HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2000/08/09
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, August 9, 2000
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 26, 2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-00-59; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a
65-foot high monopole, supporting nine panel antennas; and an
associated equipment area at 3554 Main Street - Cox/Sprint PCS.
Staff: Kim Vander Bie
2. PUBLIC HEARl NG: ZA V-00-14; An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny
a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of 6/6"
within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height of 3/6" is
permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R-1
Zone, with a General Plan designation of Residential.
Staff: Steve Power
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-00-14; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) One Plan to move the high school site in Village Two to a
location in Village Two acceptable tyo the Sweetwater Union High
School District.
Staff: Rich Whipple, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2-
August 9, 2000
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow a Peak load Power
Plant at 3497 Main Street. PG&E Dispersed Generation, llC.
Staff: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-00-03; Tentative Subdivision Map known as Eastlake Trails North
Chula Vista Tract 00-03 for a 207 lot subdivision on 30.6 acres at the
southeast corner of Otay lakes Road and Hunte Parkway. Eastlake
Company.
Staff: Jeff Steichen, Associate Planner
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-01-01; Proposal to amend the Municipal Code (Title 19)
regarding Design Review Committee membership, scope of
responsibilities, and procedures. City initiated.
Staff: Steve Power, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Review upcoming meeting calendar.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
-.....-....-.---
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday,
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL/ MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Willett, Cortes, and
O'Neill
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner
Stan Donn, Temporary Expert Professional
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-59; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a
65-foot high monopole, supporting nine panel antennas; and an
associated equipment area at 3554 Main Street. Cox/Sprint PCS
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a
conditional use permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at
3554 Main Street, the site of the Otay Recreation Center. The project consists of a fenced off
equipment area measuring approximately 300 sf and a 65-foot high monopole supporting a GPS
antenna and 9 panel antennas.
The portion of the pole below the recreation center's roofline would be painted red to match the
building and the upper portion of the pole would rise 20 ft. above the building and would be
painted gray to blend in with the sky. Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be
placed in cabinets near the base of the monopole and a chainlink fence with redwood slats to
match the building's exterior color scheme would be installed to screen the equipment.
The City encourages applicants of wireless communications facilities to co-locate with other
companies. The applicant investigated several site on or near Main Street including the SDG&E
substation, where there are several tall utility poles. SDG&E does not allow antennas within the
fenced area of the substation, but possible outside the fenced area approximately 75 feet away.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 26, 2000
The applicant chose the recreation center building because it is the tallest building in that vicinity
so that more than 2/3rds of the monopole could be hidden or blended into the building. A
monopalm was not considered because it would rise considerable higher than the existing palm
trees.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-59
recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the conditions
and findings contained in the resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Hall inquired if Cox/Sprint would pay a fee for the usage of the building and, if so,
how much is that fee and where does it go.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager, responded thatthe City Council approved a
Master Lease Agreement with Cox/Sprint PCS for sites on City facilities which range in monthly
payments from $1,400 to $1,600 per month, and the money is typically General Fund revenue.
However, there have been exceptions when it made sense from a construction stand point to
build in a benefit to the existing or adjacent site. For example; there is a proposal to install a
communications antenna on the light pole of an existing park site and there is a field adjacent to
this park that has no light poles. Staff recommended that the monies be paid upfront in order to
pay for the installation of light poles in the adjacent field in lieu of monthly payments, therefore
the residents would reap the benefits of having a lit field.
Commissioner Hall inquired if it would be possible to redirect a portion, if not all, of these
monthly rental fees back into the recreation center.
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney responded that the Planning Commission could not make
this a condition of approval, however, staff could include it as a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to the City Council.
Chair Thomas asked if there was anything the City could do, i.e., conditioning a CUP stating, "If
approached by another company, co-location will be accepted."
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission's jurisdiction within the
Condition Use Permit would be to condition it to encourage the applicant to work with other
companies, however, it would be very difficult to make it a requirement because previous
testimony from other applicants has revealed that when they looked into co-locating, it was not
feasible because of physical constraints, not a lack of interest from either party.
Mr. Meacham further stated that co-location is a common practice when it is technologically and
geographically feasible. The incentive to the companies is that by sub-leasing with another
company they can help defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Willett reminded the Commission that the Planning Department is currently
working on a study that will identify the location and type of cellular antenna facility that is
currently in the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 26, 2000
Commissioner Cortes stated that he is encouraged to hear that staff is working on a
comprehensive plan and hopes it will include guidelines that can assist the Commission in
making a more informed decision.
Ms. Hull stated that the City can establish guidelines for a Citywide policy for the overall
placement of faci I ities.
Public Hearing Opened 6:36
Michael Sloop, Sprint, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 320, San Diego, stated they looked at
various locations in the surrounding area of Third and Main Street in an attempt to find an
optimal location to get good coverage for that area of the City. The only feasible location that
was found, because of the building height, was the recreation center.
Mr. Sloop reaffirmed that co-location is desirable when optimal physical conditions exist, and as
long as the competitor's equipment does not hinder or adversely affect an existing facility, it is
economically desirable because sub-leasing helps defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting when a similar
request was being made, the applicant submitted renderings of different innovative designs that
can be integrated into with the architecture of the building, and was wondering if the applicant
had looked into other designs.
Mr. Sloop responded that they did look into such possibilities, however, the unique sloping of the
recreation center roof-line precluded the use of an alternative design. Additionally, the
monopalm was also considered, but was rejected because even at maturity, the existing palm
trees that are part of the landscaping at the rec center, would be considerable shorter than the 65
feet, which is the height of the monopole.
Cmr. Castaneda stated that a tremendous amount of time, effort and money was expended to
bring to fruition the recreation center, which has brought a sense of pride and ownership to the
surrounding community, and he is reluctant in making a hasty decision that could diminish the
aesthetics of this building.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he supports the project at this location and is encouraged that
the City or the rec center will reap the benefits of the revenue it produces.
Commissioner Hall stated that although he shares some of Cmr. Castaneda's concerns with the
diminished aesthetics of the building, he would support approving the proposal with a
recommendation to the City Council that the revenues it would generate would be diverted back
into the recreation center.
Chair Thomas stated that regardless of the revenue this facility would generate, he is not
convinced that this is the best location for it because of the previously stated comments on the
building aesthetics.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
July 26, 2000
Commissioner Willett inquired about the scope of information that the comprehensive plan will
contain.
Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner, responded it would contain the name of the provider, what
type of facility it is, i.e. monopole/monopalm, or a stealth facility.
Cmr. Willett recommended that the range and frequency of each of these locations be included
in the plan as well as the elevation above sea level and the topography.
Public Hearing Re-Opened 7:40.
Commissioner Hall inquired of the applicant if he had any information that he could share with
the Commission with respect to future technological advances in this industry that would render
this type of facility obsolete.
Mr. Sloop responded that the technology would be satellite personal communication and in his
opinion, it would take a quantum leap in technology before satellites can handle the total
number of phone calls. This is what makes cellular systems work, the fact that you can
decentralize the antennas and repeat the use of either frequencies or codes.
Public Hearing Closed 7:45.
Commissioner Hall stated that since public hearing notices can oftentimes be overlooked as junk-
mail, and the apparent lack of community participation at tonight's hearing would indicate that
perhaps the community is not fully aware of what is being proposed and conceivable there
could be a negative community response once the facility is built. Cmr. Hall asked how
extensive was the noticing effort.
Director Sandoval responded that a 10 day notice was placed in the newspaper and the mail
noticing radius is 500 ft. to the surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Castaneda stated he concurs with Cmr. Hall's previous comments and as stated
earlier, "a picture is worth a thousand words", therefore, he would make the following motion:
MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-1-0-0) that this item be continued to the August 9th Planning
Commission meeting and direct staff to re-notice along with a copy of the simulated
photograph that was presented to the Commission tonight and that the notice and photograph
be posted at various locations at the recreation center. Motion carried with Commissioner
O'Neill voting against.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
July 26, 2000
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-43; Consideration of a Conditional use Permit to construct
and operate: 1) a Drug Store with pharmacy drive-thru, sales of beer,
wine and liquor, and 24-hour operation; 3) Two freestanding, drive-
thru restaurants; and 4) a 24-hour gas station with an automatic car
wash and convenience store with sales of beer and wine as part of an
approximate 101,703 sf neighborhood ommercial center
development at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and
Medical Center Drive. Kitchell Development Company.
Background: Stan Donn, Temporary Expert Professional, reported that for the commission's
consideration is a Master Conditional Use Permit for uses proposed within a commercial center
development with the Sunbow II Planned Community Village Center known as Plaza Sunbow
and located south ofTelegraph Canyon Road just north of future Olympic Parkway and east of 1-
805; primary access to Sunbow II is Medical Center Drive. The 12.3 acre site is located at the
northeast corner of Medical Center Drive and East Palomar Street. Existing surrounding
developments include a senior housing project and an apartment complex that is under
construction north of the subject site. Single family residential to the west of Medical Center
Drive and south of East Palomar Street and a 10 acre park site is located to the east.
On June 7, 2000 the Commission considered a request to amend the Sun bow SPA Plan and
Design Guidelines for the Village Center. The original Village Center was envisioned as a
pedestrian-oriented mixed use plan consisting of two story elevations with ground-floor retail and
residential uses on the top. However, due to the limitations of the mixed-use concept envisioned
for the Village Center, the applicant requested an amendment to change the original design
concept to be able to accommodate a more contemporary shopping center. The original
California Spanish theme and pedestrian orientation are proposed to remain.
The Planning Commission recommended that approval of the amendments be subject to certain
conditions and also recommended that the pedestrian component of the original design be
preserved as much as possible, and on June 20, 2000 the City Council approved the proposed
amendments to the Village Center Design Guidelines.
On July 17, 2000 the Design Review Committee conditionally approved the site plan and
architecture featuring an efficient internal circulation system, a centralized parking plaza,
enhanced pedestrian walk-ways, landscaping and building design.
The requested Conditional Use Permits are as follows:
G rocerv Store and Drug Store
. 24-hr. 7 days/week operation
. sale of beer, wine and liquor for offsite consumption
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
. Liquor license be obtained from the ABC and Chula Vista Police Department
. Loading dock walls will be constructed at the rear to block noise from delivery trucks
and loading operations.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
July 26, 2000
Drug Store
. To further reduce potential noise impacts, truck deliveries are limited to one per hour
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
. Limited drive-thru pharmacy for drop-off and pick-up of prescription drugs
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
. A three-car stacking lane shall be provided to serve an expected 5-10 vehicles per hour.
. Security cameras will be installed to record all transactions of the drive-thru pharmacy
Pad Band E drive-thru restaurants
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
. A minimum 8-car stacking lane located outside the ingress and egress points will be
provided.
. Speakers will be turned to the lowest audible volume after 8:00 p.m.
Pad F - Gas Station/Carwash/Convenience Store
. 24 hr 7 days/week operation for gas station
. Carwash
. Sale of beer and wine for offsite consumption
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
.
To minimize traffic hazards or undue congestion from offsite circulation, a deceleration
lane is required to be constructed on East Palomar Street approaching the main
entrance.
Additional security will be provided to the commercial center as a result of the 24-hour
gas station operation
To minimize disturbance to the residents to the south, the operation of the carwash and
sales of beer and wine are limited to hours between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.
A liquor license shall be obtained from ABC and Chula Vista Police Depart.
A minimum of 6 car stacking will be provided for the car wash
To further circulation, no hand-drying will be allowed
Circulation will be counter clock-wise and "Entrance" and "Exit" signs will be posted to
facilitate safe circulation
A Noise Reduction Package will be installed in the dryer units
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-43 approving
Conditional Use Permit for various land uses subject to conditions contained therein.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 7 -
July 26, 2000
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill stated that the City does not have a noise ordinance within commercial
center as it relates to hours of operation and expressed concern with noise impacts produced by
the grocery and drug-store loading docks. The noise reduction as a result of the sound wall at
pavement level of the grocery store is negligible because there is an ascending bank with
residences at the top. The sound wall would need to be at the top of the slope in order for it to
be effective.
Stan Donn, TEP, responded that to help minimize the noise, a condition is included that limits
the delivery of one truck per hour.
Chair Thomas asked what authority the City has to ensure that the landscaping is maintained and
foliage is not allowed to overgrow to the point of inhibiting sight distance.
Director Sandoval responded that a landscape plan is reviewed by a City Landscape Planner to
ensure that it complies with City standards and the project can be conditioned to require its
maintenance, which if not complied with, the City has enforcement authority.
Public Hearing Opened 8:00
Larry Tidball, RHL Design Group/Chevron, 1201 S. Beach Blvd. #207, La Habra, CA, 90631
stated that 6 cars of stacking is available at the southerly entry leading into the car wash, which is
in excess of what would typically be needed for a site like this. The car washes take between 4
to 5 minutes a piece. Most of the wash water is filtered and recycled and with the exception of
approximately 200 gallons a day of water that is not recyclable because it becomes too
concentrated with dirt is discharged into the sewer system and goes out for sewage treatment.
The long driveway exiting the car wash would incorporate a trench drain which would capture
minor drips that would be coming off of the car after they have gone through the air blower so
that there wou Id be no excess water runn i ng off of the site.
Mr. Tidball asked for a correction to Condition #17 of the resolution where it states
"Handwashing, drying, and vacuuming shall not be allowed." To read, "Handwashing and drying
shall not be allowed." Unforturnately the exhibit prepared for the entire shopping center did not
show the vacuum locations and staff took that to read that there was to be no vacuums. The
vacuum units are proposed to be placed along the western portion of the parking away from the
car wash entrance and exit so that customers can either vacuum before or after their wash and
there would be no circulation impact issues.
Additionally, they would like to request that the language on Condition #15 be changed to read
"Hours of operation for the car wash and sale of beer and wine within the convenience store
shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m." The intent has always been to have a 24-hour
Convenience Store, and the restriction on the hours of operation would solely be for the sale of
liquor and the operation of the car wash.
Chair Thomas asked what the anticipated sales volume of gas will be.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 8 -
July 26, 2000
Gabriel Ortega, 9320 Chesapeake Drive in San Diego, stated that the proposed site would be
virtually identical to the site on East H Street next to Jerome's and the volume is anticipated to be
approximately 250,000 gallons per month which will be less in the beginning, but after about
three years will peak out.
Don Glatthorn, Kitchell Development Company addressed the comments made on noise and its
affect to the adjacent apartments to the north and discussion on a potential sound wall at the top
of the slope.
Mr. Gatthorn stated that the noise issue was extensively discussed with staff and there was some
discussion as to whether or notthere was going to be a threshold established because a Citywide
threshold mayor may not exist. In the studies that were performed it was indicated that with the
barrier that would be constructed at the loading docks, the noise level would be below 60
decibels and the height of the wall will be determined at the point of final design.
Another complication with putting the sound wall at the top of the slope. is that the applicant
does not own the property at the top of the slope. The location of the proposed sound wall at the
bottom of the slope represents the general vicinity of the applicant's property line. They will be
required to maintain the landscaping on the slope through a landscape maintenance agreement
with the adjoining property owner. Additional the adjacent property owner was concerned with
having multiple tiered retaining walls located at the top of the slope throughout the project area.
Public Hearing Closed 8:35.
MSC (O'Neill/Willett) (6-0-0-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-00-43
approving conditional use permit for various land uses within the Neighborhood Commercial
center with the following modifications to the resolution:
1. If a noise complaint is made, the City may require the applicant to conduct a noise
analysis (to be paid for by applicant). If based on the results of the noise analysis, the
Planning and Building Department Director determines that the projects violates City
Municipal Code noise standards, the applicant shall provide the necessary mitigations.
The determination of appropriate mitigation will be the sole responsibility of the Planning
and Building Director.
2. That the language to Condition 15 be changed to read "Hours of operation for the car
wash and the sale of beer and wine within the convenience store shall be limited to 7:00
a.m. to 11 :00 p.m.", and
3. That the language to Condition 17 be changed to read, "Handwashing and drying shall
not be allowed."
Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 9 -
July 26, 2000
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
. Director Sandoval reviewed the upcoming calendar schedule and stated that the new
Commissioner,
. Director Sandoval introduced John McCann, the new Planning Commissioner and stated
that Cmr. McCann had a prior commitment and would not be attending the August 9th
meeting, but would be available thereafter.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT at 9:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2000.
Diana Vargas, Secretary to Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: 1
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC-00-59; Special Use Permit to install, operate and
maintain a cellular communications facility consisting of a 65- foot high
monopole supporting nine panel antennas; and an associated equipment area
at 3554 Main Street. (Continued from Planning Commission hearing July
26, 2000.) Applicant: Cox/Sprint PCS
The proposed project is a request for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned
cellular communications facility at 3554 Main Street, the site of the Otay Recreation Center. The
project will consist of a fenced off equipment area measuring approximately 300 square feet, and a
65-foot-high monopole supporting a GPS antenna and nine panel antennas. The monopole location
is proposed behind the Otay Recreation Center, in the northeast corner of the property.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class I Categorical
Excmption from environmental review, minor alteration of an existing public facility, per the
California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC-00-59 (Attachment 2)
recommending that the Redevlopment Agency approve the Special Use Permit based on the
attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution and the conditions and findings contained
therein.
DISCUSSION:
On July 26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for an unmanned cellular
facility consisting of a 65-foot-high monopole supporting nine antennas, and a 300-square-foot
equipment area. A copy of the staff report (without attachments) from that meeting is attached
(Attachment 4), as well as draft minutes from the meeting (Attachment 5).
The Commissioners requested that the project be continued to August 9, 2000 so that:
1. The radius of adjacent land owners noticed regarding the public hearing for the
proposal could be expanded to include residents to the north;
2. Notification of the public hearing could include a photo simulation of the proposed
monopole; and
3. Notification, including a photo simulation, could be posted at the Otay Recreation
Center.
I
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
The notification radius for the August 9'h Planning Commission hearing was expanded from 300
feet to approximately 950 feet, which includes nearly 100 residents to the north and west. In
addition, the notice was sent to both residents and owners of the properties. A copy of the notice
and a diagram of the sites notified are attached (Attachment 6). Notification included a photo
simulation of the proposed monopole (Attachment 7).
