Maps of surveyed area (Figw-es 1 and 2)
Letter from Harold Wier, Dudek and Associates, to Marilyn Ponseggi, City of
Omla Vista, dated May 30, 1997.
c: Kim Baranek, HELIX
Liz Jackson, Pacific Bay Homes
~3
ATTACHMENT "B"
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Biological Survey
Boundaries
b~
~ ftJ-
~ ! ~ i
: ~:3 IT:
o ~ ~
::f: CI) ,0
::f: OJ ~
c: ..J
- ..:!
... 0
5;~
0)
0)
0)
-
~
IU
"0
s::
'::I
o
CD
'IU
e
<(
,
a; I
.. i
IL.
0
to
....
i
I
I
I
0 I
0 I
to
....
~ z+ ><
-
-
.....
==
o
'" ftS ...
c>. -
;::: ~ U
N ~
C>;
;;
;;; >. x
~ G ~
00 c: oJ
0 :::I =<
U -
- en ~
:;; 01
""
0; c:
z "E: oJ
or> 0
0 c. x
- en
0)
0)
CD
-
0
0
... ><
z+
-
,~ --
-
===
--
Case No.IS-OO-05
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Bay Homes
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209
Chula Vista, CA 91914
4.
Name of Proposal:
An amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-
02 Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 of Section 7 to grant an increase in
the building cap from 1,137 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,665
equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) prior to the completion of SR-125.
5. Date of Checklist: March 30, 2000
PoteDtian~.
Potentially SiJ:oificant Lou""'.
Silmificant Unless SiJ:nificanl N.
Impact Miti~aled Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 181
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0 181
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 0 0 0 181
an established community (including a low.
income or minority community)?
Comments: The proposal constitutes a change in development phasing and does not result in a
change in general plan designation or zoning. The proposal is in confonnity with the Salt Creek
Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and the Chula Vista
General Plan. Land use impacts were adequately addressed in the Salt Creek Ranch Annexation!
General Development, Plan! Pre-Zone Final Environmental Impact Report-89-3 (hereafter referred
.to as FEIR-89-3) and in the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report-91-3 (hereafter referred to as FSEIR-91-3),
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
u7
o
o
o
181
(M:\homelplannmgl.kenhltCmplatelCkJlsucm)
page!
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e,g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Comments: Growth inducing impacts were adequately addressed in FSEIR 91-3. The proposal
affects the phasing of development and does not result in any additional dwelling units beyond those
addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-9l-3
PoCea(iaU~'
Pocendall)' 5q:airlQlDI I..a5thall
Sq:alrtaoDt v..... Sipailic:ant N.
Impact Mjtipted lmpaa Impact
0 0 0 IIJJ
o
o
o
IIJJ
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 IIJJ
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 IIJJ
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 IIJJ
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 IIJJ
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,- 0 0 0 IIJJ
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 IIJJ
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 IIJJ
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in any additional
geophysical changes in that geology and soils issues were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
!IV
page2
(M:\nomelplannmglJi.elthllemplatelCkhsLtem)
o
o
o
,IIJJ
o
o
o
IIJJ
o
o
o
IIJJ
PotenliaU,.
POlentiaDy Sij!Difac:a';1 L<u....
Sj;-nirtcalu Unless Sij:DiflCant No
Impact Miti.,.ted Impact Impact
alteration of surface water quality (e. g.,
temperamre, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 181
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 181
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 181
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 181
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in any additional
impacts to water. Water quality and hydrology were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3 and
FSEIR 91-3.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 181
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181
c) Alter air movement, moismre, or temperamre, 0 0 0 181
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 181
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The proposal does not result in additional impacts to air quality. Impacts to air
quality impacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CmCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
o
181
o
o
(M: \homelplanmnglkelth\tempJate\cldlsLtem)
b1
page)
b) Hazards 10 safety from design features (e.g..
shaII' curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" fann equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
HI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities 0
(e,g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh, riparian and 0
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0
efforts?
Pou::atiaU,"
Pot('aliaU," Sij!DifaaJlI Lnsthaa
Sq:DiflCaDt U"""' SiJ:DifKaRI No
lmpaa Mitq;:att'd Impact Impact
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips,)
Comments: The proposal would permit the development of Rolling Hills Ranch 10 proceed b~yond
the 1,137 dwelling unit cap imposed as a condition of approval on the Tentative Map.
Development would be allowed to proceed to an initial 1,467 EDU's (330 additional EDU's)prior
to the construction of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street or the widening of
East "H" Street and to a maximum 1,665 EDU's (528 additional EDU's) prior to the construction
of SR-125. The proposal could result in potentially significant traffic impacts to East "H" Street
unless mitigation. Potential impacts and mitigation to reduce those impacts to a level below
significance are discussed in detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Comments: The proposal could result in potentialJy significant impacts to the FederalJy Endangered
Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edita quino), the State Endangered and FederalJy
70
(M :\homelplannmg\K.cUh\\emplate\CkhsLleffi)
pagc4
POlealiaU~.
PotcntiaU," s;piraaulI Less tban
Si;nlrlClDI U.1ess Si~.ilicanl ~(I
Impact Mlti~.lrd Impact ImpllC1
Threatened Otay tarpJant (Hemizonia conjugens), and to the Burrowing ow] Federally listed as a
Species of Special Concern, Biological survey's were required to address potential significant
impacts to these sensitive biological resources, The findings and conclusions of the recent biological
surveys and mitigation to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance are discussed in
detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VITI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposal does not result in additional impacts to energy and mineral resources.
Impacts to gas, electricity, and energy were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3.
VIII. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potentia] 0 0 0 181
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposal is a request to amend the phasing of residential development and does
not involve the use of hazardous substances or will not result in the exposure of the public to
potential health or safety hazards,
IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional noise impacts. Noise impacts were
adequately addressed FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3.
(M :\homclplannmg\kcltb\1empiated;Jlsttem)
11
pag~)
J'oteatiall,
PotentiaU," 5iJ:uirlc:..., l..e5!Ilhaa
Sq:aiflCaDt v..... Sq:nmant N.
Impact Mitigat~d lm...a Impac1
X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered govemmem services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 I8J
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 111
c) Schools? 0 0 0 I8J
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 I8J
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 I8J
Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to public services other than
those previously identified and addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3.
o
o
o
111
XI. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
I8J
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to
calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 %
of the cases.
Comments: The Fire Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3.
b) Police
o
o
o
I8J
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority I
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I
calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of
7 minutes or less. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Police Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR -89- 3,
c) Traffic
o
o
o
I8J
The Threshold Standards require that all signalized arterial segments 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. Those signalized intersections west of
1-805 which do not meet the standard above standard may continue to operate at their
current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen, No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F"
during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps
are exempted from this Standard, The proposed project would comply with this
Threshold Standard,
(M:\homelp!anrunglKe1th\templatelCkhsLlem)
1l.
paget>
p(l(mti.aU~.
Sij:UificaDt
Impact
POIeatiaUy
SiptncaDI
U.....
Miti:alnl
Leu ....
Sii:Dif'ICIIDt
Impact
No
Impact
Comments: The signalized arterial segment on East H Street From Otay Lakes Road to Hidden
Vista is anticipated to function at LOS C or better. The Hidden Vista! East H Street, Paseo Del
Rey/East H Street, Paseo RancherolEast H Street, and Otay Lakes RoadlEast H S!I"eet intersections
are forecasted to operate at LOS C with the an additional 330 EDU's (total 1 ,467 EDU's).
These intersections would also continue to operate within the Threshold Standard with the addition of
up to 528 EDU's (total 1,665 EDU's) as long as the construction of Olympic Parkway to East
Palomar Street or with the widening of East H Street are completed prior to SR-125. Olympic
Parkway to East Palomar Street is anticipated to be completed by December 200 I. Mitigation has
been incorporated that would allow Final Map approval up to ],665 EDU's, and would withhoJd
buiJdingpermit approval at 1,467 EDU's until either]) Olympic Par1.-way to East Palomar Street is
constructed or 2) an additional westbound lane on East H Street is constructed.