A photo simulation and a copy of the notification were posted at the Otay Recreation Center on
Wednesday, August 2,2000.
The Planning Commission suggested that perhaps a monopalm rising above the building would be
more aesthetically appropriate than the proposed monopole. There is currently a row of palm trees
approximately twenty feet high behind the building where the monopole is proposed. According
to the City Landscape Planner, palm trees characteristically grow about one foot per year. At that
rate, it would be approximately 45 years before the trees would be as high as a 65-foot monopalm,
and 25 years before the trees would rise above the roofline of the Recreation Center and be visible
from Main Street. Until the existing palms grow several more feet, a monopalm would appear to
be standing alone, rather than in a cluster of trees.
At the public hearing, the applicant will provide a photo simulation of a monopalm, instead of a
monopole, behind the Otay Recreation Center.
CONCLUSION:
Stalf recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Resolution.
Attachments
I. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution PCC-GO-59
3. Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution
4. Staff Report (without attachments) from July 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
5. Draft minutes from July 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
6. Copy of notice and diagram of sites notified
7. Photo simulation of proposed monopole behind Gtay Recreation Center
.:t
- ".-......--.--
.
-
i I I : i
r I : i ! "I I
TREMONT STREET
I111 ,! I I :: i ii'
[D]] ITrlIIIIIlJI] I
I~IITI~MERY STREET
II~
11111 HIII/IIIIIII i~
ZENITH STREET I
TTJTTl I II I ! I ! i I H~r--:
(J)I L
llLW i I I 111Jill[]-"1
MAIN STREET
:-: r
i I I
I
~
j i
I: I!: Ii j
:!: II i:
I
WEi=
;::: I
16 I
I '
I'
: I ! I i
OTAY
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
, I I
~ I, I
I ' I I
----L.LJ.-.J
~I"
I I I
I ' I '
! I
I
I
i
I I
PRO" IE1/
lOCATIO
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
UNCOLN
BUSINESS
CENTER
I111
~
I I II
I! I!
101-1/11/ II I
I~I I I
BRITION STREET
I
r
,
i
f-.
LlJ
LlJ
a::
,f-.
IU)
Iw
I~
I::;;
, I
I
!
J
HI
! II
.' :
I
'--j
I
I
I
i
I
\
LOCATOR PROJECT COX/SPRINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3
C) APPUCANT:
PROJECT Chula Vista Recreation Center
ADDRESS: 3554 Main Street Request Proposed wireless telecommunications facility consisting
of (9) panel antennas mounted to a 65 foot monopole, along with
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: associated radio, power and telephone equipment located
NORTH No Scale PCC - DO-59 adjacent to the base of the monopole.
.
C:\myfiles\locators\PCCD059,cdr OS/24/00
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PCC-00-59
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY GRANT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PCC-00-59, TO COX/SPRINT PCS TO
CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
AT 3554 MAIN STREET.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit was filed with the City ofChula
Vista Planning Department on May 12,2000 by Cox/Sprint PCS: and
WHEREAS, said application requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a 65-foot high monopole and 300 square foot equipment area
behind the Otay Recreation Center located at 3554 Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class I
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said Special Use Permit
and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
cxterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing: and
WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for July 26, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, at the July 26, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the project to
August 9, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented
at the public hearings with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does
hereby recommend that the Redevelopment Agency approve Special Use Permit PCC-00-59 in
accordancc with the findings and subject to the conditions and findings contained in the attached
Redevelopment Agency Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the
Redevelopment Agency.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August 2000 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
<f
Diana Vargas, Secretary
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT, PCC-00-59, TO COX/SPRINT PCS TO CONSTRUCT
AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
AT 3554 MAIN STREET.
A. RECITALS
I. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject mailer of this resolution is represented
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the
purpose of general description is located at the Otay Recreation Center, 3554 Main
Street ("Project Site"); and
2. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2000 a duly verified application for a Special Use Permit
(PCC-00-59) was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Division by
Cox/Sprint PCS (Applicant); and
3. Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to construct an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a 65-foot high monopole supporting nine
panel antennas, and a 300-square-foot fenced off equipment area on the Project
Site; and
4. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission scheduled and advertised a public hearing
on the Project for July 26, 2000; and
WHEREAS, at the July 26, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the
Project to August 9, 2000; and
WHEREAS, at the August 9,2000 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a
motion to support staff's recommendation for the cellular facility; and
5.
Redevelopment Agency Record of Application
~
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held
before the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on September 12,
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No.
Page #2
2000 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear
public testimony with regard to same.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby
find, determine and resolve as follows:
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearings on this Project held on July 26, 2000 and August 9,
2000 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that the project is a Class 1
Categorical Exemption from environmental review pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15311
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
D. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Redevelopment Agency does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator was reached in accordance with requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings
required by the City's rules and regulations for the issuance of conditional use permits, as
herein below set forth, and sets forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the
stated finding to be made.
I. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general weII being of the
neighborhood or the community.
The proposed cellular facility is necessary to provide and maintain a quality cellular phone
system in southern Chula Vista, specifically providing service for the southern portion of
Third Avenue, commercial areas along Main Street, and nearby residential areas in all
directions. The cellular facility will contribute to the general well being of the community
hy facilitating telephonic communication in the area surrounding said facility.
~
That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or
2.
Resolution No.
Page #3
working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Emissions from cellular antennas have been shown to be below any levels that would cause
hazardous biological effects. In addition, cellular antenna emissions are so far below all
recognized safety standards that they constitute no hazard to public health or safety. The
project has been conditioned that the applicant prove compliance with the accepted ANSI
standards for emissions control.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified
in the code for such use.
Special Use Permit PCC-00-59 requires the permittee to comply with all the applicable
regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use.
The conditioning of PCC-00-59 is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to
the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly
related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adverseIy affect the
general pIan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of PCC-00-59 will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that
said project is proposed in a limited industrial area. With the exception of the elementary
school, the site is adjacent to industrial uses, said uses conforming to the General Plan.
F. TERMS OF GRANT OF PERMIT
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit PCC-00-59 subject to the
following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owner shall:
1. Construct the Project as described in the application, except as modified herein to
allow for the monopole and storage/equipment area. The first 45 feet of the
monopole shall be painted to match the color of the Otay Recreation Center. The
last 20 feet of the monopole, which will rise above the Otay Recreation Center's
roofline, shall be painted gray to blend with the sky. The telephone, electrical and
radio equipment shall be placed in cabinets near the base of the monopole, and a
chain link fence with redwood slats to match the building's exterior color scheme
shall be installed to screen the equipment.
2. Cooperate in good faith with other communications companies in co-locating
additional antenna on pole structures and/or on the tops of buildings, provided said
co-locates have received a conditional use permit for such use at said site from the 7
City. Permittee shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other communications
companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give
Resolution No.
Page #4
rise to a substantial technical level- or quality-of-service impairment of the
permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the
event a dispute arises as to whether permittee has exercised good faith in
accommodating other users, the City may require a third party technical study at
the expense of either or both the permittee and applicant.
3. Comply with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. Within six (6) months of the
Building Division final inspection of the project, the Applicant shall submit a
project implementation report to the Director of Planning and Building which
provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities
of all antennas installed at subject site. The report shall quantify the EMF
emissions and compare the results with currently accepted ANSI standards. Said
report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and
Building for consistency with the project proposal report and the accepted ANSI
standards. If on review the City in its discretion finds that the Project does not
meet ANSI standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.
4. Ensure that the project does not cause localized interference with reception of area
television or radio broadcasts. If on review the City, in its discretion, finds that the
project interferes with such reception, the City may revoke or modify the
conditional use permit.
5. Provide one 2A: IOBC fire extinguisher at a location satisfactory to the Fire
Marshal upon completion of construction.
6. Obtain all necessary permits from the Chula Vista Building Department and Fire
Department.
7. Comply with the City's Municipal Code noise standards. Within three (3) months
of the Building Division's final inspection, the applicant shall submit a report to the
Director of Planning and Building which provides cumulative field measurements
of facility noises. The report shall quantify the levels and compare the results with
current standard specified in the Municipal Code for limited industrial uses. Said
report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and
Building for consistency with the project proposal dated May 12, 2000 and
Municipal Code noise standards. If on review the City finds that the project does
not meet the Municipal Code noise standards, the City may revoke or modify the
permit.
8.
This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions
imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest
related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance
written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the
right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this
reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee
f
Resolution No.
Page #5
of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee can not, in the normal
operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
9. This Special Use Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized or
extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with
Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal Code.
10. Remove the monopole and equipment area and return the site back to its original
condition within ninety (90) days of cessation of use of the monopole.
II. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Redevelopment Agency members, officers, employees,
agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's
approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of
any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and c) Applicant's installation and
operation of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement
to this provision by executing a copy of this Special Use Permit where indicated,
below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an express
condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and
all of Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a site plan which
identifies any and all existing site features which are anticipated to be
disturbed/disrupted by construction activity related to the project and appropriate
notes and construction details which describe the construction methods and
materials to be utilized to restore site features to original condition. Said site plan
is subject to the review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Parks and Recreation or their designees prior to issuance of building
permit.
13. Project site shall be inspected six months subsequent to the issuance of building
permits to check conformance with project plans and conditions of approval.
14. Project site shall be regularly maintained and kept free of graffiti. Anti-graffiti
paint shall be applied to all structures associated with this project.
15. The power source for the project shall be independent of existing site facilities.
Electrical service connections and the locations of related components such as q
meters and transformers shall be coordinated with SDG&E and City ofChula Vista I
Electrician prior to issuance of building permit. Disruption of existing site
Resolution No.
Page #6
improvements and facilities, including site landscaping improvements, resulting
from the installation of said electrical services shall be replaced/repaired in kind
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and
Building, and Director of Parks and Recreation or designees.
16. Damage of existing park grounds and/or facilities resulting from the installation
and/or maintenance of the antenna including but not limited to turf areas,
walkways, irrigation systems, any and all site utilities and fixtures shall be replaced
in kind and under the authority and supervision of the Director of Public Works
and Director of Parks and Recreation or designees.
17. Installation and scheduled maintenance of the antenna and related components shall
be coordinated with parks operation personnel and on-site recreation staff prior to
commencement of work to minimize the potential for conflicts with recreation
programs occurring at the site.
18. Any disruption or interruption of site service resulting from the installation of
and/or continued maintenance of the antenna and related components shall be
mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Director of Parks
and Recreation or Designees.
G. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided
below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have each read, understood
and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution, this document shall be recorded
with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at the sole expense of the property owner
and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned to the Planning Department. Failure to
return a signed and stamped copy of this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the
City Clerk shall indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the
corresponding application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance
without approval. Said document will also be on file in the City Clerk' Office and known as
Document No.
Signature of Representative of
Cox/Sprint PCS
Date
H. ADDITIONAL TERM OF GRANT
This permit shall expire ten (10) years after the date of its approval by the Redevelopment
Agency. After the first five (5) years, the Zoning Administrator shall review this Special 10
Resolution No.
Page #7
Use Permit for compliance with the conditions of approval, and shall determine, in
consultation with the Applicant, whether or not the tower height can be lowered.
1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The Redevelopment Agency directs the Environmental Review Coordinator to post a
Notice of Exemption and file the same with the County Clerk.
J. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Redevelopment Agency that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this
resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further
force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
I(
..
-.
DTAY
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
I
I
n~mr~ERY
]IJJ
ZENITH STREET
IJJDJ ! 11111I1 i I H~
IIIID UJJJllllTIJ
MAIN STREET
I I
I I
~
,
i ' I I
I
I
1/111 i I! 'II' II!
I. . , I II
TREMONT, STREET I
ITITJrm Iii W
rno ITIn 111II IlJ
STREET
I111
I
I
,
i I ! I:
LINCOLN
BUSINESS
CENTER
PROJEC
lOCATIO
I
I
I
/
G[lllTIlIJ
~I I I
BRITTON STREET
I
i
I
I
I
f-
llJ
llJ
0::
f-
en
I
o
I I
I I
Y
llJ
o
<(
'j
\
LOCATOR PROJECT COX/SPRINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1<-
PROJECT Chula Vista Recreation Center
ADDRESS: 3554 Main Street Request: Proposed wireless telecommunications facility consisting
of (9) panel antennas mounted to a 65 foot monopole, "along with
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: associated radio, power and telephone equipment located
NORTH No Scale PCC - 00-59 adjacent to the base of the monopole.
. .
C:lmyfilesllocatorsIPCC0059.cdr OS/24/00
EXHrnTT A.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/00
I
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCC-OO-59; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and
maintain a 65-foot high monopole, supporting nine panel antennas; and an
associated equipment area at 3554 Main Street. Applicant: Cox/Sprint PCS
Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned
cellular communications facility at 3554 Main Street, the site of the Otay Recreation Center. The
project will consist of a fenced off equipment area measuring approximately 300 square feet, and
a 65-foot high monopole supporting a GPS antenna and nine panel antennas. The monopole
location is proposed behind the Otay Recreation Center, in the northeast corner of the property.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class I Categorical
Exemption from environmental review, minor alteration of an existing public facility, per the
California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PCC-OO-59 recommending that the
City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the attached draft City Council
Resolution and the conditions and findings contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The project site consists of the recently constructed Otay Recreation Center, including a
plaza, and a parking lot west of the building. There is 30-40 foot landscape buffer between
the front of the building and the sidewalk along Main Street. The building is set back
approximately 15 feet from the rear property line, where a chain link fence separates the
parcel from the adjacent recreation area of the Otay Elementary School. There is a row
of ten palm trees between the fence and the building.
The parcel is in the midst of an IL zone, and is directly south of the Otay Elementary
School (see Locator, Attachment 1).
13
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/00
2. General Plan. Zoning. and Land Use
General Plan Zoning Curren! Land Use
Site: Research & lL-Limited Industrial Chula Vista Recreation Center
Limited Industrial
North: Public & Quasi-Public IL-Limited Industrial Otay Elementary School
South: Research & IL-Limited Industrial ALLPRO Paint & Body Shop
Limited Industrial
East: Research &
Limited Industrial
IL-Limited Industrial
Roofmg Company
West: Research &
Limited Industrial
IL-Limited Industrial
SDG&E Substation
3. ProDosal
Cox/Sprint proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at 3554
Main Street. The 65-foot high monopole would consist of a pole that would support nine
panel antennas (each of which is approximately six feet long and eight inches wide) and
a GPS oval antenna, approximately four inches in diameter. The portion of the pole below
the Recreation Center's roofline would be painted red to match the building. The upper
portion of the pole, which would rise twenty feet above the building, would be painted
light gray to blend with the sky. Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be
placed in cabinets near the base of the monopole, and a chain link fence with redwood slats
to match the building's exterior color scheme would be installed to screen the equipment.
The proposed site would provide service to the southern portion of Third Avenue,
commercial areas along Main Street, and nearby residential areas in all directions. The
proposal would require relocating two existing palm trees behind the building in the
northeast comer.
In accordance with Section 19.48 (Unclassified Uses), Conditional Use Permits are
required for uses listed in this section of the Zoning Code, and shall be considered by the
City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.
4. Analvsis
The City encourages applicants of wireless telecommunications facilities to co-locate with
other companies whenever possible in order to keep the number of new poles and
structures to a minimum. The applicant for this project investigated several sites on or
near Main A venue, including a SDG&E high voltage transmission line approximately five I 'f
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 7/26/00
blocks north, where a Pacific Bell facility is situated. It was determined that this site was
too far away to accomplish Cox/Sprint's intended radius of transmission expansion.
As another possible site, the applicant investigated the SDG&E substation directly west of
the Recreation Center, where there are several tall utility poles. SDG&E would not allow
antennas within the fenced area of the substation, but possibly outside the fenced area
approximately 75 feet away, where it would be much more conspicuous than in a cluster
of the existing poles.
Because the Chula Vista Recreation Center is the tallest building in the vicinity, the
applicant chose that site so that more than two thirds of the proposed monopole could be
hidden behind or blended into the building.
With the attached conditions of approval, the proposal is consistent with the City of Chula
Vista Municipal Code and the General Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission Resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Draft City Council Resolution
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Site Plan
I~-
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday,
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Chair Thomas, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Willett, Cortes, and
O'Neill
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner
Stan Donn, Temporary Expert Professional
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-59; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and maintain a
65-foot high monopole, supporting nine panel antennas; and an
associated equipment area at 3554 Main Street. Cox/Sprint PCS
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that Cox/Sprint PCS is requesting a
conditional use permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications facility at
3554 Main Street, the site of the Otay Recreation Center. The project consists of a fenced off
equipment area measuring approximately 300 sf and a 65-foot high monopole supporting a GPS
antenna and 9 panel antennas.
The portion of the pole below the recreation center's roofline would be painted red to match the
building and the upper portion of the pole would rise 20 ft. above the building and would be
painted gray to blend in with the sky. Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be
placed in cabinets near the base of the monopole and a chainlink fence with redwood slats to
match the building's exterior color scheme would be installed to screen the equipment.
The City encourages applicants of wireless communications facilities to co-locate with other
companies. The applicant investigated several site on or near Main Street including the SDG&E
substation, where there are several tall utility poles. SDG&E does not allow antennas within the
fenced area of the substation, but possible outside the fenced area approxi mately 75 feet away.
Ip
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 26, 2000
The applicant chose the recreation center building because it is the tallest building in that vicinity
so that more than 2/3rds of the monopole could be hidden or blended into the building. A
monopalm was not considered because it would rise considerable higher than the existing palm
trees.
Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-OO-59
recommending that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the conditions
and findings contained in the resolution.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Hall inquired if Cox/Sprint would pay a fee for the usage of the building and, if so,
how much is that fee and where does it go.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Resource Manager, responded that the City Council approved a
Master Lease Agreement with Cox/Sprint PCS for sites on City facilities which range in monthly
payments from $1,400 to $1,600 per month, and the money is typically General Fund revenue.