Traffic impacts and mitigation to reduce potential traffic impacts to a level below significance is
discussed in more detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration under
Transportation/CirculationfTraffic Threshold Standard.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
I8J
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll ,000 population. The
proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3.
o
o
o
I8J
e) Drainage
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. The proposed project complies with this Threshold
Standard (page 3- 102),
Comments: The Drainage Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-
9]-3,
f) Sewer
o
o
o
I8J
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. The proposed project complies with this Thresho]d Standard.
Comments: The Sewer Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-
3.
g) Water
o
o
o
I8J
(M:\I1omelplannmg\kelthltc:mplate\CkhSLtem)
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.
7..3
page7
PoIeatially
.mCUI
Impact
PotealiaU~'
Sipmc:aal
U""'"
Mitiptec(
.........
SigniflCaal
Impa"
N.
Impact
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee
off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
Comments: FEIR-89-3 adequately addressed the Water Threshold Standard,
)>,11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new rystems, or
substantial alteralions to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 181
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 181
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
Comments: Increase in demand and impacts on utilities were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3
and FSEIR-91-3.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 181
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 181
d) Create added light or glare sourCeS that could 0 0 0 181
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
caUSe this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional aesthetic impacts. Landform and
aesthetic impacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
o
o
o
181
(M:\homelpl.annmg\kenn,tempJatelCkhsttem)
7'f
pageS
PotellU.U,.
Potr"J:ItiaU~. SipWJC:allt Lastbaa
SiJ:nlracaat U..... SipirK:aat ,.
Impact Mitipled Impad Impact
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 II
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 II
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 II
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 II
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to Cultural Resources than
those that were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and SFEIR-91-3.
}"'V. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .\!ill rhe
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruCTion of paleontological resources?
Comments: Impacts to prehistoric resources were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-
91-3. The proposal does not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources.
o
o
o
II
XVI. RECREATION. Would rhe proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 II
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 II
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 II
plans or programs?
Comments: Impacts to recreation were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3, The proposal does not
result in an increased demand for parks or recreational facilities.
}"'VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declararionfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0
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 75
(M:lhomeIpJannmglkelthltemplatelCkilsLtem)
II
o
o
page9
POCeDtiaUy
Si::olftcaDt
Impact
PocmtiaUy
S-."uriCIIDI
V.....
Mitiptrd
la> ....
SipifiCllol
1m.."
N.
Impact
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
imponant examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: Sensitive and endangered plants and animals have been addressed in Section VII,
Biology, Mitigation has been incorporated to reduce potential biological impacts to a level less than
significant.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tenn, to the disadvantage of long-tenn,
environmental goals?
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long-
term environmental goals.
o
o
o
181
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: Cumulative impacts were previously addressed in Both FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91-
03. The proposed project does not result in any additonal cumulative project impacts,
o
o
o
181
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: The project is a change in development phasing that results in an amendment to a
previous traffic mitigation measure and therefore does not have the potential to cause substantial
adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings.
o
o
o
181
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be
implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
TRAFFICICIRCULATIONITRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD
I) Provided biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from 1,137
dwelling units to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 EDU's (an additional 330
EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional 528 EDU's).
(M:\hOmcIpJanmng\kcnn,.tempJatclCkhsttcm)
7.
pagelu
2) Building permits shall oe granted beyond 1.467 EDU's to a maxiIuum of 1.665 EDU's with the
completion of at least one of the following improvements:
a. Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or
b. Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East "H"
Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection.
3) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of SR-125,
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
I) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be
granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource
including Otay tarplant.
2) An Otay tarplant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhood I to
determine the presence of Otay tarplant; and
3) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be
granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource
including Otay tarplant.
4) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not
disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
5) Prior to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood I the
applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level slirvey to determine the presence of Quino
checkerspot butterfly and Quino checkerspot habitat.
6) In, the event that biologically sensitive resources including Quino checkerspot butterfly and/or
Quino checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits
shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
7) The applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1 to determine
the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows.
8) In the event that biologically sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active burrowing owl
burrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits shall not be
granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
9) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not
disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1.
10) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not
disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
II) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 the
applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for approval to protect the
77
(M:\llomelplannmg\ke1thltemplate\Cklist.tem) pagel J
unsurveyed areas from disturbance;
12) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy
machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8;
13) No clearing of brush shall be allowed in the adjacent unsurveyed sensitive habitat areas (as
identified in Exhibit" A' of the Mitigation Monitoring Program) of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8
until a rare plant survey is conducted and the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization
from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any
identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or
Quino habitat.
14) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8;
and
15) In the event that sensitive biological resources including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly
and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading
permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained take authorization
from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any
identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or
Quino habitat.
16) Upon the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to
ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
17) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not
disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8;
18) Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall submit an approved fencing plan to
protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; and '
19) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy
machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8.
20) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the areas outside the biological survey boundary the
unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 shall be surveyed for the presence of
burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows;
21) In the event that sensitive biological resources including burrowing owl or active burrowing owl
burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for
the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization
from the California Department ofFish and Game and the U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service.
(M:l.homelplannmglkeltn\tempiale\CkJlsLtem)
7f
pagel]
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMEJ\'T MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contJlined herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the liners) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with
the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance
without approval and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report,
L.z.. I"uc.-Ki..,Dn . 5Vf
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name] Pa(.>'h<- "3""y Propc:r.Jic
Lj-,<.,--tyD
Date
Signatul'e -r uthorized Representative of
, "
[prope er's Name]
){nr-;n ;.{~:i<JS. ..cV?
Printed Name d Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
t1<-~ tJ
i ature of Authorized Repr I tative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
4-5---- Vu
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEJ\'TIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 18] Transportation/Circulation o Public Services
0 Population and Housing 18] Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
79
(M:lhomelplaruung\kelthltemplatelCkllSt.tem}
pagel3
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect un the 0
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 181
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 0
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0
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, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination.
7:?~/i?t/)Ik( ~
Signature
..J,t.R 1f 00
Date
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
to
pagel4
ATTACHMENT "C"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
JIOLLING HILLS RANCH MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (IS-OO-05)
MMRP REQUIREMENTS
The environmental analysis in Sections VI, VII, and XI(c) of Rolling Hills Ranch Environmental
Checklist - IS-00-05 indicates that the proposed project, has the potential to create significant adverse
impacts in relation to traffic and circulation, biological resources, and the City adopted growth
management traffic threshold. A number of mitigation measures in the IS-00-05 Mitigated Negative
Declaration are recommended to reduce and/or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of the
project. These mitigation measures shall be adopted by the Chula Vista City COW1cil, in conjW1ction
with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-00-05.
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and
reporting program for assessing and ensuring the implementation of required mitigation measures applied
to proposed developments. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, which will be enforced
during project implementation, should be adopted coincidental to the final approval of the project by the
responsible decision maker(s). In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRe) Section 21081.6, the
City of Chula Vista has developed this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the
proposed Amendment to the Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02 project. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be incorporated into the existing Salt Creek Ranch
Mitigation Monitoring Program on file in the Planning and Building Department. The purpose of the
MMRP is to ensure that the proposed development project complies with all applicable environmental
mitigation and permit requirements.
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Monitor shall be the
Environmental Review Coordinator or her designee for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the
responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program are
met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form
confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
IS-00-05 shall be provided by the biological monitor and applicant as identified in the attached
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist to the Environmental Review Coordinator as stipulated
by each mitigation measure. The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate
verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished,
Table I lists the mitigation measures listed in Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Effects, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and which will be implemented as part of the project. In
order to detennine if the applicant has implemented these measures, 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.