However, there have been exceptions when it made sense from a construction stand point to
build in a benefit to the existing or adjacent site. For example; there is a proposal to install a
communications antenna on the light pole of an existing park site and there is a field adjacent to
this park that has no light poles. Staff recommended that the monies be paid upfront in order to
pay for the installation of light poles in the adjacent field in lieu of monthly payments, therefore
the residents would reap the benefits of having a lit field.
Commissioner Hall inquired if it would be possible to redirect a portion, if not all, of these
monthly rental fees back into the recreation center.
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney responded that the Planning Commission could not make
this a condition of approval, however, staff could include it as a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to the City Council.
Chair Thomas asked if there was anything the City could do, i.e., conditioning a CUP stating, "If
approached by another company, co-location will be accepted."
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission's jurisdiction within the
Condition Use Permit would be to condition it to encourage the applicant to work with other
companies, however, it would be very diffjcult to make it a requirement because previous
testimony from other applicants has revealed that when they looked into co-locating, it was not
feasible because of physical constraints, not a lack of interest from either party.
Mr. Meacham further stated that co-location is a common practice when it is technologically and
geographically feasible. The incentive to the companies is that by sub-leasing with another
company they can help defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Willett reminded the Commission that the Planning Department is currently
working on a study that will identify the location and type of cellular antenna facility that is
currently in the City.
17
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 26, 2000
Commissioner Cortes stated that he is encouraged to hear that staff is working on a
comprehensive plan and hopes it will include guidelines that can assist the Commission in
making a more informed decision.
Ms. Hull stated that the City can establish guidelines for a Citywide policy for the overall
placement of facilities.
Public Hearing Opened 6:36
Michael Sloop, Sprint, 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 320, San Diego, stated they looked at
various locations in the surrounding area of Third and Main Street in an attempt to find an
optimal location to get good coverage for that area of the City. The only feasible location that
was found, because of the building height, was the recreation center.
Mr. Sloop reaffirmed that co-location is desirable when optimal physical conditions exist, and as
long as the competitor's equipment does not hinder or adversely affect an existing facility, it is
economically desirable because sub-leasing helps defray some of the costs.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting when a similar
request was being made, the applicant submitted renderings of different innovative designs that
can be integrated into with the architecture of the building, and was wondering if the applicant
had looked into other designs.
Mr. Sloop responded that they did look into such possibilities, however, the unique sloping of the
recreation center roof-line precluded the use of an alternative design. Additionally, the
monopalm was also considered, but was rejected because even at maturity, the existing palm
trees that are part of the landscaping at the rec center, would be considerable shorter than the 65
feet, which is the height of the monopole.
Cmr. Castaneda stated that a tremendous amount of time, effort and money was expended to
bring to fruition the recreation center, which has brought a sense of pride and ownership to the
surrounding community, and he is reluctant in making a hasty decision that could diminish the
aesthetics of this building.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he supports the project at this location and is encouraged that
the City or the rec center will reap the benefits of the revenue it produces.
Commissioner Hall stated that although he shares some of Cmr. Castaneda's concerns with the
diminished aesthetics of the building, he would support approving the proposal with a
recommendation to the City Council that the revenues it would generate would be diverted back
into the recreation center.
Chair Thomas stated that regardless of the revenue this facility would generate, he is not
convinced that this is the best location for it because of the previously stated comments on the
building aesthetics.
If
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
July 26, 2000
Commissioner Willett inquired about the scope of information that the comprehensive plan will
contain.
Beverly Blessent, Senior Planner, responded it would contain the name of the provider, what
type of facility it is, i.e. monopole!monopalm, or a stealth facility.
Cmr. Willett recommended that the range and frequency of each of these locations be included
in the plan as well as the elevation above sea level and the topography.
Public Hearing Re-Opened 7:40.
Commissioner Hall inquired of the applicant if he had any information that he could share with
the Commission with respect to future technological advances in this industry that would render
this type of facility obsolete.
Mr. Sloop responded that the technology would be satellite personal communication and in his
opinion, it would take a quantum leap in technology before satellites can handle the total
number of phone calls. This is what makes cellular systems work, the fact that you can
decentralize the antennas and repeat the use of either frequencies or codes.
Public Hearing Closed 7:45.
Commissioner Hall stated that since public hearing notices can oftentimes be overlooked as junk-
mail, and the apparent lack of community participation at tonight's hearing would indicate that
perhaps the community is not fully aware of what is being proposed and conceivable there
could be a negative community response once the facility is built. Cmr. Hall asked how
extensive was the noticing effort.
Director Sandoval responded that a 10 day notice was placed in the newspaper and the mail
noticing radius is 500 ft. to the surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Castaneda stated he concurs with Cmr. Hall's previous comments and as stated
earlier, "a picture is worth a thousand words", therefore, he would make the following motion:
MSC (Castaneda/Thomas) (5-1-0-0) that this item be continued to the August 9th Planning
Commission meeting and direct staff to re-notice along with a copy of the simulated
photograph that was presented to the Commission tonight and that the notice and photograph
be posted at various locations at the recreation center. Motion carried with Commissioner
O'Neill voting against.
/7
~~ft-
~~
...........~~=::-
~ --=-=
Cl11' OF
CHUIA VISfA
?lANNiNG ANCJ bUilDING DEPARTMeNT
.\ugust 2. 2000
Re: PCC-OO-59 Cox/Sprint PCS !\10nopole at Otay Recreation Center - 3554 Main Street
Dear Neighbor:
Cox/Sprint PCS is proposing to install a 65-foot-high monopole for wireless
telecommunications behind the Otay Recreation Center at 3554 Main Street. The pole, as
simulated in the enclosed photograph, will rise 20 feet above the building's northeast
comer. The bottom portion of the pole will be painted to match the building. The top
portion of the pole will be painted to blend with the s1.;'. The proposal also includes a
300-square-foot equipment area at the base of the pole, which will be surrounded by
chain link fencing with slats matching the color of the recreation building.
Tnis proposal went before the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission on July 26,2000
and was continued to:
DATE:
TIME:
PL.-'.CE:
Wednesday, August 9, 2000
6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers in the Public Services Building
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
You are imited to attend ,he public hearing and/or submit any 'written comments or
petitions to the Planning Commission via the Planning Department no later than noon on
:he date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Kimberly Vander
Bie, Associate Planner, Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista
Ci\'ic Center. 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista. CA 9]910, or call (6]9) 69]-5105.
Pi ease note Case Number PCC-00-59 in all correspondence.
Sincerely.
r,
/ " -
c//' I ( ~ / 1....2.
'~v'o-<.-J-/ I../~..(L..,. ~
/":
l\.i:nberiy V 2..t~rler Bie
.-\ssociate Pl~L'1er
;;0
.:2703 ~OU:=,T~ LV::~'J'J:: . _::-U:....:...\i; ::;-.:.... ,2.;!...!~C)~hJi.; =: 9~ [I
ATTACHMENT 6
'-'c,' :. -_,....,.._ ~",.,.., -"0-'
".lmMoblt.~.l.a_... .
,..,....,.
..:.
.
.
..~ :
.
.
. .
. . .
" . .
. . .
. . .
. "
" .
.
0\.
>'
"'",
~. ~"'-.._,.".~..:. I
.
.
. . .
. ,. ,. "
. :.
. " . . .
. j' . . .
'. . . . .
'. . i j' .
. .
. c. . .
.
. ...
-----------
BETHUNE WY
-.--------
'''-'.'..'...'''.'..'.1
. ;. ,~~__.._ _ .__ L "'
__n._._______
i.:.
. '
,. ... .....,. '----.
__-'--_..:._~____.LIII_
.
. :.
i; :
. .
.
.
,. :.
I. !:..,
CARVER ST
~-----~-
, "
~~. .L~~~~_J:j_~:_t~:J
I 1
. ... '. . '. ..,. ,. ..1. I
_;'_LJ_.:~
ANITA ST >-
, ---,----~--~---'---,Z
. :' I.: . 1.1<(
.~.:.i.;.'...,.i.r:--1~
. , '--'<(
~":'_J
.'.'.".\.".'.~_.'!...:..~~
,
........
"
-.. .1.
!~~_-.I
~...' .
.
1
,.,.,.
, ,
I,
. ;..1..'.
.'.:...i. .. I.I.T.
, -->,~-
--~n-II
.. .;wi.I.'.1
.___~l.._l
<< MO
~-~
'i
EMONT ST
, '
I !', ! ,
'",',.'.1.'.','1
..l.....:.._~~_
.1. ~,':r~ i. ~:iJ
....J__..L.1._~;:J
i .
~. ~. :. .. .: ,. -:. .
;w_"'-__~_Li.!.__ ._
,I-~----,--,--,-----
:Z. : , I
0,. ,. . ,. '. ,. ,. . '" . '"
.:::E~_: ._~_ _____
~
w
0-
.
.
---_.~
--,--------...
.'. ...;. '.
.,..'.
-~...._--
... ;.
. ,...
"~--~-._---
.
.----- .---------
AN(;u~ wi
..:---
. C::'. '
~---=-=~-~ ~:-.
.!--~m:~____r_:
.._~,~-:-...'.
~
.
ALVOCA WY
.
.--- .
'"
~
<;,
z
-<
GOMERY ST
--=-.1. .~
"1
. .. I ~
r------.I..
~~.L_
:l-r-
I. ~. .1'"
~---~
i. .,.1.,
~---
i.I.!.
~ _~~~-=-:-'~ ,I
'.
....
.. . ~ ~. ., . . . . . .. - .
....
......
.
q,
<;\
~
. t. Q'3\ I'
SDG&:. . . .
"'"
~.._--':-
<<.
~.-. .
.
.
. .
. . -.~~-:~ i~
.'. DonL..... :-- :-
I. M~.ta~,!-;:. ".- ::-
:._.1
:.- ,.---'- . :':.- . ..... .
:.- f. ,'._.J '. _ .__ .a :=" Su ..... O~ ~-
i.__ 1.-..- ,...- '<A..Iv^i!~. ...... '. NGEAV
!.~J~-_c~:.--,- -~ '.-~: :::~}g,. ....... l.~ j _ ~ \_ '1-; I
, . ... ,. :.- -:-----'ZL_: _ .=--()~.-=-_ 1/ J 1 I, ....
~ ~~~1T~1 ~~~c~E~~..~:;k~~~~~W: ~.~ ~
-"-~''!.~'! :'!....i!~ '. ~.,.~ 1:::'= - -TAMAR!NDO..wy__
~~~j ,~:-~i~;t-~=- ~...~:~:~!.~'.'.""
~-_~-~ . ,. .'..1 ~ -C:.=-- ; I. i i i : , ! I : ," i
. J:. _ , i..,.,.,...I.'..I...,... .IW_.;....
C'/
"
I
1 .
I Otay Park
1--,--,--
I
,
,
!
.
.
.
.
--.--
.
.
-.--~-,
j-;-
.
-,
, : :iT:l. I, " i c:
.. .,....'.....'.... ---
,:1'>
.".,---~--.
~.J.,....J.,...'.'..'.i
--~'.ioo,....ia,...ia,. /
. -~~-~J,+-;L--1
.-----.----..1......."'..1 .
i~lJ.lliL-,----,----
Otay
EI'mentary
School
I .
"D'
r.__
.~.
)>.
z._
O.
n'
-;'
.
Loma Verde
Elementary
5cht.ol
.
r--;
C;
,
,.
, -
-.
.
'-
"
. '
,.
i-
....
U .
0:
W .
..',0..',-
'<D.
~ --
.
.
~ ,. ~-.,-J
. '
-~~.-
'~~ -~----
.
.~----.: .
~ a -
-.-.-
I'
.
,-
>~_L':..._~ .--~~. r I
~:~ i'~ . i:i::J L!-
. I. I j. .---i' ~
'~'~~ ,~~~;j:
:. r; I>:. !. W,. ,. iZ~;-
~--. : ~,,':~[~~~J~~~~t
.;. ,. _ '. .J~i. :. 1 ,. '. ,'Of.
.. .1. ~sti,i{~L cr~_J; -I~[~:=J ,~~...J~
;-- ~ - ., ,. '. -1~I' "--1 H 't
~. .. '..-------, r---~----+--_ J_"'+--, ~ .
. -: :,' . :. . 1 l,-"-+=-,. ;__~,':. ,. 1 .
:~~r~r-:- ~~11' I' i~ t:8,
F~I: . I~ \~--i ~~;j .~:~__~,I ': !' .t~
'11i,\ .;--: ',0Q~YCT~J., I. i. J h~'
\ I. 'I i. ", .;. + r-.__, '. ,
i."~ . 1 .:., f-~. r-;r i;~ c-_-<
'------'--~~.-------' '_III-L~I I. ,~_.
I.IOlJaMhUN'E-SL . "
. '. i. I !I. I.: r
:~.L!!Ili.'.
/
~.
>E
q,Y
',-yi
,
,
i'i.
Ii
,
.
L
PROJECT LOCATION
coin Buslne..
Center
.~~
---"--'
----._----~
MAIN ST
---------.
.
,
::u :.
'm
'm
10
n
-;
'.
----- -----~
__~J_TION,ST
NOTICING BY RESID~NTS
PCC - 00-59: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
APPLICANT COX/SPRINT
SI1EADDRESS: 3554 MAIN STREET
-------.-------.
.' .1
--.---'----
.
~i--.~.-.___:_--,--:.-~
. .' ,.1 .
-----'----'-------_~__L.~_
.
- ~~=-;-~
.
iI~-i
.-
.
"
,
1
I
1 !,:./,.
; , \\.1 I
----~----__.J L---1
----_.~
-.._-~~.
r''-~'-_~I_
:.: ! .
, . I -
Li .1 1 .
! ;I~
,-,1
~T-r:-F
I. !.~~
,. ".
.J
-
'"
I
I
.
----r-r.-
:. ~. I
.1 I
~
w
'<(~'------..
~
.
Sentry MIni Storag.
BOJl-it Mobil. &to..,.
I'
.
! :.,,.
'1 C-
. .: i.!:j!
.~-:'~,,"-------~--=--=:::ii:...~.:.!!.'
I I,.
_.i,.I.~
-----..----
--;:---'~
,".-
~~~
~a::'
--.-
.
,;J.j
...
CD
-
C
CD
(,)
C
o
:;:;
III
I!!
u
CD
D::
III
-
I/)
:>
..!!!
::s
J:
(,)
I
CD
-
in
'tJ
CD
I/)
o
Q.
o
...
c..
(fJ
(,)
c..
C)
t:
:2
'5
.<>
-
C
';:
Q.
(fJ
><
o
(,)
...
.E
z
o
i=
:3
::J
:ii:
(fJ
o
I-
o
J:
c..
-
o
<J)
"
~
.I::
t:
o
t:
(;j
C)
t:
:;<
o
.Q
o
o
o
N
.I::
"
~
'"
::!:
t:
<J)
"'"
.!!!
o
"5
.I::
D..
ATTACHMENT 7
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 2.. :
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V-OO-14: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
deny a variance request to maintain a fence with a maximum height of
6'6" within the front yard setback. A maximum fence height 013'6" is
permitted in the front yard setback. The site is located in the R- I Zone,
with a General Plan designation of Residential.
The project applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance
request to maintain fencing that exceeds the allowable fence height for residential
properties. Section 19.58.150 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that fences located within
the required front yard setback not exceed a height of 3'6". The subject fencing ranges in
height from approximately 5'6" to 6'6". This variance request was denied by the Zoning
Administrator based upon the finding that there are no special circumstances or hardships
applicable to the property that would justify granting a variance to exceed the allowable
fence height.
The project is exempt from environmental review as a minor change in land use (CEQA
Section 15305).
RECOMMENDATION:
Q That the Planning Commission deny the variance request.
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located at 146 "G" Street in the R-I Zone. The project site consists of
two parcels that total 11,700 in lot area. A single-family residence is situated on the
property. The subject property maintains a 90-foot street frontage along "G" Street.
V ehicular access is provided to the site via two separate driveways situated on "0"
Street. Surrounding uses consist of single-family residences.
According to the Zoning Code, "The purpose of the R-I Zone is to stabilize and protect
the residential characteristics of the areas so designated and to promote and encourage a
suitable environment .fiir .family life. The R-I Zone is basically intended to provide
communities primarily for single~family detached homes and the services appurtenant
thereto." The R-I Zone calls for a minimum lot size of 7,000 square-feet.
/
Page 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
ANALYSIS:
Project Description:
The applicant is proposing to maintain fencing/fence columns built within the required
front yard setback for the site (25 feet) that exceed the allowable fence height of 3 '6".
The subject fencing has been constructed along the northern (front) property line, as well
as portions of the eastern and western property lines.
Fence pilasters that range in height from 5'8" to 6'6" have been constructed along the
northern property line. A low block wall ranging in height from approximately 2' to 3'4"
has been constructed between the pilasters at the north of the property. Wrought iron
fencing would be placed between the pilasters on top of the low wall. The wrought iron
fencing would project above the fence columns.
Fencing constructed along the eastern and western property lines within the ITont yard
setback consists of wooden planks placed on top of an existing block wall. Fencing along
the eastern and western property lines has already been constructed and ranges ITom
approximately 5'8" to 6'6' in height.
Staff is concerned that this particular fencing creates a visual obstruction for vehicles
backing out of each of the two driveways on the property. Section 12.12.130 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code requires that fences not exceed 2'6" in height in areas that are
within five feet of the front property line and five of the driveway, unless they are at least
50 percent open so as to not have horizontal elements that exceed eight inches in width
(see Attachment "D"). The wrought iron portion of the fence along the northern property
line would meet the 50 percent openness requirement, however, the fence posts exceed 8
inches in width (approximately 18 inches in width). Portions of the low wall constructed
on the northern property line cxceed 2'6" in height and are also not in conformance with
Section 12.12.130. It should be noted that the proposed fence is situated in the public
right-of-way and would be subject to an encroachment permit at any height. If the
applicant were to be granted a variance, an encroachment permit would have to be
obtained, and the fence would have to be modified to conform with the aforementioned
requirements of Section 12.12.130.