~I
~
~
c.?;g-
0",
a:o
~~
~
(;~
Z""
~::s
a:~
0<::)
="u
roJQ
a:",
Q~
Z"
<0:
(;f:j
Z!;;
Si!~
~tJ
-z <:
"
0'"
~::J
...,
z:::
0"
E=::S
<::1
(;9
--
,...
-
~
c
,~
fir ti
-i! U
o 0<1'"
~ ODS
o c.5 c
~ 0 C E
-g:!!!] c
o...~ 0.. e
'0 .0 '0 ';;
E ~c ~
E'5 E 00
e ~ -r.5
fO._ ~ "'0
C. be 0..:-:
a.J = a.J ;I
.otIJ'ot:D
U
..."
o a
-;; ~
~ .~ .~
5.-0 E
f;-ag,
a.JCibO
;s ~ c
.s::E:.a
- - ~
.S! ~ ~
....- ~
o..u.o
...
-;; 0
.5 ~
u..c~
*- ~ ~
~ ~.~
..::.::'- I1.J
"." 0.
~abO
U v.I.E
C 0.."
~ ~ ~
O:~bo
. ~ vi'
0-"
c:d.!2 S
Ol)'~ ~
c .~
'c .o.~ a
a bO:D 'iij
- c ;:1.-
t::E e:.~
o '5 0 .0
ccoc~
aJ ~ a.J .-
f .eo € ~
~;g ['6:0
I\) ::s U c
Cla:lOOJ
....
o
u
g~
n
.~ ~
.s gp
s:i2
'i: '5
0..-"
~.~
-" u
" 0.
U ""
.c 0
",-
0:2
~'-
- ~
0..-"
00 C':! g
C V'1..s 0
~~ ~ VJ~ ;
.c..9 ::J.!:! ~
"' '"; Q 0 0
-BBao.. ~~ -
..d'za';;;'::! G~ ~
.~ 'g CI~ ~ ::~.9 ~
"'g gfw E. "'C] ~
;.:::::.=__Q. Co~ "
0.'0 \.C co >. S .....
e~~~~ ~u a-
s '"0 - ::E.-:.. '"0 <u >>
VJ r--- 0 _ VJ 0 oS 5
._= ~ ;. ~ ~ d.;: ~ ~
o _~ = .- 0 ~.- d 0
.- ""'" ~ w 00 St: Q) d
~ec.8'"O mEa
.~ 8 (1) ;; ~ ~ ~ 0 ';)
''S t..:;:; u -.1.t1 > =
="'2 ~ ~rn -; t; @ S. ~ !5
-;~a:::>c-;;V)eCi)Qj
U Q) tJ'J 0 0 \0._ CI) Q)
'i:"" 1-1 .- W .,;:: 23 \0 ..J:::i...
0' u .";:: ;a .~ ~ Ol) ~ .....
_0.$ !: 9 '"C -.5 Q) r:t:)
C '"' co c..-. ~ ..... ....
.- It) It) M U 0 0.... ~ co
.D.D "'_ = "'" _ '" E
]=oo~~bl)I:O-eo
'"0 co S 0 U1 .S ~ c.8 Uo -;;
';: ~ '0 :-S ::, :E ._ ~ 0..
o o.:O::"'C CI .- ~ +J
~B.E]w~s<O~
N
oS
~
;;
=
..,
~:g
= ,-
.g$
,- ..,
." ..,
." -
~u;
c
~~
."
.~ ~
2~
"'..,
B,s
o~
.., ..,
-= C
CIJ,.!:!
;z:~
~."
~ S
= 0
..,.,9
'" '"
,- ..,
~ ~
.D
8t
v;
dc;~
.9 ~~
oc;~
~ ~ 0
!i s.. g
.S ~'.c
0) c....!a
> ~ '"
.;:: ::E E
0--;8
~.s
~
O)'S ~
bC).,cJ::;..:::::
5.....:.="'00)
~::;a:-=~
e S Q) ~ [5
~"'O -5 ad ~
o ~ e.t: ~
8 ~ 0 .~ .F; .-
=~~(.J..,_ "'0
~ ~ s 0 .~ ~ .~
~"'.c::J~ -6;:
.;; -0 ~ ~ c; =::
.,c = 'C ':;:: U 8.B
..... = 0"'0'- 0
]~-:ia~ ]~
t":I 00 ~ Q).9 =.....
rn - Q) ~..c ~-
~-g -tJ ~ "'0 U; "'='
:::E 0 ..... C,~ . >. 0
t":I-E]~::9~~-E
=0=.,c=0...:::I0
~ :8 's .~ ~ ~ rn ~
\,j..o 1)0.. (.J.., .- .f! 1: 1)0
0'0 0 '- >. >. cd .-
c;z~o;.se.ztj
> ~..c 1:: ~ 0 cd to-. ca
E:J::-Q)J::oo-oe-
c.. 5 ~ 8 Q).5 ~ ~ :
g.._ u -e u "t:I ~ 0 ~
=.- ~ ,- " 0 ,- >>
Q)l::o.&t:U=t:cd
~ 8. f;< 0 ~ .5 -< 8. (5
..;
-i!
o
~
-;;
c
ti:
:;
o
,s
.~
~
::,
CI
~
v;
'D
'D.
-
'"
..,
..,
~
..,
-
o
=
'"
E E
~ ~ 00
~ €2
0. ~ U
G) A g. ~
o IS 0 '50
00.,::: .A C
.5 ~ 5: w
:!2~:;: rnA
'5 c; 6 ~
~-:Eo
~ 5 c::::
00 ~ .S? ,~ C
.S 0 ~::C.e
2'~ '~0..::::J.~
CIS ._ ;..
s::J3::?1'oCS
u
..."
o a
~ "
~.~ .~
5.'"0 E
e, c u
~ '" 0.
~Ci.~
;S~C
2::;::;;
I-. - E
.g.51 ~
o..u.o
'"
c."
,- 0
U. ~ ~
1-._.-:::
..E ~ E
-" 2 u
"e,e,
~ 0.. 00
" ~ c
C o..~
~ ~ ~
S::::?1 bb
E
u
E
t
~
0.
o cA
00.2
C - _
~ ~ B
:: ~'S
~ - 0
COE::?1
0<1 U c
00 5 .2
o ~ -
.- 0 CIS
C - ""
@ .~ :€
E:LtJ::?1
...
o
-;;""
> 0
2~
o.~
g-bb
11.1 UJ-
.sg-
B:E2.!
.~
~
0.
- -
~ '"
,_ 0
- ,-
o..u.
""
o
:g
'5
:>-. co "';
:::: "'C C
U 0 ..,
o cd ~ E
-;;; ~ E !5
'5 'S ~.!::
g.r;e-i:
.c:::O::O~
N
'"
..,
>>
..,
1:'0
" ..,
:!' u
S =
..,
.., ~
;S ~
'"
-5
N
~
~
~:3
~g
~~
~
"'1::;
z'"
~:s
~~
00
=-u
~~
Q;;,;
~~
"'..
z~
'"
~~
~D
....;;,;
Z~
0",
~"
::::
z'"
o~
E:?:i
..r:::::J
::a~
E-<
....
~
E
~
.~
C.
0.
-<
....
o
"",
> c
0"-
J5.'g
~bD
II) "r
..co.
- ~
B::E
'~
~
0.
--
o ~
,_ c
- ,-
0.....
c
,2
0;
.~
~-
" -
c 0
o .~
-z::: t:
u 0
r%::E
'"
>...:
:::: "CI c
u:: .~
~ 0 => -
-a-'cc ~~
.... c"'O C .;:::
"'0 0 C"" 11) -
c'.;:::~cE:E
~~",~lI)c~'i:'
~.!:;!.5 e c .8
($ 0 C .-.9:.-
c....c r:: c.. > .... C
u-maJC~O
c::::@';:;:oScn:E
'"
0) 'S ~
CJ)..c:~~
.S':: ~ "t:I 0)
-c .- Um =-= 1::
ec ~;:j
,O{};.s Od ~
- ~
o B E..c 0
<I) ;, 0 .~ ..~
gl-;c.J::r....~
cu OJ) .... uS VI
:= 0) 0: . c
~~.;:~&
.- '0 ~ 0)
] c "c -5 B
..... - 0"'0'-
"o";..c....~
;~gao
~-O)E:O
~g~c3~"E
eo:I-c"Ecl8";:cu
.5 ] .5..c 5 e.
~..= s.~ "'0 m
<.0... c.o.,D ~.- .....
O'd) 0 ~ 2 >.
C;Z~OctSS
>......cc....o
8t8=CI)~0J)
~ ~ eo:! 8 O).S
-._ () t::: u '"C
cu ~._ CIS'- ::I
0) 1::"'E.g.t:"O
~ 8. ~ 0 ~ .5
~
-g
,~
C.
0.
-<
'~
~
0.
'"
C
~
60
B
-
o
'i:
0..
'"
c
:2 c
":; .~
he:! ]~
0"g_5:-=:
otC5E:E
;; OJ;) E C ~ 'I:'
t:.51:: e c .s
o C (C.- .2.-
c..cc..>-c
1I).,g II) ,S: ~ ~
C::::c..oe.V)o<!:
.8
E~
'" -
.~ bL)
<5"S
0.-
'" 0
,,-c
..o-c
- "
>--€
.DZ
"'2 .~
.S "'0
.so
~ c
~ ~
- ~-
t':I ~ 0
~ a 0
t:.:1U-E
'OD.r:: 2
,Q :;:: ..c
o ;g.~
.- 0 0)
.D~z
"'g~,-
!;:..cO
~~o.o
~ 1-<.5
""o-c
~ ~ e
..... " ""
..,.
E
~
.~
C.
0.
-<
....
o
"",
> c
o ,-
a.e
is-'''
aJ in
.siS-
.E:E~
.~] 'g
1-.._ 11)
0..... 0.
'"
c
:E c
.:; .2
>. 0:1 --; 1U
::::"'0 i:: ~
uC-Q)~
ot'35E:E
;~ESc~~
'5 '2 ~.!::.2.-=:
o.co.>-c
B cod ~.s ~..g
_o:~~"''''
"
"';;
.D "
t;-;5
~ --;;; 's 0
~.~~~
.!!a -a. .9 ""CI
_~ 0.. >. !:
..... etI Q) etI
""Cj Q) C >.
c..c: ::1 ~
etI: v.J ~
~""Cj ~ ~
~g~::
..0-0
to;:! S 8 0-
!:..c 0 ~
i:: -& '0 ~
t;'o is.. ~
_Z",..o
etI 10< ..... U .....
>ooo.s
o 4=i ::1 !:.....
5.2] 'a~
0..''''' oO'..c:
'" e" -
.s8.,St;8,.
-c " ~
o Of) GJ g ~
:.S.!::: Q)~
o""Cj ::1 v.J U
'J: etI C" 0 GJ
~ bb ~ 5.-fl
'"
:)
E
"
.~
C.
0.
-<
....
o
"",
> c
8'-
o.'g
got;)
u C,r
-€g.
.s:::E~
o "'ii'E
'i:.: ii
0.. to. 0.
'"
:>..E
:::: "'0 C
u u:-= ,9:
.:.:: 0::1 _ ~
.;S-~ .Boo
c"'O c',;::
-g.gaEE~
(U ~ OJ) E c ..';:'
~ 'C C t: 0 c 0
o 0 '0 etI.J::.S!.,,:::
0.-5 ~ 0.. ~ u E
~~E:oe:.~:E
:5
Of):.s v.J 1:
:::: to;:! CI1 GJ
;a::t;::E
::I 0 0 c 1:: a)
- 0.. u CI1 etI 0
g ~ :::: .~ E-";;
..... 0 ~ 0..0 t
~ ~ v.J Q.. t'I:I U'J
U 0 v.J to;:!._
Io<..c'- <I.) :::: ~
::I uJ3..c: S;.::::
~o =~:S:
o :::: "t:I.- _.-
10<._ C C (tI ~
o::lt'l:l::lu;:>
.::: 0' v.J ""d <I.) ~
'~S~.3;s..c:
5 ~::E !a E.~
v.J c _ 10< 0 u..
to::! etI 0IJrJ:
..Q ;:.....5 0 c r:t:):
--;=u...Do::>
U 10< \+..; ......_
..... 0 0 0..... 0
Of):t:: ;:: f3;s
o ::I ~ _ ._
o.D>~Io<""Cj
.- ..... o..c: S ;:::
.D 0 10< v.J -:::: CI1
]~fl:2;E"
.. 0 co'S 0 CI1
E~.s5]O
>..c: .. Q.."t:I ~
o U] OJ;) O..c:
Q) 0 .....s :::: v.J
..0 ,,~ ,~,-
..... .::< t8 "'g 19 ~
:::: ~ U) 1o<.D 4.;
_ ,-,..... Of) 00
'"
-g
.~
C.
0.
-<
....
o
"",
> c
2~
o.~
g.b'o
u ur
..s g.
B::E
o"'ii '6
'c.E t
0.. ... 0.
'"
c
:2 c
':; .9:
:>'c:J ] ~
,,,:::"'0 r:::'~
uc.....u_
oetl5E:E
;gpSEc"
t::.- t ~ 0
o C etI ';;;: ._
2~~~ "E
......c..I-I_tI)
M
"
>
~t:
'0 ~
"0 g v:i
- ~ ~
E ~ 0
o..(lt::
'" " "
u.;5.D
::I GJ ~
1] 'gS 0
o '"
" ,S
B * ~
-c-cO
~ 0 g
'g.': ~
~] .~
<I.) 0 U
.D..o'"
caS]
.c~etI
~ "'-
='0 ~
"'Z
]\+..; ~
Q.. 0 ._
c.>-~
'" " 0
J! i: t:
~~.E
r--
~
:;J
D:g'
0",
~~
=-""
'-'~
z:;,
E::s
~~
00
=-w
f:l;JQ
~'"
~~
Z:::J
<0..
'-''''
Z!:::
'"
~~
~tJ
""';;';
Z~
0",
~:::J
z:::
0(;)
E:~
<:::J
S:2~
Eo<
"'"
~
..
:c
.~ t-
O> ..
~...
..
==
c c c c
" " " "
,~ ,~ .~ .~
Q, Q, Q, Q,
Q. Q. Q. Q.
<<: <<: <<: <<:
~
0> '~ '~
.. ;; OJ) ~
~ > c ~ ~ 0
0>.5! o .- Q. Q.
..- tt"i OJ) OJ) ~
" ~
.. :! ~bh c c !ij.'"
-= '5 ~ c E
5- .. '" "
.- ~ -5 f;- ~ SO ~ ~
... .. OJ) .~ c.
;. .s::E~ B B .9 OJ)
..
~ - E ~ ~ ~ ,-
o " 0 ,S! 0'"
.;:: .5 '~ ,- "
~ 6: ~ ~
...u.. Q. ... '''OJ)
"'O,:::! .Q on
."..c c E .- c
cu u ~ u.-
i5:.E"'OtS~cu:Q
..... 3: V''''''''''..c:'-
c. ~ "'a u.. ...... ::I C
Q.a cuU'-"'Occ __"._0_
tIS _''''' 0 C "'0
"'Oc.~>'-coc"""c(,)
cc_.ccocoC<l)E~
,...... tI:Ioc"'OE"EOj)E~ on
0: ~';:::GJ4J cot: c~
...... t:COGJ>t:O.-t:o
'g 8..~.c 2!. ~ E.'~'~
~ ~'E~ g:O]O:O&j~
.'cr ] >.