The only plans submitted for the project can be reviewed in Attachment "B." The plans
that were submitted for this variance request are substandard and only consist of a hand
drawn elevation. Staff will present pictures of the project site and surrounding properties
on Power Point at the July 19th hearing.
On April 14, 2000 the City of Chula Vista Zoning Administrator considered the fence
height variance request and denied it because the required findings for a variance, as
prescribed by Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.14.190, could not be made. Listed
below are required findings for a variance along with the findings made by the Zoning
Administrator pertaining to this variance request.
0<..
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. Said hardship may incfude practical difficuIties in deveIoping
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.
Zoninf{ Administrator Findinf{: There are no hardships associated with this
property that would justify the granting of a variance for fence height. The
property is not substandard with regard to lot size, shape, street ITontage,
topography, etc. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a fence that is
3.5 feet in height at the front property line. The need for a variance has been
created by the property owner because the subject wall/fence was not constructed
in accordance with the height provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The
applicants also did not apply for nor receive the required building permit for the
fence.
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 of thc rccipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
Zoninf{ Administrator Findin!!,: The variance is not needed to enjoy substantial
property rights enjoyed by others. An adequate security fence could be
constructed that is in conformance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
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.
Zonin!!, Administrator Findin!!,: The variance request would materially impair the
purposes of the public interest since it involves the construction of a fence that
creates a traffic safety hazard.
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.
Zonin!!, Administrator Findin!!,: The granting of this variance will not adversely
affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
AppIicant's Appeal:
The property owners state in their letter of appeal that the fence is needed for security
reasons. The appellants also state that the fence is considered by surrounding neighbors
to be attractively designed and an asset to the neighborhood. The appeal letter further
states that there are many fences in the Chula Vista Area that do not meet fence height
requirements. including thc fence of their westerly neighbor (please refer to Attachment
""A").
3
Page 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
It is important to note that the applicant submitted a variance request as a result of City
Code Enforcement action. The City received letters of objection to the proposed fence
during the administrative review and notification process that can be reviewed in
Attachment "A."
CONCLUSION:
As stated above, the Zoning Administrator previously denied this variance application.
The variance was denied because there are no special circumstances applicable to the
property that would justify the granting of a variance to exceed the allowable fence height
of 3 '6". Staff has noted traffic safety issues associated with the proposed fencing, due to
the decreased visibility of the public right-of-way along "G" Street. Staff would
recommcnd that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to
deny this variance request.
Attachment "A" - Locator Map
Attachment "8" - Letters regarding project
Attachment "C" - Resolution of denial
Attachment "D" - Municipal Code language
H: home/plunning/stevexp/zavOO 14.rpt
'/
.t
'--
.Fe'
~/"<\\\ .--c/ \/,<"",5, . . ,,-<\'/ . /\/\,//
...'\.:0ifRSi;I--\,,/'j,\(.; ,,,'~::\"\:::, .\:~cI'C( '\".. \ ~ \'s~~~'\-;\/:Jd, '~\-~\
~....~' " ~ "" ; I "'----", \, . I '~' '-"''t-- ...... I I 1,...,,,// ,-:;!:
T \C-- ' \ -'1 I ,,\,..- I.' \1'-0"'''- \' , -
\. 'c \ .__\.....-~ I . \ .....--..'.--- . \ >".-.- ......... \ \ ~ "I'" \ __."'--\ r-:
~ ~ 't\" \" I ~r-~, 1,/1 \.)'",""",- \ , \ \) '\ 1-1...... \ f"'\ --y
\ \ y, _\1 I -\ '\:'---'", I,.~ ,~I \ , \..".." ,\ \ ...~.,e.-\oe------ I
). " 1.....\ ,.....,jX- \ ........-\ / \ i \ \ \ '-.....1.-- L /"'\ \ ~...~.- :;;.<, ...,.(\ I
I. __ \ . I" I I' ,__", \ "","', U I
.-\ \ II.).. ....- ~ \.---\ \.--" /,..-"\ \ \, ',..-- \ ..~.I ___?~. \ _" ,I-
/ >- .....,-- I' " ,,"\ / ' ....1...' :----r -- ~
'v-"I' "-,, I \.. "\ \-'.. - ,\:""\....----' 0'"
~' "'. ,~../. \ /..... \-;/' .... ..... .\~... -""\
'\ \...-:--- ~.." \ . .-\ '..- ..- ~. ' ~.\\
~::\ ''r''t\'\'\\ UJ" \\ ',~CmnN., \:\ I \\ I"~-:
~\,)~ 'I- <-IK~~ / ~~
D-~ ~Sf~\. y I '_'~I \~}\vj, I/)J _ (.
\:-\-\t~ \~\~.Il 01~-: \~) ).~5?..G:-\;\"~~--(-I~\\\\~ ..
~" ,,- ...\\ ~\ \ \J :\/\ \ , /'\ \ I -' "G ..~.... , , I I
\ y-, ~. I ('"1'''
" \ '_/\ .... .' '\ I I ' , ,..-I."~ . \..'-11..\, I \ \ I...,. __..' ~__
\' ,I '\~"\..-' I"" -...,...- ,~
\ .>6'ff'" \ \ 1 " ; ......--\' \ ,'I\/\'\ /~ "I -,
.~e-;,...'p;b~~~1 , \ I...\'"("\~\' '0 ./...--...\,.\ ',.j '\1';..... '. ~("\ I i ~?
-- "'" I. ~ . r::'\ '0.J.-\ - ' , "'-rd'Y- ,/ , \ \~! / r:: ..---;~ \
\ \ ''c'' ' I j,.\,./ , ' 1 \ ',,< I I ." r: !," V
..'" --' 'J' ','---; . \\~" '" I',....
"I..,~.\ '~'..\.'.}~\"f\\\ tJJ>. ~."/\Y\\\ ,.'.;," '. \ . \<~~-\ \..../\//1, C\ \-..~~:. ~A 7~T\\/
'\-t', \ \ . I,}..-'- ....---1\\ \{\tl-\ I -r,_l...Lv " .. . / \ 1-' \ \/\ \/.. .- VI '("
_. I 1\.'\/ ,\.../~ '. \,' , '. . 1"":'/1..,) (1'-<1.'1;&,j 1 \ ," i __'<:, ,,\., 'J...~
-,,/ ../~\....:---I I '\--"\-1, I \ ~C '\ ,.' 1 /")/j /if- : )...,:"'\ I __~>~:Q) /~ "
.<-\ ' , \ ' ,V' ~~:/\ /1-':""-J t--/\ /',;' i \. \. ."..-(~\ \.../"\ ) '- ,/., \ \
~'" \ II' '..\ '11\ \ ,,,./.\-A<~\ Yj \ ~ L' I ':""'-.._l._" ,/.,," :. \/"\' I \' I f "~ \ 1
\,' Y--.----I I \ .-'-c. ,;>-r ,/ \- '.-- '---I '. " \ , . ,.'_ \ _-' , ',. I
, \ ...., .' --;:,r,../" , ^ /, :., '...", I,"" ".... I ......."\ ',-.<,
1 : I '..'. '\Jb""~,' \ V ,~.___\' /'-Y", ; '. J./ - \,.......\ ..\ C \........\ .\ Y /f" I
'.'. " l \.___-\~.-.- \. r \ \. \. ',\y{___J (' '\..---", ( \ \ ,<." ,)/ ,.../",~n \ ..._..\.... \ '\....\ j ~- \~.._.-~ l ';'\
\. " ~\ \. ... ',,, \. I. " /. / ~ \ ~ _~, \. " 1/,) /. IV''''' \ -j 1.--- \ ._ \.' ,/
;.-.r-- i \ .---' ...--'\ . \ ... ',' " ..----\ r- \. \ \ .-\ ", ',' /t' \ . ~ . ._,,-' , ...----., ',.....-" '''-'''
, I ,/^"~-- ,---- I, \ \ \-P-~ y~ I ...;'-'--\ 'C...., /.-/ \ " \ ",,-- '.. . \' \ ,__" ./ ) , I
, J / ' ' ," '/'-" ,/,, ". ' .' /', ' '.." '." . ." -'I I~.. ./ ~\
~'-~--\ \\ \. ..~.\ \" ..--A--'-~-,~"-'/ ,:'_" '\,)<\" \ \.....--",:.~".~ \../ y..-, '\ / \ \ ,
.. ./ !.--' I \ /-'\ /, \ ...-'/~,~, \ , 1 f, \ , ;~\.._< ,\..-- ,} ,,--', \ \
'C--'/' I' -- __\\'" '....V..,I>-, '__- ..\--..\ jV"
\..--'\ \..--'} ..\ \,--/ y----- \-'----V~~-- ~.'i IV./~~\---'I \ \~ 1,\. 1- ~
\-'::-"\ \--:.\ __-\ \ \ __F--.'.....--- ',--/.... \---..\--- '- (\>-:-~~<\' \ \c. \."~.--\ 'r....".'\.~__) '---- \ \ \ \
~.~. \ I\-\.,K'\~\ \\, \(f>.(1\\----/~~... y:3;:..~.~{ \ -\.\/f. \--t:) i1R~1;.1j,---r~\' \-J
' "'. \ ' , , ()I .---- ('.---\ \ '. --'-" ,\ ",......-Ll" ,;,--(' \.. \ I
' ,\, \ ., ..- ....- V- _J. \----\.-...- \''':., ,,'. .' "..., \ \ \ ,
\ .. \~\ \ I.' >/,:;_;"'\\ _\'i t:---'("\ \/~.\ \.....1-~, :\j.j'....J.-- \1'\ \ \ \--1 ~\....-' \
, II .--c " \.. '0' I -\'~ ...., ~ , ,'./, \ I . I \"
'. -- / '. , , ., " ,"... ,..-.., , ""/\' ' .
. '/ ,...,...., \ '.' I ....," ,~\ ./, 1....-\ . ,,,', , ..( I ,\,
:.---- .' \" \ ,'" \______ \ ' II -- , \' ...) .--- I' ' _" \ "\ \,
---;\'\i'.\ .\' \ \ \ . ~ .--1,~1 _:J.\ \ \y\) // ...,<-\~'~\ \. \ \ j..~l--\ \ \ \ 1,...1
\ \ '- ,~ J4:::::.\" ......' \ \\__---- .._____< \ \ \ ,-Y'\ '. \ "..> ,,,.-,---\ '\j....\-' \ _
., \ ., ....., \ n \...----\--\,~~ \ ~ -..-. ---", \ , ~ ...0-\'\ \ \ ~..~-\ 'I \ \ \ \ /\
y.. \ I : I \ 1 'v'''Z-~ ,----'.,,;' 1,.----->\'\" I ',,) (' 1 , ' , I I... ___ ---" \
~, ,: I \, ..'e. ~\ 1--, ~.---\..I \ \ \ : ~ \..: \ ;,..y- .....--\ WI' I \,
", , \ '. \ \ \ 'I.-----" 0'1'\ \., \~ ..J. \__--- '.. \ \;;.---- _..,--\ '- \ Y- .__"1: '. \...>-
I "" \ \ ., \', .J--- '" . ,'\ ~____., \ /. \ y~'- ~ \ \ ,.....-:,-.," , \ \ \ .
\ \ \ \ \ I." :. \ \ '.---- \ '. \/~< ",/ ,,,'~I, \ ' \' , ' ,
\ 'I \ \ \ ~ ..__'\", \" 1.\< \~.:: '\ ' / /\ ': I .. ,,>-' ( .;::;--\\\ \..w- \
\ \ \ y---- ----\'"\ \ \ \ \~~~\ \--y ~ ~<~/\_) \-..>:) \---:), \ \ \..\"y,(\ \ /~
I ~ ,'.,' "..... ,......,/"... v' J e./I I,"'''' ',,,...., 'I I ,.-'-" ..
.---1--' \, , . , w""-" '\ A \ '--......' ,... \ ______ /
\\:f\' -\/~ 1\ ' \ , \ 62' 'U--\----(\ >/ '-:""."'~K~..( '-::'~,\ \. ;'~-.'\\'~'
'. -\ \. \ \ '- \ I, ,\ \ ' "'- : '- __,.-, ,_"..--" ,~' '_\ \ --\ '
, 'I I I:' I~' ' ~. '~ ____ I >...\ \ '\ I ./.--., .
'f'i \, __ \ \ " \ \ l ' i--.'~--\ ,\!~\ ...\\.._ \.~'
I \\ ~ '\ ~ :..?-ct- I' ~\ '. ,/, \ \ , ' \ '~~'''''\----''. \ \..-' -j '<"'" ,
\ 'r' ~ ~ ---r\ \ \ ' \__.-\ /;\ \ ., , \ \ \ ~"-\-"" "---/ y'" r- (\--\ \
.eJ-Js.....I------------\.ly-/ OvX 1 '. ~/ LY 'G() ~
LOCATOR PROJECT MARY JENNINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C!) APPUCAIff. S-
PROJECT 146 "G" Street ZONE VARIANCE
ADDRESS: S- Request: Proposed "Red Iron Decorative" fence with "Decor
SCAlE: FILE NUMBER: Stone" columns.
NORTH No Scale ZAV - 00-14
h. lhome\planntnglhector\locatorslzavOO 14 .cdr 06114/00
ATTACHMENT "A"
c:1
-p
p
E
-,
7'
V
.-S\
'9'
i.....
o
_1
I
-i
()
l.Il
I'
'}.
r
,1
5\
:.
~
f
l\CG
L'J ~>> ~
_ I<:~_O~_ \ ~6
- it . :r-a
':Q, -:
------6. '., '\ >
--~--- ---'-~"""7
----------~---~ '>
~----~ \.:J\ "-
~I -____,__ -4 \\2) : I
- ~ K.o) -'T
_ i-----.- :- ~I
i ~- ~
I[ ~ ~ ~~>
I _.__
I f::.'o
r--- ~ II .': '>>-
~/
~ ~ -&/":>-
r- ~ ,," ~
l,r ~ \(j" i \'{~N
~() '> ~l)
f- ~o~
~ :;:.
I ,'"
f Q ~u~
I I ~ l").>
l ~ ~ €5~
- D,
I ~ ~~ ffi
I ~ 1=+>
. e "j}C4:
\'" n-
(,P
6
-
~
-D
~
,
-3'fi
"1
J'.
ATTACHMENT "B"
-- --~ ~-----
r.;-;:...)
\:r','.
I am the mother of six children and the grandmother of eleven, six of
these grandchildren live at 146 "G" St. in Chula Vista. As a grandmother I
want to provide protection for my grandchildren as best I can,
.
Last October or November my 7 year old and 2 year old grand
daughter's were playing in their front yard, a car with two men pulled up in
front a 146 "G" St. The man that was sitting in the back seat opened the back
door of the car and was telling the 7 year old girl to corne over to his car,
Her father was in the side yard out of the sight of the two men but
where he could see his children, He could see the fear on his 7 year old
daughter's face. When he came out of the side yard the car speeded away
from the house, 91 I was called, the police came out. the officers said he
couldn't do anything since the men didn't touch the children it was a real
scary thing. It was at this time we decided to put up a secure fence and gates
to provide as much protection as we could for our family,
Three of my grandchildren who live at 146 "G" St. have been
diagnosed with ADHD, they are vel)' active children. The youngest child is 2
years old and a vel)' active and busy little girl.
During the time my son-n-Iaw was putting up the fence on weekends
and nights, We have had a lot of people to stop and ask for his business card
because they thought his work was so attractive. They wanted to engage him
to work for them.
Since this has corne up, we have been looking at other peoples fence's
in the Chula Vista area and have found quiet a few fences that don't fall
within what they are supposed to be, in fact our next door neighbor to our
west isn't within what has been stated.
We have canvassed our nearest neighbors all that we talked to that we
found at home was glad to sign our petition all stated how they how they like
our fence and all the work my son-n-law had done in our property in such a
short time that we have lived here many stated how the fence was such a
good asset to our neighborhood and found it beautiful.
7
~/C;Lft;15?JjtJ~ ~
~J c;;J.;z.A " 5..z L .L/,_,LL~M_1LA~ ...
7
My daughter and I have talked about havrng a child care center here a
secure yard would be a must it we were to provide child care for other
people's children, We have found out that "G" St. is a very busy street traffic
WIse,
-
We are happy to be living here in Chula Vista. My grandchildren are
happy to be living in their new home and new schools, Weare law abiding
people never having any dealing with city, county, state, or federal offices.
Weare just hard working family that is trying to live the good life and doing
what we feel is best for our grandchildren,
When we first moved over to Chula Vista we bought expensive palm
trees to plant on the property to our surprise on finding 3 of the 4 plants have
been stolen out of our old fence that we haven't been able to lock up only in
the ground, This was our sad awaking to our new Chula Vista home.
Thank you,
Mary Gene Jennings
in behalf of my family
who live at 146 "G" St. Chula Vista
?
?'
'-
'---
\,
"-'
W& ('e..\'V\.o~ "-,,,\ IJ.~\~ O\d ~€..c)(..~ ~o:\ ~c:,
0\0 - oG-lm .. ~u..~~o"'<O-\'(\c ~e.., \ ~)..d-- \t ~o..S \~y-~~
, ~ '(\.~ 1.. ~ ~:\, UJe. L0e.'c' e. (' -€... ~ \a.<:..\ XI ~ \ ~ W I. 'Y. '\
Q ~\-',~\ '\ c..d\...\VV\S I ~'f.G-u6\'(\5 ?:>1:.9 \ n S
~€.. to\u.'fv\.<; D-'\~ \-e.C\\\~ ~-\..\ \='I.A.~ lO~ \on 'ow.~\~
~<:'0\ S\cY"\e..<s. 0\"\ 0-.\\ S\de~ G~ ~e c:.-Ol\.AYV\ S,
Q.c,~ '\,O~ ~EC.o'('o-._~.\v~., .((€...'\\t.~ C\~~.~C\T~S'\ S j \
~-e.. \(>'CO c..ess o\;- 'oi\'{\~ V\"\G\~ G\\ ~\ S
-\-\("V'\,e" u.X. a.. \ \~~~ \'u-\r C\ 6. o\...u\'\. ~C\~ \'"'Y\.U\ -t 0(\ "'\-hI:
\:"0€... \~C\SoY\. ~ c.hosE.. ~ o..\wC\Je- Wet s -t-o sec.Ur-
'(Y\ ~ S \ i t;m. rJo~ ,\, '\-e...,v'\ l~a.d~e...\/ ~e \\0<-1. Y\~&
\ ~ do '1\\'S oB~- \)U\\,\~ "ex b~~ ~'r\ .o.o..v..~v--.\€A
. \)€..~VV\~ o.'\~o..'o\~ J ""oYY\. ~a..\J\'i\'3 ~ ~,~~\~'\\~
. ,?,("~~~\'\<'-v SL\. s; ~€..'\ \ ""~ 0.. 'cl 0 cd c.\ 0 \- \ '(\ ~ e: '0 '\(J", \ Y\
, u...\~.\ '::, \ \\ ~ 0.. S ~c; \..e... _
. \'0.'\-L-€... 0-+ '\-""'s \"{,\()'\Q-\,\O o-\'.~ox-8'\CA'\-CL Q.. \C\s ~c'::::.E:'d
,w\~ ~ \:)-\\- D \\\..\u~'\1~ ~,,~ "~\..\\E:., ~\\~e...