OJ:);::: ~,.D ~
~ ~ oo'S] .~
~ ~~~ 8.q~
.5 : co ~ 8: U c;;
tn~bh.2t1:1GJ-
uoto.........."'O...sE
~t:o=="'Op
;::I ;::I iU i3 ctS c a
~.Dg~"Otl:lo
<I) - tI:I 0. <I) Q,).~
~~="'~E>
<I) 0 ~ cu.~ ctI c
.:: bJ).- ~ ~ c.:> ~
:~.s ~ ..... .... "0 -=
=~~:-===o
oo"'C-,,~"E
tn !:: c (\.)..0 "E
BE :~~lZ z.
1:j u ~-..c ~ 11)
,- .:; '" Iii -= 0 Q
bI)...... ~ .... u""" bI)
o 0 _ bI).- = c
'0 tU tI:I ..:: CI.)._
.- "'0 I=: ~ ~ E '"0
.D c.-...., "E :=
-;cct::15acu;::S
..r: ~ 0 d,,;:: o..CO
......... _ - O"'C
EOC;c;cQc
II) bO:>..o 0 co co
;> = 0 CIJ '';:.- OJ:)
<I)'~ s. ~ fo E.5 =
" 0 "'.-8'''' <8 " ,0
-= 1:::" .-.-" '"
-:30oe-;..s~
~.o.s Q,ccU.o..U)
00
OJ)
c
i2 r::
'5 .2
~c:o tii
....."'0 ~.~
U c..... c:=:
oCUUE:E
-;;;gfEs:::c~~
1::'- t: 0 0 .-
oS::: CII.::: .-'c
e-~e-f:"go
O::c..Qu.Jt(>::E
B
:::~
,,-
.~ bI)
p...5
~3
,,""
-513
>>-E;
.D c
].~
"""
'B 0
~ "
" ~
..eta"";
c; ~ '"0
-= " 0
VJ ; $2
en Q)"'i:
'6'0.:: ]
o .-::: ..:::
- ~ OD
.ra e.o
.D ~ Z
]1;~
~..::o
.- ...... be
<<i Q) C
::: I-< ._
CT~"'g
-< 5 OD
~
OJ)
c
:2 c:
"5 ,g
cCC ~ ~
.- "0 C:'~
U C:"'" C)::::
o~5E:E
;~EBs:::~~
~ 'c ~ .::: .e .~
o.co..>-c
v ~ aJ.::;: ~ 0
"Q.,oe,cn::E
B
~.:S
.~ bC
i5.,=
~a
,,""
-=""
- "
>>.D .
"'~oo
"".8""
Q).~ c
""" '"
ISo.D
"" r--
~ 11) CQ~
..c;r-...
~ ~
c;ec"O
~ ~ g
"-=
VJ 0 Ci
'Oh.:: ..c
0.';::: ..::
- ~ OD
.9 ::::'u
..c~z
]tIS'-
t::::..::o
..... ...... bC
c; ~ c
&~~
<5bb
o
OJ)
>..:
:::::: '"'0 C
u~ .g
BeE "E!.~
~ "8..... 5.-:=
C:::CI:I5E:E-.
bJ) bJ) c C ~ I-
CCl::OCO
.- '2 a.::: 0.: "'0
g~g.i::'Bg "ii
ti:S:06~:E u:
Oi
>
"'0-8
~ c; 0..
(I) ~ g.
i:: - ~
~ ; ~ aj
Q) ~ s ~
-:E o...~ tIS
I-< ~ 5 of
r.E~8~
2-c:.a
.g oog E
(1)] C\I 0
c..C\I.~r.t=
0.0 ".- en
.5 re 8 G
"i coi ~ &:I
'"'1:'-'"0
OJ) 00 0 0
'-"'0""">>
00::: Q)
Q) 0 CIS i::
g-Eo..::1
CQ 0 OJ) [/J
~ ;g .5 S
.~.~ g.,g
Q)z~-
oS C':S U
o~_E
...... .- 0
I-< rn E I-;
o ~,.Q c..
~~;;B
~
c
.g
&6
tI) .:
c c
- 0
,,-::;:
,2 c
.~ 0
> '':::
,- "
o OJ)
0(1:';::
'E ::E
~ .-
~ C
C 0
.~.;::
c ~
"'on
OJ)
c
't: 0(1
C c
." ,-
"0:;5
; :=:.~
o OJ) ~
- c ~
.....- ....
0'" ~
._ CQ c
~ ~ 0
... OJ) "
c
.S!
1:>
~
Q.
~
..::
"
~""
.E ~
.;:
r:! VJ
g.f:oo
o "
GoD]
6-0 = c:I
'" '" -
0.0"::..0
" ~ r--
'0;, 1:' oi
~~r-
~ - ~
;:.-..:.E "'0
_ U 0
C;~..8
~ c I-.
.- >.]
" >-=
g"Goo
v.: ..= '0
rJ'J~ - Z
.~ ~ ..
.";::: U) 0
.f ~ ~
u .... ~
" " "
" u ""
.9 = Q)
';j ~ ~
; E ~
0...5 ::s
" '" ~
Q.. E Q)
E"'O;S
Ci5~B
N
::;:
~
~:3
0"
~'i'
~~
,,~
25'>:
~~
O~
~u
62i;J
Q~
~~
,,~
zt;
~~
OJ::
...u
....'"
z;;:!
0",
::;:::.J
z:::
Oc:;
....'"
...-
<::.J
,,0
....'"
...
....
::;:
"
:c
at'
e ..
=-...
~
'- "
Q .2
:~
.- 0::
.Eh:
.. "
;>
'- "
Q .2
'O~
e e
.co::
-Z"C
::0 "
;>
c
..
,~
c..
=-
-<
~ re~
" "
a~
'-1J ~
~>--g
" " 0
,- t.c
"2 ::I 5
~~.J:>
"'_.0
~ 5.~ .
"t: alz"'"
:::1"= "CI
o 11 .5 a
'"
>..=
.~"'O c::
C,,);':: .g
JJ 0;:1 - 1;
t';I .... cc .5 bO
';s]....fLe
c:::'';::: to:! C S::E
t':IGbOEc ~~
t="J:.5 t e c .9
8. 0 c: t':I.....!2.-
~.;ae-i;tJg
~;:c;:oe-~~
~ ~ 2
E: 0 CI:I
~] ~ ~
~ >...:
..... c'~ e-.~ $ .~
o=;:I.1)o~O~
.~~ ~ ~.~ J5 gp-;
--g s ~ ~ e J: ~ .S
0..... <B.... ::s ;:I
..==..oc~:EuO'
-;; ~ r--- (tt ea._.S ~
.-.- t':I~ ~ U ~ 0 0
"'C ~ r--- 0.. 0 _y ~ ;>:.
~~~g..,9"O=c:::
o~ooe.;;51:~
:;~..8-=eiI:~~
C\J M "0 t;;i 11)..0
~_oc=oo>.....
-,a.!:J 1:0::1 0 .....::10
-:.E ~"'O'';:;':''Uj g.
jg cu'::: ~ cuN " C ~
~ .c z..... u._.c 0 4)
;:I M"'" ~,.:.::
..c~t;..,"'CO"'O<<iU
~".= 0 c o:S c ."_ :!J
~._ __ 0 :::s CIS ....
..o~:: uco~gf~
~ <I) EQ.~ B c _0 "
1'/.).. _ tIS ._
bi)- ..... >. CU ri-l";:::: =
c.....co-v_C/
.C ~ " t: Q o(j 11 .
]~]~e~s~
o :3 u ..... 0 .- ..... -
oaf!ii,,'"'ee-
Z=<c..~r.o~s
.,;
z
'"
~
,~
c..
0.