0'0.. e:" ,-~-JL,,\ 'ov..s,-\ ~~~~ .\~ 0'-1.\ ~ \..C<l'r\ 6 ~
'(('O~~ ~O\ ~Q.XY\"
,~\~""\- ~ ~'\ *"~ 0\6 ~€..o(\(.e.. Wo. S \'€.X'{\Q-J~
v-..J'€.. ~e... \a\J.\o..Q(hz~c\, ~~o~~. ~~~ -\\.T'v\L
~) ,
. ~'\ ~Jt\\ \'\1\ ~,-e..-e:.~ IJ.....'.Q.\€..- 'r'\Q.'-'\\e.~ G...wc\i.4 I
, ~ ~ o~ ~n::.e. 6()~S o'(\~-e... '~,_1\..Y"\ c..A'N"\.-e-
. ' \ -.f\. ~ Cu.... '\ ~ C\ \(' d.. -\~\ 'l'\ ':I ,-n::. 0.. ~c,-c.:\- "N'- '-\ .
-\-~"\-e.:~ \~CL'd''-~~S -'r C, '\C'-~- c\'<\\6.('~"""... cr
- - -,,- u_~, ',~ .. -.-__.. ,.
~
Monday, April 03, 2000
.
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
Attention: Steve Power
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Re: Case#ZAVOO-14
Dear Mr, Power:
Howappropiate, , , Saturday, April 1, 2000, April Fools Day, we received notification of a Request for a
Variance on the above referenced case number. A request means they are requesting approval,
however if you drive by the home at 146 "G" Street, you'll find that basically, except for the wrought iron,
and looks like possibly light fixtures on top of the columns, the work is done!! I am assuming they were
already given and requested a permit to add an additional drive-way that is done.
Also, for years our family has requested help with the watering of the parkway, trees to be trimmed, etc.,
and have been told that the parkways are the city's property and that the trees are trimmed, but cannot
be removed, If you drive by the home you will find that the trees that were in the parkway for years,
have been removed and replaced with palm trees, We were told that when asked why they removed the
trees that the reply was "Because we didn't like them", Once again I am assuming permission was also
given to the owners to remove these trees,
Their 6 1/2 foot rock wall/fence would look beautifull in the country or mountains, but on "G" Street it
stands out. If this variance is approved then everyone on "G" Street, Chula Vista for that matter, should
be entitled to the same standards, and I feel if it is approved there should be a fine if permits and
approval were not given on any of the undertakings they have done since moving into this home, We
have done several improvements on our property and have had to get permits each time. . , why does
this not apply to everyone??! I??
I would appreciate being notified of the outcome of this request for a variance,
Sincerely,
?~a~
Patricia A Zappone
121 "G" Street
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
RECEIVED
-
6 2000
PLANNING
/0
/0
~E:DafE
777 9 ~btu:1
{!!'wia <lfuta., {!df 97970-4873
.
April 3, 2000
Mr. Steve Power, Project Planner
Planning Department
Public Services Building
Chula Vista Ovic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE:
Applicant:
Case Number ZAV-00-14
Mary Jennings
146 "G" Street (APN 569-220-12)
Dear Mr. Power:
It is obvious that the applicant did not obtain a building permit, as required by law. If
she had, she would have been informed of the limits to fencing one's property.
I am a neighbor of the Jennings' property and feel this variance should be denied. The
rock-encrusted posts to support any wrought iron work are very unattractive,
If Mary Jennings wishes a fence along the front of her property, I suggest she
construct one similar to others along this section of "G" street, which did not require a
variance,
Sincerely,
. ~~,/Jd-
c?a'n;~~le
RECEIVED
'~ 5 TOO
/" ,\ - U
J
PLANNING
II
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO DENY A WALL
HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 146 "G" STREET, CHULA
VISTA.
WHEREAS, a duly verified appeal form was filed with the City ofChula Vista Planning Department
on April 21, 2000, by Mary Jennings; and
WHEREAS, said appeal form requests that a variance be granted to permit a fence ranging in height
from 5'8" to 6'6" where a maximum fence height of3'6" is allowed by the Chula Vista Municipal Code;
and
Whereas, Section 19.58.150 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that fences located within the front
yard setback not exceed a height of 3.5 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is a Class 5
exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2000 the Zoning Administrator denied the wall height variance request
based on the findings as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said variance request 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 scheduled and advertised for August 9, 2000, 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at
the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
Findings offact are as follows:
1. There are no hardships associated with this property that would justify the granting of a
variance for fence height, The property is not substandard with regard to lot size, shape, street
frontage, topography, etc. The Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of a fence that is
3.5 feet in height at the front property line. The need for a variance has been created by the
property owner because the subject wall/fence was not constructed in accordance with the
height provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. The variance is not needed to enjoy substantial property rights enjoyed by others. An
adequate security fence could be constructed that is in conformance with the provisions ofthe
Zoning Ordinance.
Iz
ATTACHMENT"C"
3, The variance request will not result in the substantial detriment to adjacent properties and will
not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
4, The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any government agency,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Robert Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H:'HOMEIPLANNINGISTEVEXPIZA VOO 14,PCRES
/3
determined by the c!iroctor, of public works, the director of public works shall cause the obstruction to be
removed and a lien shall be imposed against the propony in the manner provided in Sections 5610 through
5630 of the Streets and Highways Code of the state, and the lien shall be collected as a portion of the
regular tu assessment as provided in Section 5628 of the Streets and Highways Code. (Ord. 1677!il (pan),
1976; Ore!. 1205 52 (pan), 1969; prior code 927.209).
12.12.120 VISion clearmce-In~on requirements.
On each comer lot or two interior lots having a common side lot line, located within an interior angle
not exceeding one hundred thirty-five degrees, fonned by two converging street lines and such lot or lots
. being subject to front yard requirements, no obstruction, including earth obstruction, to vision between a
height of three feet and ten feet above every point along the outer edge of the paved surface of the roadway,
or t:'aveled portion of the roadway where no paving exists may be erected, placed, planted, allowed to grow,
or be maintained within that area of the lot or lots fonned by the converging street lines and a straight line
intenecting such street lines, drawn at right angles to a line running midway or neatly midway between and
in the mean direction of the converging street lines at a point three feet outside the buildable area of the
lot or lots, provided that said line shall not be less than forty-five feet in length, except the following:
A Single trees and shrubs pruned, arranged, and maintained in such a way as to prevent blind spots and
provide reasonable unobstructed vision, throughout the area, for drivers of automobiles;
B. Wire fences of chain link or similar open mesh construction;
C, Pole signs, as otherwise pennitted, provided the pole minimum support only is the only pan of the
structure visible within the height limits,
(Ord.973 91 (pan), 1966; prior code 919.15.1).
12.12.130 VISion clearance-Driveway requirements..
Within five feet of any driveway, no fence, wall or hedge or other dense vegetation shall be pennitted
within five feet of the front line of any lot which is subject to front yard requirements if said fence, wall,
hedge or vegetation is more than two feet six inches in height, unless same is arranged so as to provide fifty
percent or more of distributed open space so as to prevent dense blind areas exceeding eight inches in width
along its horizontal m.easurement. (Ord. 973 91 (part), 1966; prior code !il9.15.2).
1'1,5i./SO_
Hov..se
V.....ilZ$_
ff'
cJ<l.t>r Ar-e.", pV, /:2../;;1.,13(
Fe
S;dUJo..l
CkrJ:,
<Eo
Any _Street
IY:
/1'
<E
-=dR6/92)
'ATTACHMENT "D"
73~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Ite~
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM 00-14; Request to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) One Plan to move the high school site in Village Two
to a location in Village Two acceptab1e to the Sweetwater Union High School
District.
Resolution No. PCM 00-14; Recommending that the City Council approve
an amendment to the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan
including the SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan to move the location
of the Village Two high school.
The Otay Ranch Company has applied to amend the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
P1an to move the current location ofthe Village Two high school (a 50-net acre site) approximately
700 feet to the east in Village Two, to a site acceptable to the Sweetwater Union High School
District. The SPA One amendment updates the proposed location of the high school site in Village
Two and is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan amendment and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) amendment.
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has detenTIined that any impacts associated with the
proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA) Plan amendment relocating the Village
Two high school site have been previously identified in amended SPA One Plan FEIR 97-03 and
has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No, PCM 00-14 recommending the City Council
approve the amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan to move the current high school location
in Village Two eastward approximate1y 700 feet eastward to a site in Village Two acceptable to the
Sweetwater Union High School District.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable
I
Page 2, Item _1_
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
BACKGROUND:
1, Discussion
The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, adopted in 1993, located two high schools in the Otay Valley Parcel
of Otay Ranch, One of those high schools was designated in Village Seven, and the other in
Village 11. The original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan containing Villages One and Five was
approved in 1996, At the time of the SPA One Plan approval, the Sweetwater High School
District determined that development of the Eastern Territories would generate an earlier need for
a high school site than previously anticipated. As a result, the approval of the SPA One Plan
included a condition requiring the applicant (The Otay Ranch Company) to amend the Oray Ranch
GDP/SRP and the City of Chula Vista General Plan to relocate the high school site from Village
Seven, to either Village One West, or in the northern portion of Village Two, The Sweetwater
Union High School District's preferred location ofthe high school site was influenced by the County
of San Diego Landfill located just south of Village Two West. The school district preferred a site
in the northern portion of Village Two instead of Village One West because it was outside ofthe Yz-
mile radius of the county landfill,
The original SPA One Plan and subsequent Tentative Map for Villages One and Five limited the
issuance of building permits to 1,400 units within SPA One until the amendment to relocate the
Village Seven High School was acted upon by the City, This condition also required the applicant
to deliver a school site acceptable by the school district prior to issuance of the 2,650'" building
permit. The condition also allowed the school district to modify the schedule based on district
facility needs,
The Otay Ranch Company applied to amend the General Development Plan as part the addition
of Village One West to the Project to fulfill the SPA One Plan and Tentative Map (C.V,T. 96-04)
conditions. The City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan
amendments were adopted by the City Council on November 10,1998 (GPA-97-04 and PCM-97-10
respectively), which relocated the high school site !Tom Village Seven to the northern portion of
Village Two, In addition, the previous high school location in Village Seven was re-designated to
single family residential, adding 250 dwelling units to Village Seven (from 1,501 to 1,751) as
provided for in the GDP..
The SPA One Plan amendment approved by Council in 1999 also included a modified schedule for
delivery of the high school site, The original requirement for delivery of the school site acceptable
to the district was prior to the issuance of the 2,650'" building permit. Subsequent to the approval
of the original SPA One Plan in 1996, the school district determined that the recent growth rate in
the Eastern Territories generated an earlier need for the site, and required delivery of a site prior to
the issuance of 1,400'" building permits in Otay Ranch SPA One, or as determined by the school
district. In 1999, the school district met with City staff and the applicant to discuss the status of
building permit thresholds in SPA One,
~
Page 3, Item _1_
Meeting Date: 8L2LQQ
The initial location of the high school site in Village Two depicted on the SPA One Land Use Plan
was located within a Yz-mile radius of the landfill buffer surrounding the County of San Diego
Landfill. During the review of the Tentative Map for Village One, Phase Seven, the Sweetwater
Union High School District determined that the Board of Trustees would have to make special
findings to accept a site within a y,-mile radius of a hazardous material site such as the landfill. The
district preferred to locate the high school outside of the y,-mile radius, preferably on the "borrow"
site identified on the approved Tentative Map for Village One, Phase Seven. This "borrow" site
identified on the Tentative Map (located on the south side of Poggi Canyon in Village Two), serves
as "fill" material for construction of Olympic Parkway, This new site, which is acceptable to the
school district, moves the school site approximately 700-feet to the east from its previous location
depicted in the current SPA One Land Use Plan, The SPA One Plan Land Use Map exhibits need
to be amended to reflect the District's approved location,
Site Characteristics
The proposed high school site in Village Two is located on the south side of Poggi Canyon
adjacent to Olympic Parkway, which is currently under construction. The gross acreage of the
site is approximately 54 acres, The Sweetwater Union High School District requires a 50 net-acre
site for construction of the Village Two high school. In order to prepare the property for delivery
to the school district, the site was designated as a "borrow" site for Olympic Parkway, containing
fill material for the road construction, As a result, grading operations are currently underway at
the site,
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan were amended
on November 10, 1998 (GPA-97-04 and PCM-97-10 respectively), which relocated the high school
site from Village Seven to the northern portion of Village Two. The previous high school location
in Village Seven was re-designated to single family residential, adding 250 dwelling units to Village
Seven (from 1,501 to 1,751), As a result of the amendments, the General Plan designation for this
site in Village Two is now designated for a high school.
The Otay Ranch SPA One Plan amendment approved in 1999 reflects the previous GDP and General
Plan amendments approved in 1998. The 1999 SPA One amendment reflects land use changes that
were incorporated in Village Two to relocate the initial Otay Ranch High School from Village Seven
to Village Two,
The City's General Plan depicts the approved Otay Ranch GDP land uses in each village. Each of
the villages including Village One, Two, Five and Six incorporate a core area as Mixed Use (MU)
with surrounding Medium High density (18 DUs/acre), The MU designation contains the
-3
. _,._".~._~ _,..__....._M.<____.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
commercial, community purpose facility, park and elementary school uses for each village, Village
Five of the Otay Ranch is located to the northeast and has similar General Plan and GDP
designations as Village One, Village Six is located to the east and also has similar General Plan and
GDP designations as Village One and Five, The existing high school site is located in the
northeastern portion of Village Two, Unlike Villages One and Five, Village Two is not a transit-
oriented village, Village Two contains similar mixed-use land uses as Villages One and Five,
Zoning
The Otay Ranch, within the City, is zoned Planned Community (PC), Land development regulations
are contained in the Planned Community District Regulations within each master planned
community SPA Plan, At this time, development regulations have not been proposed for Village
Two in the Otay Ranch since a SPA Plan has yet to be prepared, The Village Two high school site
was included as a land use in the 1999 SPA One Plan amendment at the discretion ofthe Sweetwater
Union High School District's facility needs.
Current Land Use
Currently, Village Two is undeveloped, The school site is now being graded pursuant to the
approved grading permit for construction of Olympic Parkway. Soil generated ITom current grading
operations on the new high school site is currently being used as fill material to construct Olympic
Parkway. To the north of the site, much of Village One is developed, The last phase of Village One
(Phase Seven) is currently being graded, Village Six to the east is currently undeveloped,
3. Proposed Plan
The SPA One Plan amendment proposes to modify two map exhibits in the SPA One Plan - the
Land Use Plan Map and the Village One Land Use Plan Map, In the supporting SPA One Public
Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) document, the Land Use Plan Map exhibit will also be revised,
These maps will be revised to move the current Village Two High School site 700-feet to the east,
to a site acceptable to the Sweetwater Union High School District. The change to the three maps
is the only change to be made as a result of the proposed amendment. This SPA One Plan
amendment implements Tentative Map (c. V. T. 96-04A) Condition #106 describing the applicants
obligation to deliver a 50-net acre site to the school district, including utilities provided to the site
with an all-purpose access road acceptable to the district.
The school district has exercised its right to modify the schedule of delivery of the site prior to
the issuance of the 1,400th building permit in SPA One (which has now passed), to requiring
delivery of the site acceptable by the district by October 2000.