-<
'-
o
"
u
~ 11
.~ .~
" "
,so.
.s ~
0:9
"C "3
....J:>
"
.S:
.0"; ~
.- c.~
U 11):::
Bg:E.-
~ e c~.9
O">.g "2
o.cuo
~::!~ :E
"0
" >.
>'''
" >
> ~
~ =
= ~
~c
= ..
oi5.to-o
-5 0 0
i-4 ~ ~
<B M 0
2 -< :;;
'@~l
" " "
0.. tU t:
00 "=
.5.e I'/.) .
. - " 00
~ cu~;:I "'0
sot- 0 c:
4-i v.lo:S t':I
o ~ M..c
oot.9r---
g of "0 t<:'"
~ 02 r---
:::..c u v.I
.; ~.g -g
.s~8.s
o t,.., 0 0
.....o..c;g
I-< v.I_ bJ)
.8 5 C;;'o
~a~z
:!
c
..
,~
c..
0.
-<
'-
o
~
u
"
0."
.. ~
:E.ra ~
-;;; '"0 'g
.5 1a u
"-_0.
o ~ '"
: i5.5
.2 b. 1:
0:: g. 6b
""
;>-..5
.-::: "'C c
u:::: .2
]0::1 tii
t<: .... 00 cd 00
;g]....5:f:
c'z cd s:: E ~
.. ~ "'~u s:: _,::,
t'- c 0 c 0
o !3'S .: 0.-:::
0.-5 1a 0. ~'"5 S
B;:I.......~(JJu~
..... C!I c.. ...... ___en .c::
~"'8 ~
O cd "0 0::0
..... VI..c'" 0.;3:::: ~
gf'~r--.~E~~
:.a.-;:: cd"'~ 0 clC:! ..= 19
.2:~r--.o~..t::g:c
VI..c "'.- cd
.5..c "0 '0 g ii: 8..c
Vlgg;::'.gr.n~g
8 ~ of ;; .~ ::i ~.:;
~\",I]..c:~ueO'
~]..c:~-5~b
o cd.~cd :;:!"'C',= -
,,:>.O~cda'Ujr2
cd ~ Z I:C 0 U C ....
u-'::;t,..,"'O~E~~
.- 0 0 0 I:C '" :=
~t::v.lu';o~~
] ~ ~ ~ .s clC:! .~ 8-
..cOcdcd.5~o~
o 0.."'0 O..c'-'- u
>~o;9ou.....o~
':::0>' ,-"'Cu
'r;) ~ 0 I-< ~ 0 ~ ~
;:::rlr:cE...=c!Bu
~"'=='23""'uco
-=: u ~'8 ; E ~ .5
'" 0 =' ~ u '5.- ;:I
oS;:: 0 0:'= 0.>.0'
-='E o:S 0.. Q.. u a":
00' d bO g-o '- a
> ....."'..: .5 o'~ 8: e.
o=="'O;9Eucd
o"s 0 ~ _ ..E:.~""
.,9 ~ ~ '.'-'- ~ >.
0"""'.....-... cd
..s 1S..00" 3 a ~ 0
~
c
..
,~
c..
0.
-<
""
"
'6
..
~
""
'-
o
"
u
"
..
=
~
.!!a '"
c .-:::
o E
5&
co
,S:
:>.. -; tii
..' _ ""
.- c.-
U Q).-:::
B E::E ~
'" S c'" b
"0': 0.-:::
;>',= C
o.cuo
~~~::E
~
_ "0
~ 0
';:0 0 0
~ :€]
:ad~
"'C ~.~
"- "
!f:cdZ
c;;;9t,..,
'" " 0
""'"-OJ)
cu ~ .E
. " '"
2 " '"
'j:! .E Eb
C _ "
" " ..c
o.,"~
bO~ gp
,5 0.'-
--g ft 3
~ '0
~.s]
o >.-€
".J:> 2
""0
C o'~
'",,"0
~.- ..... 00
.~ ~ g"'O
o 1-0 0 C
.,9]:;; '".
c_ v.le
0- cd'-
~] ~ cu'"
__ v.I cd r---
=:
c
..
."
c..
0.
-<
~.c
..r-
" .
~ ..
..r-
'-'"O~
o "15
~~o
.- t.o
e~j
"'_.0
OJ:) 5.~
.5 ~ U 00
:;.=z"'C
Q] ,5 ~
"
.S:
b3 ~
.- c.-
U u:::
o E::E
.... c "''::'
t 8 c .E
o.;;.,g 'S
o..cuo
~~J:J~
B
~-5
.~ 0.0
p..S
~3
,,"0
..c"O
- "
>.-" '
.J:>~OO
"02",
o .~ ;::
.5"'0 I:C
;9'0..0
~ ;:: r---
o 0 (I:,'"
..car---
~ ~
C;;cu"'O
..c 0 0
~ ~ 0
'"oS
~ " 0
'0iJ.:: ..c
o :::: ..c
-~oo
.S 5'0
.J:>~z
]~t,..,
t;:"'=O
~-;;bO
~ 1-0.5
tT~"'g
<( ~ biJ
r-
c
..
,~
c..
0.
-<
'-
o
~~
Ej'-
= E
~ "
.~ 0.
o ""
"
~ ,-
0'"0
,- ..
~ ~
...""
Q
o
.9-;
"C
~ "
E: ~
~8
'u ';;
" "
~e:.
V)
-;;;
~c
"
" u
cd,~
~'"g
8:~
..""
,,~
-= ~
~o
's 5.
~ 0
" -
0."
gf"s
'_ 0.
"0 00
~ .5
00"
'- "
o~
"",
" "
" >
~ 8
~ 0.
.- C.
'"
ii
"
.,9
B~
15 S
'c .J:>
0.. 51
00
~
~
C,.?:g-
00
~~
~:::.
C-''''"
~~
~~
o@
~u
~~
~~
z...,
<0::
C-'~
Zt;;
sa~
0:,:
Eo<u
-;;,;
Z~
0",
~::3
z~
o\:)
E::::
<::3
C-'~
-
Eo<
-
~
'C
C C
" 0
C ''::;
o "
c~''fl.2.0
o OJ'-=:
:!O 6r~
.:: .E i:!
Q .0
DO E 'Z
.5 '';: ~
tOtIJ...
11.1 2 >. 0
C tj Q).'::
";Q C c: c
&:: 0 ::I 0
UJu",~
oogf
C,_
,- -
- "
.g"
,,"c
a a.g
..<.>
B ~ 2
o:.a t)
'C e E
"- 00 <.>
c
.2
:;;
.~
~-
. -
c 0
.g'"g ~
to) 0 u
~::E ~
c
.g
<.>
"
0.
~
.::
.;
<.>
C
"
-e
.3
'"
'6
S
o
<)::
'"
"
~
"
"
"
:>.
"
i:
"
'"
c
"
"'''
s ~
.::: .~
~ ~
g, 0) .
o - 00
~2'"O
~ = a
"" .
01)-" ..0
C '" r-
"5b t:"' co:r
" " r-
t:; c ~
.- "
.?:>'5 0
ca~.8
~ E ~
..... >>]
<.> >-"
8.~0I)
~,.Q '0
rA'I-oZ
.~ tE ~
;<;:: ~ 0
.~ ~ ~
'0 e ~
" " "
gg"O
._ t'I:I 0
e E ~
(13 1:: ~
g...... :::I
- " '"
"-s~
"".,
J3a.9
'"
c
"
,~
C.
0.