'I
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 8/9/00
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendment to the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan by the Otay Ranch Company
implement the requirements to update the SPA One Land Use Map(s) and supporting PFFP Land
Use Map to reflect the new location of the Village Two high school site, which has been accepted
by the Sweetwater Union High School District,
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that the lead agency shall prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if changes or additions are necessary, but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred,
The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has evaluated the proposed relocation of the
Village Two high school site and determined that the proposed project would not constitute a
substantial change to the previously approved project, nor would there be a substantial change in
circumstances under which the project would be constructed. Additionally, no new information
of substantial importance has become available since the preparation of the previously adopted
Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP
Amendments (EIR 97-03), nor would the relocation of the high school site increase the severity
of any of the impacts identified in EIR 97-03,
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of the school
districts facility needs and is also are consistent with the GDP goals, objectives and policies and,
therefore, staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2, Resolution No, PCM-OO-14
3. Draft City Council Resolution
4, Approved SPA One Village One Land Use Plan
5. Proposed SPA One Village One Land Use Plan
6. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-03
7. Disclosure Statement
C:\PLANNING\OT A YR1'.'CH\SP Al \SP A] _Amend__High_ 5chool_ PCRPT.doc
s-
-
D ~~\ \
'::!::Y, ~ VI ~ B ~~ \~ ;<\'1\ i\\1
HIJ ~'('<;\ ~:"'0i ~ ~.>;~~ 'i:: ;u
. LJ.J II ,'-J ,\"\; _~ :?i-m iTi't- ' /,
~/ ~ 1<B~ \ ~ ~c::::: -', ~ __
I ~ ~ "''>- f') V"l /" :r. y\ __
I>~ / ~ ~~ 0'?5 ~ ~~ :>-::1--1_,-, r---- 'r-- ~
~ ~~ \\~~ ~ ~ "di I- J
~ a '" ill - I
~~~,b~ ~ '11 1\ ____
').; 1\1 t-1r.:.::t-i/:::i.I~O;!-" i \\. 7/
a \'\\JlbC:t--fG:; '/'- ~ ...}/
/ ~~~~\\WH!!/Pr ~ ~ IT ~g;~
--Rt.. V"~ ~;t: - /" '(/)~ {I (Jllk -
Jf!!:. 'fS:i. f~ I)- !J. ~ l
~ tJ~t- ~v.y. ~ ~ ~ 0"
~ '{:. ~ ~ ~y
~ '- ~( L '-T~~
~>- :::: t-:8t=&t== ~"" _
~'\!C-' II?::: I-:!;.>t-, ?~~ot.l\"'R 'V/~
~ 'EJ':,SI \J a Gora ~
~ " ."", oco.' ~~
1---- "~~ ,,"~ ~$
~
~~
~ "",0' ,.0 \\ \oCAIION
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY RANCH COMPANY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ?-
C) APPUCANT:
PROJECT Otaub, Ranch Villa~ 2. ' ~ILLAGE TWO HIGH SCHOOL RELOCATION
ADDRESS: so of Olympic atkway Request Proposed relocation of Otay Ranch High School
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: eastward approximately 700 It of Its currenlly
NORTH No Scale PCM-QQ-14 approved location,
,
h:lhomelplanninglhectorllocators\is0011,cdr 11/18/99
ATTACHMENT #l
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-OO-14
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE
PLAN INCLUDING THE SPA ONE PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN TO MOVE THE CURRENT LOCATION OF
THE VILLAGE TWO HIGH SCHOOL;
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is identified as
Exhibit "A" attached to City Council Resolution No, and described on Chula Vista Tract
96-04A, and is commonly known as Village Two ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan and
Public Facilities Finance Plan land use exhibits was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and
Building Department on November 10, 1999 by Otay Project, LLC, The Otay Ranch Company
("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the application requests to move the current location of the Village Two high
school in Otay Ranch SPA One (a 50-net acre site) approximately 700 feet to the east, to a site
acceptable for the Sweetwater Union High School District; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a Sectional
Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996
by Resolution No, 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No, 19375, wherein
the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No, 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR
95-01 "), and the amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03,
SCH #97091079 ("EIR 97-03"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, PCM 97-11, and said
amendment was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No, 19375; and
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, that is virtually
identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot configurations, transportation
corridors, etc" to the project descriptions in said former environmental evaluations; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts
associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA) Plan amendment
relocating the Village Two high school site have been previously identified in amended SPA One
Plan FEIR 97-03 and has therefore, prepared an addendum to that document; and
7
A1'TACHMENT # 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-00-14) and notice of said
hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of the Project
site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
August 9, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and
said hearing was thereafter closed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the
Planning Commission, the Commission has detennined that the approval of an amendment to Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan (PCM-00-14) is consistent with the City ofChula
Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, and all
other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning
practice support the approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan amendment (PCM-00-14) in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City
Council Resolution No.
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners ofthe property and the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August, 2000 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
?
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
INCLUDING THE SPA ONE PUBLIC FACILITIES
FINANCE PLAN TO MOVE THE CURRENT
LOCATION OF THE VILLAGE TWO HIGH
SCHOOL;
WHEREAS, the property which is the subject matter of this resolution is
identified as Exhibit "A" and described on Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, and is commonly
known as Village Two ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, an application to amend the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One
Plan and Public Facilities Finance Plan land use exhibits was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning and Building Department on November 10, 1999 by Otay Project, LLC,
The Otay Ranch Company ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, the application requests to move the current location of the Village
Two high school in Otay Ranch SPA One (a 50-net acre site) approximately 700 feet to
the east, to a site acceptable for the Sweetwater Union High School District; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a
Sectional Planning Area One Plan ("SPA One Plan") previously approved by the City
Council on June 4,1996 by Resolution No. 18286, and as amended on February 16, 1999
by Resolution No, 19375, wherein the City Council, in the environmental evaluation of
said SPA One Plan, relied in part on the original Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report No, 95-01, SCH #94101046 ("EIR 95-01"), and the
amended Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-03, SCH
#97091079 ("ErR 97-03"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an amendment to the SPA One Plan, PCM 97-
11, and said amendment was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 1999 by
Resolution No, 19375; and
WHEREAS, this Project is a subsequent activity in the program of development
environmentally evaluated under Program EIR 90-01, FEIR 95-01, FEIR 97-03, that is
virtually identical in all relevant respects, including lot size, lot numbers, lot
configurations, transportation corridors, etc., to the project descriptions in said fonner
environmental evaluations; and
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that
any impacts associated with the proposed Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One CJ
(SPA) Plan amendment relocating the Village Two high school site have been previously
identified in amended SPA One Plan EIR-97 -03 and has therefore, prepared an addendum
to that document; and
ATTACHMENT # 3
Resolution
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on
said Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan amendment (PCM-00-14) and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on August
9,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission,
and was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, by a vote of 0-0 the Planning Commission approved the project; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista on the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendment, which includes the SPA
One Public Facilities Finance Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, detennine, resolve and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on held on this Project on August 9, 2000, and the minutes
and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
II, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby finds that the Project, as described and analyzed in the
FEIR 97-03, would have no new effects that were not examined in said FEIR
[Guideline 15168 (c)(2)]; and
III. CEQA FINDING REGARDING PROJECT WITHIN SCOPE OF PRIOR
PROGRAM ErR
The City Council hereby finds that: (l) there were no changes in the Project from
the FEIR 97-03 which would require revisions of said reports; (2) no substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project
is undertaken since the previous reports; (3) and no new infonnation of substantial
importance to the Project has become available since the issuance and approval of
the prior reports; and that, therefore, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures will be required in addition to those already in existence and 16
made a condition for Project implementation, Therefore, the City Council
approves the Project as an activity that is within the scope of the project covered
by the FEIR 97-03 [Guideline l5l68(c)(2) and l5l62(a)],
Resolution
Page 3
IV, INDEPENDENT ruDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council finds that the Addendum prepared to EIR 97-03 reflects the
independent judgement of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista and hereby
adopts the Addendum to EIR 97-03,
V, INCORPORATION OF ALL REASONABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council does hereby re-adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for
this approval all applicable mitigation measures and alternatives, as set forth in
the findings adopted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR 97-03.
VI. NOTICE WITH LATER ACTIVITIES
The City Council does hereby give notice, to the extent required by law, that this
Project was fully described and analyzed and is within the scope of the FEIR 97-
03 adequately describes and analyzes this project for the purposes of CEQA
[Guideline 15l68(e)]. Notice ofEIR 97-03 was given on November 10,1998.
VII, CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan for the following
reasons:
A, THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN,
The Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One (SPA) Plan Amendment
reflects the General Development Plan Amendment that relocated a high
school in Village Two. This land use is consistent with the Otay Ranch
General Development Plan and Chula Vista General Plan.
B, THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY
SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The SPA One Plan Amendment does not modify the approved provisions
and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project.
c.
THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
AMENDMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT
LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
I;
Resolution
Page 4
The land uses within Otay Ranch are designed with an open space buffer
adjacent to other existing projects, and future developments off-site and
within the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One. A Sectional
Planning Area Plan for Village Two will be required to contain a
comprehensive street network that serves the project and provides for
access to off-site adjacent properties. The proposed plan closely follows
all existing environmental protection guidelines and will avoid
unacceptable off-site impacts through the provision and implementation of
mitigation measures specified in EIR 97-03,
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert Leiter
Planning and Building Director
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
/<-.
Resolution
Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula
Vista, California, this 22"d day of August, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas and Horton
NAYS: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
None
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk ofChula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 22"d day of
August, 2000,
Executed this 22"d day of August, 2000.
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
/:3
I D ~fu \
'~~~,~.\ ~x "~~,,~
tEIJtill ~ $ ~ /AX/. ' ~~~~;C ~'
Ij;//JITT ~\: ~ ~;,'"' ~ r ~ / ~
I ~ $ (-; ~ '=::::::"Ujl...: '
!>~~/"~ ~~O ~~ ~;~ifll7/\ I ~~
~~~ ,,<# ~~~~f- ( \ L ~
d~~ ~~ I~ I' '\ D'
JO';!l; ~f- f:::; c:-v-..y ~ <".-\ I \' i
~~~c\\H ;t:::/&~ ~ 'h . ~
~ "0>:..; mllll/llT; ~ Ii. rr Tift=:
:<&: ..>-~3:: ~ [l IllIlfTij'.&t.. rU-!~ F _H
,r!)
0:x!-LII/r ~,,::- il::. \-Wll r I'm
@/-IE. r;j~~ ~ ~ ~
~ t:o ~( ~ ~ ~
~!=: b ~\:1 ~~
~I~~~ ?~LO~f'.R S 4 r h';;
~~ ~,~~ ~
;:; ',ced \J e ~~~/-~/
~ W . . ~
~ .~
~
SF
~/
:..---'
~
-ff
~
,\\NO
\}\\..\..I'GE.
- fROIECT
\\. ~OCATION
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT OTAY RANCH COMPANY PROJECT DESCRlP110N: If
C9 APPUCANT:
, VILLAGE TWO HIGH SCHOOL RELOCATION
PROJECT Otafu Ranch Vill~ 2,
ADDRESs: sou of Olympic atkway Request Proposed relocation of Otay Ranch High School
SCAlE: FlU: NUMBER; eastward approximately 700 It. of Its currenlly
NORTH No Scale PCM-QQ-14 approved location,
-".. ,
h:lhomelplanmnglhectorllocatorslis0011.cdr 11/18/99
EXHIBIT II A N
n
""
'"0
..
~1!
- c
~"
~
as
E
~ t
UI 0
.. ..
..
:;:)
'D
C
j
..
C
o
..
'"
~
:>
i I
~"
1
€ ~
~..
..
'i
z
if
I
~O-~~~Nm~mN~~mNm
M~~~.M~~~M~~~~~~
~~~~~~~W~~~~2~~~
-.~~m~N~<orMro~.~ro~
~~~~~~~~~~re~~~~~
~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~
00000000000000000000000000000000
W
O_N N,.... CD CD
-NM..,.It)'9,....~~-_____..,.
~~ococ~ococ~~~~ococ~ococ
'C
c::
CD
C)
CD
..J
E
'"
E
.~ C
< ~
>- Q>
oS! ~
e
I- g.
'0 (jj
I!!
~ -~
I!! '"
Q. ~
r.i
p~
-~.
~...~
ru
Iii '
~... 0..1
sin
isH
"tj15.
Fa:D..'b
.
~'II:qO)qC'!q~
mlX)::Q""':::Q ~ ~ ~
~ :8~~::~~!; ~5
"':N
~ C\I<DMI('HD<OO<or
:g 0) ~~:!u:i to""':..t
N
;1;
E
e
E <3
e -
<3 ~
,
on
c
o
~
3
~ en.g
",00
<D1tP'l!IIZ!IX!IIZ!I"
""':CONOOON
- N
~N
"':0
mgj
~ ~I~ g g ~\~ I~
..
..
"
~ It i
''OJ!
,
"'
...
~
..
""""""..
t.:.:.:.:. t. 0
;Q
,
on
..
on
! u.. u.. U. LL.u.. U. PoL U.
o :i:::E:::E:::E::!:::E::E::E
;Q
,
on
.. "
,."
_0
S...
j!~
~g
s s
~~~~ ~
~O(j) en d
3.
,!!
;;
M..... It'! <om 0.....,....
----....NN'f
a:ci:a:.rci:a:cC a:
_N
a.i...a.i...
....
00
u
'";-l')I(jI""I.I{~
a..a..c..a..a.a:.
'&-
]i
t
j
~~
l]m;L
~l
~ .r~
~~ .I!
.--- Co Q ~
~ffi
\.
\.
\.
\.
.>
;'
......
.,,'
".
."
'8
~
J;,j!
~
'"
~
N
~
..
~ ..,.
> "'
I'
H
!ii
J~...
ATTACHMENT #11
"
Ii:
c ~
ca <(
0: a..
(f)
GI
CI) .r;
::> '-'
c
'tJ '"
a:
c >-
ca '"
...I -
0
GI
C
0
GI
CI
S
:>
'"d
(1)
:>
8
p..
~
8
~
u
m
/ f:)'
.
~~ j ~
= :h::::!
~T
~.Lh
.~~ .... C!"'":<<! <<! CC!C'I4C1! It!<<! "! "': U!G! C\! ~
r ~~......~...~.~~~....~
...
..
.. ~
~ I! ia;~;t~t;:~(O;t~~~~g~f;;!
..
E
~ I ""':~U!~CI!<qC"'!IQ'OI;~I:f!.q"":'"':~1t! <<!
II) ~~O~.~_N~Nm.~""O~~
N........_....('II(')........(')('II.................... N
9:
~ ~
't:Ic "8 I LL LL u.. II., I.L II.. U. I.L LLLL IL IL U. U. ILIL i
!I ~:5 U)oocnOOOOCf)C/)(J)UHJJ00C1H/"n(JJ ~
.. ..
C ~
o w
.. . O_N N..... 10 0;1
.8 z: .. ~ '1'" '9~ "; Cf'~............,..
i.co( a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a:: a: a:: a: a:: a:: a:: a:
- ..
= f
>
U!"C;U!CJ)C!:"!C!It!
aHlDgJ,..:g~~~
i3~ '" ~:< fi!i3;! ~ ill
....:::F-~............IlJ~
.:,.
lOCO CO) In CD CO 0.10<0
cOeD u:i.,p uiui"":..r"':2
.... -- CDC;S
;1;
e
d
~ I
,
..
~
..
HHHI
,
..
:! ~I:;! ~ a @I~ I~ 51
it ! ~
......;u8.;.29';; 8
a.. D.. .c. e e .c
00 sou; 0 s
J
.g $:N
....-C}I ..!! G)
it it .,.'" ~ ~ y
00 0000 >cb
U!"":C'If<<!CC! <<!I~
::<DNOOO~
"'!
"0
LLLLLLLLILLLLLLLI-I
~::E:E::E::E:E::E:::::t JC
.i!~
~~~~~~~t;
a: a:: a: a: a:: a: a: a:
;s
..."':-IC?"''9~
D..D...D..D..D..d.
i
.
.
.
. ..
. ~w
d:: r.'-.'
i :l
1J
c:
CD
C)
CD
..J
E
CD
E
c: _
~ i
;( -
iG'i
= ::!i
e -
I- g-
~ ~
t ~
0. I-
faf
111
dl
jBlj
-I~]
i2~-'
dU
.
...,
~
~
~
s:
,:j1
~i
~,
.S!~
r;t=N=
;::,....
~
!!:<
c
as
ii:
CD
II)
;:)
'C
C
~
CD
C
o
CD
DI
~
:>
"d
<1)
'"
o
1
~
j
)
.
~ 1M II I !
I I ~ II ~
!J'.~ . lit
I. I~
ATTACHMENT #$
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-03
PROJECT NAME:
Relocation of Otay Ranch Village 2 High School
PROJECT LOCATION:
South of Olympic Parkway between Paseo Ranchero and La
Media Road
PROJECT APPLICANT:
The Otay Ranch Company
CASE NO:
EIR-97-03
DATE:
July 24, 2000
I. BACKGROUND
The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/County Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP). adopted in
1993, located two high schools in the Otay Valley Parcel of Otay Ranch. One of those
high schools was designated in Village Seven, and the other in Village Eleven. The GDP
land uses were also added to the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The original Otay
Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan, containing Villages One and Five, was
approved in 1996. At that time, the City, the applicant (Otay Ranch Company), and
Sweetwater Sigh School District realized that development of SPA One would generate a
need for a high school site earlier than previously anticipated, Consequently, the approval
of the SPA One Plan included a condition requiring the applicant to amend the Otay Ranch
GDP/SRP, and the City of Chula Vista General Plan, to move the high school site from
Village Seven to Village One West, or to the northern portion of Village Two.
The Sweetwater Union High School District's preferred site in Village Two was based on
locating the school beyond the 1,000-foot landfill "buffer" surrounding the County Landfill
south of Village Two West. Locating a high school in Village Two requires (1) a General
Plan Amendment to add a high school designation to Village Two land uses, and (2) a
GDP/SRP amendment to add a high school to Village Two and delete a high school in
Village Seven,
The originally approved SPA One Plan, and subsequently approved Tentative Map for
Villages One and Five, also required the applicant to agree that the City would not issue
building permits for more than 1.400 units within SPA One until the amendment to
relocate the Village Seven High School was acted upon by the City. To fulfill the SPA Plan
and Tentative Map (C,V,T 96-04) conditions, the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the
Otay Ranch GDP were amended on November 10, 1998 (GPA-97-04 and PCM-97-10,
respectively). which relocated the high school site from Village Seven to Village Two. A
Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-97-03) for the Otay Ranch SPA One
and GDP/SRP Amendments was certified at the same time,
Although the SPA One Plan amendment included a high school in Village Two south of
Olympic Parkway, that location is within a Yo-mile radius of the landfill buffer. The
approved Village One, Phase Seven Tentative Map also included a "borrow" site in Village
Two for the purpose of obtaining "fill" material for Olympic Parkway. The Sweetwater
17
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2
07/24/00
ATTACHMENT #a.
Union High School District prefers the "borrow" site as the high school location because it
is outside the y,-mile landfill buffer.
II. PROPOSED SPA ONE AMENDMENT
The Otay Ranch Company proposes to amend the Otay Ranch Section Planning Area (SPA)
One Plan to move the Village Two high school site (50-net acres) approximately 750 feet
easterly to the "borrow" site in Village Two, The project site is located south of Olympic
Parkway between Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road (see attached Exhibits 1 and 2) in
Village Two of the Otay Ranch. This new location is the Sweetwater Union High School
District's preferred high school site. This amendment is consistent with the City of Chula
Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP/SRP approved by the City Council in 1998, and
related Otay Ranch SPA Plan amendment approved by the City Council in 1999. A Final
Second Tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR-97-031 for the Otay Ranch SPA One and
GDP/SRP Amendments was certified on November 10, 1998,
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (~15162) establishes the conditions
under which a subsequent EIR shall be prepared.