..:
~
o
"
<.>
c
"
~~
'~ .~
;g,
o 00
- c
.9 ~
- -
"-00
00
>,.5
:::: -0 C
U:;: .9
~ 0;:1 -1C
tU ......::Q .;g "_00_
...... c"'C C
"'0 0 C""" aJ -
a'zC':I5E:E
<I) ~ t)l) E C ~'i:'
1:: 'C .5 t: e C E
o 0 C tU'- ,8 .-
e-.s a e- ;; t) g
o:::~i:i:C1~~~
"
"--
'[i) 0
:; '"
o c "
~ .$:,.Q :>
~~::~
~ c..tE c.o
0'"0 "0.5
.f: ~~f:t
I-< QJ 11) 0
<8 i: i: t:
.~ ~ a.E
c c " "
I: :=.D.:::;
~]=t)
_..... t';I to:!
~ ~~'"O
..... C':I 00 ;
~'"O'"O_
- S C ~
OJJocuo
~,D..cbl)
0) >. r--- C
{.) 0 ~.~
= E: t'I:I 0
~ a r;: t:
J~ c; -g .E
<.> 0 __
11) 'Qb--= 0
.;; 0 - "'
0- 0 u u)
..... .9;G ;:: f:t
1-o.D bJ:I 11.1 0
o ..... ~ t::
..... 0 0 IV =
~ of! Z t:l..D
o
'"
c
"
.~
C.
0.
..:
~
o
"
<.>
[;j
"23
"'.-
.!!) E
" "
-50.
o 00
- c
0:.0
'C e
"-00
"'O.~ ObfJ
"E "8 a E 'u- .5
;>.- o..c: "'0
e ~ "B ~ .~ 11.1:;:
0. ~"';:i~.s::l c
o."..u....-'" 0
tU..::!.:::: 0 C"'O "I9.-
-0 0.> >......tUc..... ct)
c=~..ccv(QcaJv
:.g5"EEE~E~~
1:: ~ 11) ;> t:: C':I._ 1:: 0 ...
o bCI,D I:: CIS '" t: CIS.::.~
e-:.s ~ a. e-"O 1a fl" E: (;
0:: E...s::: goo 1aE:oUJO:::
~
.....c]
1:: co~
~ =~-=
gf ~ oo~"'2 ~.~
~o.."t:I=..c~t:
::J ~ ~.~..c <0 0
u CIS.D~ 0 .~ .....c €
.5 00 r:-.....c..= 0 CIS
'" ~ .'0 ~ S "-
~g~c~to
....:3 -_ CIS
g.D~-;j o..e-~
00 _ 0 -= C ,-., ._
o~o[/)o""""'O
.... 0 -= U) ''::: 1:':1:-:
-;j be) c; ~ ~'a =
u s.D ~._ k Q:I
.~.~~"'O.~ ~] d
-ooE CIS CIS 0
.9 t:: Z u CIS U be)'':::
.D = t+-o ~ "'0 >-..s g
~~OClS~.DEtZ)
'';: > '" ,,'=" " ~
._._ ~..c t:: 0 _ ~
1:3 u ~ ......D > ~ .-
o CIS 1:':1 .... = 0 =>.. >
00 .... "C tE 00 s...... 0
o 0 00 ~ o..u ~
CIS_ >-........c 1:1:1 -
-= ~ ~" '8 _ " ~ oS
_0 ccc"c
C 0.0 0 CIS i:I:j"'O 0
~ .s If! "-,g" a S
o~=gfp..~ 5
] O];.e; ft ,!2 e'~
-t::_~I1)>cc~
..:i .E .S ED';; ~ CJ tI:j
;::;
Attachment 7
Salt Creek Ranch PFFP
Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10
Strikeout = Deleted text
Underlined = Added text
i7
TRAFFIC
3.2.9
Adequacy Analysis
The adequacy of traffic is based upon a detailed study performed by
Willdan Associates, Traffic Impact Study for Salt Creek Ranch dated
November 18, 1991. The following information is an excerpt from that
study. (1992)
Throughout the traffic impact study for this project, a distinction is made
between Existing Conditions, Base Conditions, Scenario 1 and 1A
Conditions, and Scenario 2 Conditions. The following is a description of
each condition and 'the methodology and tasks undertaken in forecasting
the travel demand. (1992)
1. Existing- Conditions. The existing traffic and roadway conditions were
established based on information obtained from the City of Chula
Vista and the 1990 Growth Management Intersection Monitoring
Program prepared by JHK and Associates.
2. Base Conditions. The base conditions were established based on
information contained in the ECVTPP. These conditions assume
construction of all approved developments and related roadway
improvements as documented in the ECVfPP, except for the segment
of "H" Street just west of the project site, which was assumed to
consist of a two-lane paved road~
3. Scenario 1 and 1A Conditions. The Scenario 1 conditions assume the
completion of Phase I of the Salt Creek Ranch, in addition to the
base condition described above. This condition was established as
follows.
_u __~
~___ _~____ ___n_ _ _..
-.------.-.--..----
__ - .__..n_____
_un ___n.___........_..
a. Daily and peak hour trip generation rates for Phase I were
developed based on SANDAG's Traffic Generation Manual (see
Table 2, page 28).
b. The Phase I traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadways
and added to the base condition resulting in Scenario 1 traffic
volumes. The trip distribution and assignment 'of the Phase I
traffic was estimated based on the 1RANPLAN model software.
c. After the results of the analysis indicated unmitigable impacts
at the intersection of Hidden Vista Drive/East "H" Street, Phase
I traffic and the corresponding development were reduced to
establish Scenario lA
3.2-10
ft
Salt Creek Ranch
Public Fadlilies rmana Plan
TRAFFIc
d. It should be noted that the Circulation network assumed for
Scenario 1 and Scenario 1A are different. Scenario 1 assumes
that a segment of East "H" Street will remain as a dirt road
while Scenario 1A assumes that Proctor Valley Road will
remain as a two lane dirt road and East "H" Street west of the
site will be paved as a two lane road.
4. Scenario 2 Conditions. The Scenario 2 conditions assume the
ultimate development of Salt Creek Ranch and the implementation
of a four-lane at-grade roadway along the State Route 125 corridor.
The methodology used to establish the projected traffic volumes for
this scenario is similar to Scenario 1 above, using the total traffic
generated by Salt Creek Ranch.
Based on the analysis contained herein, major improvements to the
surrounding roadway networks have been identified to mitigate the traffic
impact of this project and other approved 'projects in the area and to
improve existing operational conditions as well. These improvements
include: (1992)
Base Condition
1. Interconnect all traffic signals in the eastern territories and synchro-
nize the signal timing to provide a suitable progression for through
traffic along the major circulation streets. A centralized computer-
system should be installed to more efficiently monitor and coordinate
the traffic signal operation in the eastern territories and to optimize
the traffic signal timings at all intersections to provide for an efficient
traffic operation and reduce delays. (1992)
-------- ---
_ _ __~__~____~u..__ .
_.._..u__...
2.
The intersection of TelegraJ}h Ca~on RoadfEast4ke Parkway will
require the following improvements in order to operate at level of
service (LOS) D or better during the peak hours. (1992)
a. Widen the southbound approach of EastLake Parkway to
provide a channelized right turn lane with an acceleration lane.
Restripe to allow the following lane configuration:
+ Eastbound - two left, two through, and two right
+ Westbound- two left, two through, one through/right, one
right
+ Northbound - two left, one through, and one
through/right
3.2-11 ~
SaJI Creek Ranch
Publk Facilities Finance Plan
TRAFFIc
· Southbound- one left, two through, and one channelized
right
b. Construct a driveway (with acceleration/deceleration lanes)
along Telegraph Canyon Road west of EastLake Parkway in
conjunction with the proposed shopping center in the northwest
corner, in order to divert a portion of the right turn and left
turn volumes from the southbound and eastbound approaches
of this intersection, respectively. Prohibit the left turn move-
ment from the driveway.
3. The intersecti~n of East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Drive will require
the following improvements in order to operate at LOS D or better
during the peak hours. (1992)
a. Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches of East "H"
Street to provide an additional through lane in each direction.