A, When an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1, Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2, Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3, New information of substantial importance which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the EIR was prepared.
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent
EIR if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine
whether to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no
further documentation (Guidelines ~ 15162),
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:
A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred,
If
EIR,97-03 Addendum #2
2
07/24/00
B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR,
C. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to
making a decision on the project.
D, A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record, The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to the requirements of Section 15164 of
the State CEOA Guidelines. Moving the Village 2 high school site 750 feet to the east
does not constitute a substantial change to the previously approved project, nor would
there be a substantial change in circumstances under which the project would be
constructed, and no new information of substantial importance has been presented.
Moving the high school site would not result in any environmental effects that were not
considered in EIR-97-03, nor would the move increase the severity of any of the impacts
identified in EIR-97-03. The mitigation measures identified in EIR-97-03 would be equally
applicable to the relocated school site,
Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEOA Guidelines, the
City has prepared the followinq addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
for the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR-97-03.
III. ANALYSIS
The EIR concludes that the high school site would be generally compatible with the future
residential uses that would surround the site to the west, east and south. Some school
activities (e,g., sports fields and parking lots) could generate lighting and noise that could
be viewed as a nuisance by immediately adjacent residents. Siting, operation and design
measures could be incorporated into both the high school and surrounding residential area
to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels.
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if moving the site 750 feet
to the east would change any of the analyses contained in EIR-97-03. The conclusion is
that previously identified environment impacts would not be intensified as a result of the
move, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the checklist is attached.
/9
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2
3
07/24/00
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEOA Guidelines, and based upon the above
discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only
minor technical changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental
Impact Report adequate under CEOA.
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
References: General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan
Otay Ranch SPA One Plan Amendments
2J)
EIR-97-03 Addendum #2
4
07/24/00
Case No.IS-OO-15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.
Name of Proponent:
2,
Lead Agency Name and Address:
3.
Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
4.
Name of Proposal:
5.
Date of Checklist:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e,g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Otay Ranch Company
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
350 W, Ash St. Ste 730
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 234-4088
(619) 234-4050 (fax)
Relocation of Otay Ranch Village 2 High
School
July 24, 2000
Potentially
Signiflcant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
Ii!!
o
o
o
o
Ii!!
o
Comments: The proposed High School was evaluated in the Final Second Tier EIR for the Otav
Ranch SPA One Plan (SPA One EIR) that was certified on November 10, 1998, No
conflicts with environmental plans or policies were identified in the EIR. The SPA One
EIR concluded that the high school site would be generally compatible with future
residential uses surrounding the site (p, 10-25), The SPA One EIR also concluded that
agricultural impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation
of the Agricultural Plan for SPA One (p, 10-30), Moving the school site would not
disrupt an established community because the area is undeveloped,
1
C)-(
The 50-acre site is designated as a High School in the approved Village One Land Use
Plan (see Exhibit 1), The current project is to reconfigure the boundaries of the site and
to move the site approximately 700 feet to the east. Moving the site would be consistent
with the adopted SPA One Plan high school land use designation because the proposed
use and intensity of development would remain the same,
Potentially
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Potentially Signlftcant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
proposal: Impact MItigated Impact Impact
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local D D D ~
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either D D D ~
directly or indirectly (e,g" through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable D D D ~
housing?
Comments: The school was relocated in Village 2 to serve the Otay Ranch community as it
develops, The school would not induce growth into the area, cause population
projections to be exceeded, or displace housing,
Potentially
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
expose people to potential impacts involving: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in D D D ~
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or D D D ~
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief D D D ~
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of D D D ~
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, D D D ~
either on or off the site?
t) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach D D D ~
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 D D D ~
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that the development of residences, schools, and
community facilities would result in structures that are at risk due to geologic and 22-
2
seismic hazards (p, 5,5-5), No major geologic conditions would constrain the school
site in Village 2 and implementation of Mitigation Measures 5,5-1 through 5,5-4 in the
SPA One EIR would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance (p, 10-
29), Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any previously
unidentified geophysical impacts, and the mitigation measures would be equally
applicable to the new location.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e,g"
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
PotentlaDy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 18!
0 0 0 18!
o
o
18!
o
o
o
o
18!
o
18!
o
o
o
o
18!
o
0 0 0 18!
0 0 0 18!
0 0 0 18!
0 0 0 18!
Comments: The proposed, and approved, school site drains into the Poggi Canyon drainage basin,
The Poggi Canyon area is in a 100-year floodplain (Zone A Map #06073C 2176F, dated
June 19, 1997), There are no drainage facilities in the area at the current time,
However, drainage from either site would be detained by the Olympic Parkway
drainage basin and detention facility that will be constructed as part of the Olympic
Parkway project. On-site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of the site
development. The SPA One EIR determined that moving the school to Village 2 would
result in minimal changes in runoff quantity or quality, Potentially significant
hydrology/water quality impacts associated development of the school site would be
mitigated to a less than significant level by mitigation measures 5,9-1 and 5.9-2 (p, 10-
31), Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any previously
unidentified water impacts, and the mitigation measures would be equally applicable to
2.3
3
the new location,
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
o
181
o
o
o
o
o
181
The SPA One EIR determined that significant, unmitigated air quality impacts would
occur as a result of implementing the entire SPA One Plan Amendment (p.1O-31),
Constructing the school approximately 700 feet east of its currently approved location
would not result in any additional air quality impacts, Short-term construction and long-
term traffic impacts would not be exacerbated by moving the school site. A Statement
of Overriding Considerations was adopted at the time the EIR was certified,
Comments:
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
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:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
o
o
181
o
o
o
o
181
Moving the school site, and the unnamed access road, 700 feet to the east would not
2..(
4
change traffic volumes or patterns on the roadway network, The size of the school, and
access into the campus, would be the same in either location. The school would
generate 7,250 trips per day (145 ADT/ac x 50 ac,), Access to either the approved, or
proposed, site would be provided by an unnamed access road (see Exhibits 1 and 2),
The SPA One EIR determined that the implementation and construction of the roadways
specified in the Otay Ranch SPA One Circulation Plan would reduce traffic impacts to a
level less than significant and no project-specific mitigation measures would be required
(p, 10-27),
A pedestrian bridge linkage between Villages 1 and 2 is shown on the Adopted and
Proposed GDP Land Use Plan (see SPA One EIR, Figure 3.4-3, 3.4-4), Moving the
school site 700 feet to the east would not preclude the construction of a pedestrian
bridge across Olympic Parkway,
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g"
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
Potentially
Potentially SignifICant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D D 181
D D D 181
D D D 181
D D D 181
D D D 181
D D D 181
Comments: The SPA One EIR concluded that locating the high school site in Village 2 would not
impact any sensitive vegetation, The entire site has been graded pursuant to a grading
permit issued for the construction of Olympic Parkway, Prior to grading, a biological
inventory was conducted for the high school site by Dudek & Associates, Inc. on April
13-14, 1999 (see Otav Ranch SPA-I High School Site Biological Survey Summary,
Dudek & Associates, Inc" May 12, 1999). The site was documented as being vegetated
with annual (non-native) grassland and was currently used for agricultural purposes,
Focused surveys were conducted for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica),
dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
quino), Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugens), and San Diego thornmint (Acantomintha
ilicifolia), The results of the surveys were negative, Jurisdictional areas of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers border the northwest edge of the site; however, no
jurisdictional areas are located on-site, No vernal pools were identified on-site. No
significant impacts would result from relocating the high school because the proposed
site does not contain sensitive habitat or sensitive species
VIII, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signincant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
2S-
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 I!I
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 I!I
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 I!I
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any energy and mineral
resource impacts, The SPA One EIR Initial Study checklist concluded there would be
not significant impacts related to these issues (p, 9-1),
Potentially
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 I!I
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 I!I
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 I!I
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 I!I
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 I!I
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The SPA One EIR did not identify any public safety (hazards) impacts associated with
locating the high school in Village 2 (p, 10-32), Moving the school 700 feet to the east
would not result in any additional impacts,
Potentially
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant Less than
Slgnlftcant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 I!I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0
Comments: The SPA One EIR determined that a portion of the school site would be exposed to
traffic noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL (p. 10-31). The same noise exposure
would apply to the currently proposed school site, Siting the noise-sensitive school
facilities outside the 65dB CNEL contour would avoid adverse impacts. Noise
attenuation measures such as berms and walls could be used to reduce noise levels
below 65 dB CNEL, and avoid noise impacts,
Construction noise would have potentially significant impacts on surrounding residential
areas, Construction noise impacts would be the same in either school location,
Implementation of mitigation measure 5.11-1 would minimize the impact, but not to a
u.
6
less than significant level (p, 10-31), A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted when the EIR was certified,
XI.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaUy
Significant
Unl~
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
0 0 0 I!I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
Comments:
Moving the school site 700 feet to the east would not affect the provision of fire or
police services, public facilities, or other services, Access to the site would be the
same, except it would be 700 feet further east. The SPA One EIR did not identify any
adverse public service impacts associated with locating the school in Village 2 (p.1O-
32).
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 I!I
Potentially
Potentially Signif"tcant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Fire/EMS 0 0 0 I!I
The City's Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of
the cases, The City of Chula Vista has determined that this threshold standard will be met
because fire services would be provided in accord with the Otay Ranch Fire Master Plan and
EMS Master Plan,
Comments:
The SPA One EIR states that potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical
services will be evaluated at the SPA-level analysis required for the approval of the SPA
for Village 2, Therefore, no significant impacts to fire protection and emergency
medical services are anticipated with the proposed changes to residential units in Village
2 (p, 5,12-30), No impacts were identified for locating the school in Village 2 (p, 10-
32), The current proposal to move the school 700 feet to the east would not result in
any additional Fire Service/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) impacts,
The Findings of Fact adopted for the SPA One EIR found that the SPA One Plan and
;2..)
7
the Otay Ranch SPA One Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) would achieve
mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the Otay Ranch GOP/SRP
Findings for fire and EMS services, The City also found that performance of
referenced mitigation measures and performance standards for fire are assured through
required applicant participation in the City's development impact fee program
(Findings, p, 53),
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police 0 0 0 181
The City's Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1
calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7
minutes or less, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments:
The SPA One EIR states that potential impacts to police services will be evaluated at the
SPA-level analysis required for the approval of the SPA for Village 2, Therefore, no
significant impacts to police services are anticipated with the proposed changes to
residential units in Village 2 (p, 5,12-30), No impacts were identified as a result of
locating the school in Village 2 (p, 10-32), The current proposal to move the school
700 feet to the east would not result in any additional police service impacts,
The Findings of Fact adopted for the SPA One EIR found that the SPA One Plan and
the PFFP achieve mitigation measures and performance standards set forth in the
GOP/SRP Findings for law enforcement services, The City also found that
performance of referenced mitigation measures and performance standards for law
enforcement is assured through required applicant participation in the City's
development impact fee program (Findings, p, 52),
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Traffic 0 0 0 181
The City's Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may
occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections, Intersections west
of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No intersection may reach
LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with
freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard, The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard,
Comments:
The SPA One EIR determined that the implementation and construction of roadways
specified in the Otay Ranch SPA One Circulation Plan would reduce traffic impacts to a
level less than significant and no project specific mitigation measures are required (p.
10-27), Moving the school site 700 feet easterly along Olympic parkway would not
result in any potential impacts not previously considered,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
u...~
Mitigated
Less than
Signincant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
o
181
:L~
8
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population.
The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
The siting of the high school in Village 2 would not increase the demand for additional
parkland or recreational services (p, 10-32), Moving the school further east would not
result in any impacts not previously considered.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant UnI... Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Drainage 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
The City's Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard,
Moving the school site 700 feet to the east would not impede the project's ability to
comply with City Engineering Standards. Relocating the school further east would not
result in any impacts not previously considered,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lesstban
Significant Un!... Signincant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
t) Sewer 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
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 will comply with this Threshold Standard,
The SPA One EIR determined that the SPA One Plan Amendment would not result in
substantial increase in sewer flows and that no significant impacts would occur (p. 5,12-
12), Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any sewer impacts not
previously considered,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
g) Water 0 0 0 ~
Comments:
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Standard.
The SPA One EIR determined that the SPA One Plan Amendment would not result in
substantial increase in water demand and that no significant impacts would occur (p,
5.12-4), Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any new impacts not
29
9
previously considered,
Potentially
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would PotentiaUy Significant Lesstban
Significant UnI", Signincant No
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 II!
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 II!
c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 II!
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 II!
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 II!
t) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 II!
Comments:
Public service demands were analyzed in the SPA One EIR (see Section 12), Locating
the high school in Village 2 would not require new systems or substantial alterations to
any of the planned service systems.
Providing a 50-acre high school site is consistent with the mitigation agreement between
the applicant and Sweetwater High School District (see SPA One EIR, p, 5,12-21), The
site is to be delivered in a finish-graded condition with utilities extended to the site,
Moving the school 700 feet to the east would not result in any new impacts not
previously considered,
Potentially
PotentiaUy Significant Lesstban
Significant Unless Significant No
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 II!
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 II!
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 II!
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 II!
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19,66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Produce an additional amount of spill light? II! 0 0 0
Comments: A conceptual grading plan for the approved high school site was included in the SPA
One ErR (see Figure 10,3,2), This conceptual grading plan was used as the basis of the
landform/visual quality analysis, The ErR analysis addressed landform alteration
(grading). steep slopes, public views, and private views, The scenic route designation 3l'
10
of Olympic Parkway was considered in the public view analysis,
Grading of the site would involve 1,750,00 cubic yards (cu,yds,) of excavation and
720,000 cu,yds, of fill, The excess cut material will be used in the construction of
Olympic Parkway, The maximum height of the cut slope would be 64 feet and the
average height of cut slope would be 28 feet. The maximum height of fill slope would
be 44 feet and the height of the average fill slope would be 17 feet. The slopes along
Olympic Parkway would be less than 40 feet high and other slopes around the site
would not exceed 50 feet in height (p, 10-29), The EIR analysis concluded that
construction of the high school would result in short-term construction impacts, long-
term nighttime lighting and grading impacts, Moving the school site 700 feet to the east
would not result in any impacts not previously considered and the mitigation measures
would be equally applicable to the new location, Implementation of mitigation measures
5.4-1 through 5.4-3 of the SPA One EIR (EIR 97-03) would reduce the impacts, but not
to below a level of significance, A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted
when the EIR was certified,
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
PotentiaUy
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant N.
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
0 0 0 II
D
D
D
II
D
D
D
II
D
D
D
II
o
o
o
II
Comments: The SPA One EIR (EIR 97-03) concluded that the school site would impact two
archaeology sites (SDI 12,282 and 12,283) (p. 10-30). A subsequent significance-
testing program was completed for these sites by Brian F. Smith Associates (An
Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Village 2 High
School Site, Otay Ranch, July 21, 1999), This testing survey and testing program
evaluated the currently proposed high school site (i,e" the site 700 feet east of the
approved site), Sites SDI 12,282 and 12,283 were determined to be less than significant
according to the criteria listed in CEQA, Section 15064.5, Consequently, moving the
school site to the proposed location would not result in any significant cultural resource
impacts,
11
3(
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The proposed school site, as well as the currently approved site, is underlain by
alluvium (Qal), Otay Formation (00), and San Diego Formation (Tsd), Both 00 and
Tsd formations are likely to contain fossil resources (see SPA One EIR, p, 5,7-3),
Implementation of mitigation measures 5,7-1 through 5,7-4 would reduce potential
impacts to below a level of significance (p, 10-30).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaUy
Significant
Uniess
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
181
Potentially
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: PotentiaDy Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 181
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 181
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 181
plans or programs?
Comments: The high school, in its approved location, or at the proposed site further to the east,
would not increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. The proposed school
complex includes recreational facilities that would be available to the public during non-
school hours,
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for
mnndatory findings of significance, if an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments:
Potentially
Signifacant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
MItigated
No
Impact
Less than
SigniRcant
Impact
o
o
o
181
The proposed school site, as well as the approved school site, are included in the
adopted Otay Ranch General Development Plan and the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan.
Development of either site would not degrade the quality of the environment because
the school is integrated into the overall development plan for Otay Ranch, As explained
in the above discussion of biological resources, the proposed school site does not
contain sensitive biological resources,
12
:32-
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
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,)
d) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Ii!I
The relocation of the high school to Village 2 of the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan was approved because Village 7, where it was previously located, will not be
developed concurrent with the need for a high school (GPA Spa One EIR, p, 3-5), The
relocation was approved as part of the Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Moving the school
site 700 feet to the east would be consistent with both short-term and long-term
environmental goals of providing an educational facility consistent with the need for
additional educational services,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Uol....
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Signincant
Impact
D
D
D
Ii!I
Cumulative effects related to the movement of the school site to Village 2 were
considered in the SPA One EIR, No adverse cumulative effects were identified as a
result of moving the school from Village 7 to Village 2 (SPA One EIR, Section 6),
Construction of the school will assist in alleviating current overcrowded conditions in
local schools, Moving the school 700 feet to the proposed site would not result in any
cumulative effects that were not considered in the SPA One EIR,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signiftcant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Ii!I
Moving the high school site 700 feet to the east would not adversely human beings, The
site and the immediately surrounding area are undeveloped at this time, The school will
be constructed concurrently with residential development to the north and west.
33
I3
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The mitigation measures cited in this checklist have been incorporated into the project through the approval
of the Otav Ranch SPA One and GDP/SRP Amendments and will be implemented during the design,
construction or operation of the project.
3t
14
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to adoption of the Addendum shall indicate the Applicants'
and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval.
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
D Land Use and Planning D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Population and Housing D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation
D Paleontological D Mandatory Findings of Significance
Resources
3)
15
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, D
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at D
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal 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 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,
Signature
Date
Marilyn M,F, Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
3~
16
Appendix B
THE .JF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ',.., r:MENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission. and all other official bodies, The following information must be disclosed:
1, List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e,g" owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
South Bay Development. LLC
Otay Ranch Development. LLC
2, If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
AI Baldwin
Jim Baldwin
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.