Provide the following lane configuration:
· Eastbound - two left, four through, and one right
· Westbound - two left, three through, and one
through/right
· Northbound - one left, one left/through, and one right
· Southbound - one left, one left/through, and one right
4. The intersection of Ea.~t "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road will require the
following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak
hours. (1992)
a.
Widen the eastbound and westbound ~proa~I1~~of~!-"-fI" ,
-~tre-efti:i}r6vIdeanaddltionafi1:irOugh lane in each direction.
· Eastbound - one left, three through, and one right
· Westbound - one left, three through, and one right
· Northbound - two left, two through, and a free right
· Southbound - two left, two through, and one right
- .----...--------.-
b. Widen the northbound approach of Otay Lakes Road to provide
an additional left turn lane. Channelize the right turn move-
ment.
c. Widen the southbound approach of Otay Lakes Road to provide
an additionalleit turn lane.
3.2-12
'io
Salt Creek Ranch
Public Facilides Finance Plan
TRAFFIC
5. The intersection of Bonila Road/Olay Lakes Road will require the
following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak
hours. (1992)
a. Widen the westbound approach of Bonita Road to provide an
additional left turn lane. Provide the following lane configura-
tion:
+ Eastbound - two through, one right
+ Westbound - two left, two through
+ Northbound - two left, and one right
6. The intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Elmhurst Drive will require the
following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak
hours. (1992)
a. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches of Otay
Lakes Road to provide an additional through lane in each
direction and dual left turns northbound.
7. Since the ADT along Otay Lakes Road exceeds the City's threshold
for LOS C, three through lanes in each direction should be provided
between Telegraph Canyon Road and north of East "H" Street.
(1992)
Scenario 1/Scenario lA (Phase I)
O' ,......0 ____..
1. Reduce the development potential of Phase I by 120 dwelling units to
attain LOS D at the intersection of Hidden Vista Drive/East "H"
_________~~t':et.J!922L .m~._._ ... m_____m _ m_ _ ,..,
2. Construct East "H" Street through the project (Phase I boundaries) to
ultimate four-lane major street standards, consistent with the City of
Chula Vista design criteria. Construct a two-lane roadway connecting
East "H" Street from the western limit of Phase I development to Salt
Creek I to City standards. (1992)
3. Construct Hunte Park"Way to ultimate four-lane major street standards
through the project and offsite south to Telegraph Canyon Road,
consistent with the City of Chula Vista design criteria. (1992)
4. Construct Lane Avenue as a Class II collector from East "H" Street
to meet existing improvements at its current terminus in the EastLake
3.2-13 t; I
Sail Cleek Ranch
Public Facilides FllUlllCe Pltm
Traffic
The following are additional text that reflects the amendments to Section 3.2.9 and 3,2.10
of the Salt Creek Ranch PFFP:
Business Park, consistent with the City of Chula Vista's design criteria. (19921
5. At the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer, install traffic signals or bond for
future installation at the following intersections: (1992)
. East "H" Street/Lane Avenue
. East "H" Street/Hunte Parkway
. Lane Avenue/Telegraph Canyon Road
. Hunte Parkway/Telegraph Canyon Road
6. Implement transportation demand management strategies, including provisions
of transit service and bus stops in order to reduce the peak hour demand on the
street network. (1992)
7. Provided biological mitigation in IS-OO-05 is complied with. the building cap
shall be increased to allow building permit issuance for UP to 1.467 eauivalent
dwelling units.
8. Building permits shall be granted beyond 1.467 EDU's to a maximum of 1.665
EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements:
Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street: or
Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru-lane at
the East "H" Street! Hidden Vista Drive intersection.
9, No fmal Maps containing a Proiect cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's
shall be subiect to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway toSR-54
being open for public access.
Scenario 2 (Phase I, II, and m and State Route 125)
1. Implement all the measures described under Scenario I above, (1992)
2. Construct State Route 125 as a four-lane roadway between East "H" Street and
State Route 54 with enhanced geometries at the intersections. (1992)
3. Construct "H" Street as a four-lane major street from the western boundary of
the site to the existing terminus of"W Street. (1992)
3.2-14
Salt Creek Ranch
Public Facilities Finance Plan
,~
Traffic
3.2.10 Threshold Comp1iance~
Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored through the annual
intersection monitoring program and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan updates, (1992)
Based upon the traffic analysis bv Linscott. Law & Greenspan (LLG\ prepared for
the Salt Creek project, threshold compliance is projected to be maintained with
implementation of the improvements identified in the "base condition" and
"Scenario IjlA" of the Traffic Impact StudYies datea }le'lemaer 18,1991. (1992)
Mav 17. 1999 and March 8. 2000. (2000\
The affieunt of development which can ae penRitted prier to imj31ementatien ef
the i.mpFe~~~ementG identifieS. in the "ease esaeiitisfl" ana "SeeBarie l/L^." af the
Trame Impaet Study inelneles tBe ".^..ppFel.~eel" prejeete as af J1:1Be dO, 1990 (see
SeetiBR 2.d sf this eleeumeat) aDS the initial 1,127 ri"Nelling laBits af SaU Creelr:
Ranch. }Ie aeve1epment Beye:ad this level will Be alIa'sea UBtH a meU",d af
alIoeatian is establishea. (1992)
Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is complied with, the building cap
shall increased to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 equivalent
dwelling units.
Building pennits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665
EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements:
Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665
EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements:
Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or
Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru-1ane at
the East "H" Streett Hidden Vista Drive intersection.
No fmal Maps containing a Project cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's
shall be subject to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54
3.2-18
Salt Creek Ranch
Public Facilities Finance Plan
'13
Traffic
Future development within Salt Creek Ranch will be required to pay Traffic
Signal Fees in accordance with Chula Vista Council Policy No. 475-01. Traffic
Signal Fees, Transportation DIF Fees, Interim Pre-125 DIF Fees and all other
applicable fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time the building permits
are issued. (1996)
Non-DIF Streets and SIEnals
The Salt Creek Ranch project contains residential streets and signals that, by
City policy, are not eligible for DIG credit. These streets and signals will be
funded by the development. (1992)
3,2-19
Cf~
Salt Creek Ranch
Public Facilities Finance Plan
,.~....
ATTACHMENT go
Disclosure Statement
THE C!l . OF CHULA VISTA DISa..oSURE STj\. ...:MEI'-T
'You are required to file d St31c.mcllt of Disclosure of cenain ownership or lwandal intcrests, payments, or campaign
contrioulions. on all mailers which will require discretionar)' action on the pan of the City Council. Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information musI be distlosro:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial in.erest in the property which is the suoje::t of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant. contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
PACIFIC BAY PROPERTIES
2300 BOSWEJ.L ROAD. SUITE 1/209
CHULA VISTA. CA 91910
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or ov.'Iling any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust,
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted ~ith any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No-L If yes, please indicate person(s):
5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employ=, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
GUY ASARO - PACIFIC BAY HOMES
DAVE ~~R - HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No...!... If yes, state which Councilmember(s):
" . . (NOTE: Attacb additional pages as I'''''''''''''''~ " ./-...
SigD'ature of contt3ctor/applicant
Pri~:-'~e ~e~tt3ctor/apPlicant
. P '. o..~ , . ,~, '~.. 1 fi hi ,. 9f-., j... ~ / '" . __~, .-
-E!!!!!! IS a.c..IU'u; as: /'ill)' UlalVluu!2, mn, co-paro.t:rS. 'P, }OUU I'O'llurc, Q.SSOCtQUO,.. soc~ C Ul-', palmUl OrgtVU2mJOfl., corportllJ01I., atalt., uu.u. rccavcr, oJ)""Ucazc.
lhis alld allY olhc COUlI1)~ city alld cOUJury, cit)' mUJuciptJmy, disrricl, or miter political subdi,iJi01I., or OIl)' Olher group or combirUlU01I DCWJg as Q wW. ..
Date:
;;:;. / N / fI..