None
4, Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Jim Baldwin Kent Aden Chuck Cater
Dav1d Green Robert:. l,;ameron
Roy Peace
Kim Kilkenny
Ranie Hunter
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: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESS
Date:
/r(z~#~
;:::/h1 J@/( /Ll_L~
Print or type name of contractor/a plicant
37
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organi=ation. corporation.
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county. city and country. city municipality, district. or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination. acting as a Jlnit. ..
ATTACHMENT #'1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date 08/09/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Consideration of the following application filed by PG&E
Dispersed Generation, LLC for 3497 Main Street:
Resolution SUP 00 08: A Special Use Permit to allow a Peak Load Power Plant
STAFF CONTACT:
Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager, Community Development
Department
The applicant, PG & E Dispersed Generation, LLC" desires to locate a Peak Load Power Plant at 3497 Main Street
and has applied for a Special Use Permit,
The Planning and Environmental Manager of the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study
and has determined that project specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the initial study to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Resource Conservation
Commission at their meeting of July 17,2000 recommended unanimously the certification of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration,
~ND
On March 21,2000 a duly verified application for a special use permit to allow the siting of a Peak Load Power Plant was
filed with the City of Chula Vista, The planned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas
compressor, electrical generator, and associated equipment. An underground gas pipeline in the access road would
connect to the existing gas pipeline in Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site, The site is not proposed to be
paved, The entire property is proposed to be surrounded by a 10' high chain link fence with opaque screening slats and
landscaping on the outside,
The air cooled gas turbine (approximately 70 feet in length, 15 feet wide, and 11 feet high) would be within an enclosure
100 feet in width, 80 feet long, and 25 feet high, Water use would be limited to on-site domestic use, inlet chilling and
combustor water injection (if utilized), Smali cooling towers would be required for the inlet chilling system, The turbine
would be fitted with air pollution control equipment, noise suppression devices and exhaust stack, The Selective Catalytic
Reduction air pollution control equipment would use ammonia injection and be approximately 70 feet in length, 35 feet
wide, and 40 feet high, The exhaust stack would be 15 feet wide, 20 feet iong, and 45 feet high, A nuisance fluid
(turbine and gear box seepage) collection system and storage vault would be located within the turbine enclosure, The
fluids would be removed by a licensed disposal firm on an as-needed basis,
An onsite electrical substation would transform the electrical output to 69,000 volts, The facility would tap into the existing
69,000 volt line along the eastern edge of the site, This overhead 69,000 volt transmission line may require upgrading
with larger, higher capacity wires, If required, San Diego Gas and Electric would be responsible for the re-wiring,
The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E. PG&E personnel or a local subcontractor would
routinely inspect, service, and maintain the facility, It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit
the facility 2 to 3 times per week, Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles, Major
overhauls of the turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every two years and require 2 to 3
weeks to complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians,
/
I ;Ie 2, Item
Meeting Date 08/08/00
The site is presently vacant. It was most recently used as a operation and storage yard by three businesses - a house
moving equipment company, a sandblasting equipment company, and an auto towing company, The properties to the
north and east are occupied by auto storage and wrecking yards, The property to the west is vacant, but was most
recently used for trailer storage, The Otay River is located along the property's southem boundary,
Adopt attached Resolution recommending that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Special Use Permit in accordance with the attached Redevelopment
Agency Resolution based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions contained therein,
,~~";,t
The project is an application for a Special Use Permit. The property is zoned Limited Industrial Zone Precise Plan
Modifying District (ILP) and a Peak Load Power Plant is allowed via Special Use Permit as an unclassified use
(Public or Quasi Public Uses), The maximum height limit allowed is 45 feet. Building setback minimums are 20 front
and 15 foot exterior side yard, The buildings are setback 45' from the southern boundary, which is the nearest
property line to a structure, The following findings are required to be made to allow the approval of a Special Use
Permi!:
1, That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed peak load power plant is necessary to provide additional sources of energy to the community during
peak load opportunities from a modern efficient facility,
2" That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity,
An environmental analysis was performed for the project site in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. As a result of that environmental analysis specific mitigation conditions have been placed
upon the project. Said conditions are included in the Mitigated negative Declaration for the project and are
incorporated as conditions of approval for SUP-DO-DB,
3.That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use.
Special Use Permit SUP-DO-DB requires the permittee to comply with all the applicable regulations and standards
specified in the Municipal Code for such use, The conditioning of SUP,DD-DB is approximately proportional both in
nature and in extent to the impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly
related to and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project.
4.That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the
adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUP-DO-DB will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that said project is in
conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, The site is in an area that is characterized by
commercial and industrial uses, and as previously noted has been conditioned to mitigate potential impacts,
CONCLUSION;s:c. -
z
.-......--^'.---.---..-..---...-..---....-"..' ,~
J ..,e 3, Item _
Meeting Date 08/08/00
Staff has concluded that the proposed special use permit is consistent with the findings required to allow such a use,
Thus, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula Vista approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposed special use permij based
on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution,
H:\HOME\COMMDEV\HUNTER\PCAgenda Power.DOC
3
---- _ ------.--
____m__________ ___m_________
~-- ~--
Proposed Peak Load Generating Facility
Locator Map
: 'I _ __IEJ l~lillLJJ l~jUJ llL~ I "j---l j,-H
~ -- J ~mTTTTr !'if'r T ,-;- Il f'l 1 rulE f------ I II I
rn I tnrtm ffitrillill gffiJJl_ i - m Dr i_Jtl
_N57!'&T Main Street
"--!I ,
... I'
, -rr, i --
, I I,
I" 111_1
~ ----~ ',1 ~--~
I I ' ,
nm
L~~
1"'[-1 , ..-
I;, I I '
J f-' - j ~,. '
I 8'-~' I
1-11
, - I I
. : _: ' I ~
I : i _! - I
1 I t::=; BJI
I<.vcn......y :J
. r i I I II I II '
.. '_----'-'-1..L1..1.... ,i C
I '
I
-,<:um<A-.E
c__------,--__-'"_______
I
I
I '
: I
,
-,.-----c......
,
'1.----- - - -_ ,
~~r
\
I' I
/ Lrn;nJ, ,', "
m_ _ _____
0,3
o
0.3 Iotles
----
---
Proposal to be revie\N8d by:
Design Review Committee
Planning Commission
Redevelopment Agency
'--
-----
__ m__~ _.
,
,_,
j"'-
I I j-.......
i
J
N
I
E I
I
'f I
____..J
w
__J
s
- ----- ~- ~- -~-
RESOLUTION NO, SUP-OO-OB
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFY THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE SITING OF A PEAK LOAD POWER PLANT AT 3497 MAIN
STREET
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000 a duly verified application for a Special Use
Permit to allow the siting of a Peak Load Power Plant at 3497 Main Street was filed
with the Community Development Department of the City of Chula Vista by PG&E
Dispersed Generation LLC; and
WHEREAS, , a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared on June 23,
2000 per the requirements of Section 15070 of State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on
said special use permit and notice of said hearing, together with the 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 scheduled for August 9, 2000 6:00 p,m, in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista certify the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve Special Use Permit OO-OB in accordance with the findings and subject to
the conditions contained in the attached resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Redevelopment
Agency,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary
5
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CERTIFYING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-39 AND APPROVING A
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SITING OF A PEAK
LOAD POWER PLANT AT 3497 MAIN STREET.
A. RECITALS
1, Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description is located at 3497 Main Street ("Project Site"); and,
2, Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on March 21,2000 a duly verified application for a special use permit to allow
the siting of a Peak Load Power Plant (SUPS-DO-DB) was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Community Development Department by PG&E Dispersed Generation (Applicant); and
3, Project Description; Application for Special Use Permit
WHEREAS, applicant requests permission to site a Peak Load Power Plant at the project
site, The planned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas
compressor, electrical generator, and associated equipment within the perimeter of the
property fenced and screened by landscaping; and,
4, Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider said
application on August 9, 2000, and after considering all evidence and testimony presented
recommended by a vote of _ that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Special Use
Permit; and,
5, Redevelopment Agency Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista on August 22, 2000 to receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to
same,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency does hereby
Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Special Use Permit based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
(p
_........__"._ _~ _^._._.._.~_.___.~._. ....._._..._._. __________ m_~ .,.,
DRAFT
B, PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at
their public hearing on this project held on August 9, 2000 and the minutes and resolution resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding,
C, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Manager prepared an Initial Study, and determined
that project specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the initial study to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared; and,
D, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgement of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and hereby
adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
E. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby make the findings required by
the Agency's Rules and Regulations for the issuance of special use permits, as herein below set
forth, and set forth, thereunder, the evidentiary basis that permits the stated finding to be made,
1, That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The proposed peak load power plant is necessary to provide additional sources of energy to the
community during peak load opportunities from a modern efficient facility,
2, That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
An environmental analysis was performed for the project site in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act. As a result of that environmental analysis specific
mitigation conditions have been placed upon the project. Said conditions are included in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and are incorporated herein as conditions of
approval for SUPS-DO-DB.
7
DRAFT
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
Special Use Permit SUPS-DO-DB requires the permittee to comply with all the applicable
regulations and standards specified in the Municipal Code for such use,
The conditioning of SUPS-DO-DB is approximately proportional both in nature and in extent to the
impact created by the proposed development in that the conditions imposed are directly related to
and are of a nature and scope related to the size and impact of the project.
4, That the granting of this special use permit will not adversely affect the general plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of SUPS-DO-DB will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that said
project is in conformance with the City Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, The site is in an area
that is characterized by commercial and industrial uses, and as previously noted in Finding 2, has
been conditioned to mitigate potential impacts,
F. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Redevelopment Agency hereby grants Special Use Permit SUPS-DO-DB subject to the
following conditions whereby the applicant and/or property owner shall:
Planning and Building Department Conditions:
1, Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project landscape and irrigation plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Landscape Planner.
2, Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new structures, all landscaping shall be
installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan,
3, Any designated parking areas on the site shall provide a landscape treatment of 10% minimum per
the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. The site plan does not at this time identify any designated
parking areas, However, if in the future parking areas are created then this will be a requirement.
4, If at any point in the future the designated easement becomes a designated street and right-of-
way, then additional landscaping may be required within the right-of-way,
5, Opportunities for vine pocket plantings should be looked at by the Landscape Architect. There
should be isolated pockets of vine plantings along the proposed fencing,
6, Provide some vine plantings along the proposed fencing,
7, A water management plan shall be provided at the building permit stage, per requirements of the
City Landscape Manual.
B, At the building permit stage, a complete planting and irrigation plan per the City Landscape Manual
will be required,
9, Construct the project as submitted, unless otherwise modified herein,
10, All mitigation measures identified within the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building in perpetuity,
?
DRAFI
Public Works Department Conditions
11, In the event the Developer or its successor acquires in fee the property for the continued operation
of the Project beyond the lease term and extensions and in the event that Albany Avenue is
extended and widened south of Main Street to the Property, the Developer agrees to dedicate the
necessary land as determined by the City Engineer within the Property for the widening and
improvement of Albany Avenue,
12, The following fees will be required if appropriate or if applicable, including but not limited to those
fees identified below, based on the final building plans submitted,
a, Sewer capacity and connection fees,
b, Development Impact Fees
c, Traffic Signal Fees
13, The Engineering Division will require the applicant to obtain a construction permit to perform any
work in the City's right of way or easements,
14, A grading permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permit. Specific means of
handling storm runoff will be addressed at the time of the grading plan review, All runoff will be
subject to NPDES regulations, Hazardous materials will not be allowed to drain onto surrounding
property,
15, Existing public sewer lines shall remain protected and driveable access shall be provided to all
sewer manholes located on the property, Sewer easements shall be granted for all existing sewer
lines on the property not within an existing easement.
Fire Department Conditions
16, A 20' minimum width Fire access is required with an all weather driving surface,
ApplicanUoperator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and
Redevelopment Agency, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and
against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including GOurt costs and
attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's
approval and issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and b) Applicant's installation and operation of the facility
permitted hereby, ApplicanUoperator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this Special Use Permit where indicated below, ApplicanUoperator's compliance with this provision
is an express condition of this Special Use Permit and this provision shall be binding on any and all of
Applicant's/operator's successors and assigns,
G, EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines provided below, said execution indicating
that the applicant has read, understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County of San Diego, and a
signed, stamped copy returned to the Community Development Department. Failure to sign this document
within ten days of approval shall indicate the applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding
application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
Cf
"-/,; ,:i
document will also be on file in the Community Development Department's files and known as Document
No,
Signature of Representative of PG&E
Date
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
John M, Kaheny
City Attorney
/0
Case No.IS-OO-39
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: PG&E Dispersed Generation, LLC
2, Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3, Address and Phone Nnmber of Proponent: 100 Pine St.. Ste, 2860
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 675-6472
4, Name of Proposal: Peak Load Electrical Power Plant
5. Date of Checklist: June 23, 2000 (Revised 7/20/00 to reflect comments
from RCC meeting of 7/17/00)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Signifkant
Impact
No
Impact
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING.
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Would the
o
o
o
[;!
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
o
o
o
[;!
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g"
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The project site is located at 3497 Main Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA. The
property consists of one legal parcel (APN 629-062-04-00) that has no frontage on Main Street. The
property is approximately 835 feet south of Main Street. A 20':!: private easement road provides access
to the site. The road is partially paved.
o
o
o
[;!
o
o
o
[;!
On-Site Land Use
The site is currently used as an operation and storage site by three sma]] businesses ~ a house moving
cquipment company, a sandblasting equipment company, and an auto towing company, Structures on-site
include (I) a high-bay steel garage 43' x 14' x 18' high, (2) a 10' x 10' office/toilet building, and (3) a
sma]] 10' x 15' x 9 high portable, wooden office building on the southern portion of the property, A
security fence surrounds the property,
/1
7/20/00
PG&E Disnersed Gencration LLC Peak road Power Plant
and storage vault would be located within the turbine enclosure. The fluids would be removed by a licensed
disposal finn on an as-needed basis.
An on-site electrical substation would transfonn the electric output to 69,000 volts, The facility would tap into
tlie existing 69,000-volt line along the eastern edge oftlie site, This overhead 69,000-volt transmission line may
require upgrading with larger, higher capacity, wires. If required, San Diego Gas and Electric would be
responsible for the re-wiring.
The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E Dispersed Generating Company control
center personneL PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect, service and maintain
the facility. It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit the facility 2 to 3 times per
week. Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles. Major overhauls of the
turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to
complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians.
Gradinl! and Drainage
The project site is a graded pad adjacent to the Gtay River. Finish grading required for the project involves
2,578 cu,yds of earthwork. The maximum cur slope height would be four feet at the project site entrance,
Existing on-site drainage pattern flows southerly to the property line and westerly into a drainage swale that
empties into the Otay River. The existing drainage swale is part of the City of Chula Vista stonn drain system
that conveys runoff from north of Main Street to the Gtay River. This stonn drain system would remain in its
current condition with no alterations.
The proposed grading would direct surface runoff to a catch basin with a built-in filtration system in the
southwest corner of the site. An IS-inch RCP stonn drain would convey surface runoff to a headwall and
energy dissipator located in an existing drainage swale immediately southwest of the project site. Development
of the site would result in a negligible increase in the rate of surface runoff. The site would not be paved with
impervious surfaces.
Stormwater Mana~ement
The facility win have two containment areas and a containment pond to minimize the potential release of non-
storm water materials (transfonner oil, aqueous ammonia) into the Gtay River. The aqueous ammonia tank and
electrical switchyard containment areas would be sized to hold 150% of the tank volume of ammonia and
electrical transfonner oil, respectively. The containment areas would also be sized to hold 150% of the rainfall
falling within a containment area during a 100-year stann event. The switchyard facility, containing
transfonners filled with non-PCB oil, would be surrounded by a containment dike, In the event that an oil leak
occurs, all oil would be contained within the diked area, The 12,000-gallon aqueous ammonia tank would also
be enclosed within a containment dike. In the event of an ammonia tank leak, all ammonia would be contained
within the diked area. The plant operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the containment areas during
their nonnal plant inspections. In the event of an oil or ammonia leak, the containment basins would be
pumped out and disposed of as required County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations,
The switchyard and ammonia tank containment areas would be connected to a containment pond designed to
prevent the release of non-stonn water materials into the storm water drain system. The plant
operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the switchyard and aqueous ammonia containment areas during
and after rainstorms. If oil or ammonia are not present, the storm water in the containment areas would be
released into the containment pond. Stonn water collected in the diked containment areas would be pumped
into a tank truck for removal from the site as required by City, DEH. and RWQCB regulations,
After storm water is transferred to the containment pond it would be inspected a second time for oil, ammonia
or other contaminants. If none are present, the operator/maintenance personnel would open the valves releasing
the storm water into the sewer system. If contaminants are present, the containment pond would be pumped out
and the materials disposed of as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations
/2..
2
06/23/00
PG&E DisDersl;'d Generation LLC
Peak Load Power Plant
The faciJity "viII be required to obtain a State Industrial Activities Stom1 \Vater Genc:ral Pennit as required by
Fcdcr<.11 Regulations (40CFR, Parts 122,123, and 124) that implement the Clean \Vater Act of 1987. The goal of
the permit is to reduce or eliminate stormvv'ater pollution and other impacts to surface \vaters from industrial
sites. The stornnvater pelmit requires operators of industrial facilities to develop a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention (SWPP) PJan. 'rhe Plan would identify existing and potential sources of stom1water pollution, and
describe how the facility would reduce or ehminate the potentia! for stormwater poJlution. The S\VWPP Plan
\Ovould outline the facilities stormwater contaminant assessment (high quantities of suspended solids). The plan
\vould dispJay a stormwater Sill' map identifying drainage pat1erns, discharge structures and points, paved areas
and buiJdings, areas of pollutant contact, and areas with soil erosion potenti<.1l. The plan \\'ould include Best
Managemcllt Practices (BMP's) to reduce the potentia! for stonnwater po]Jutioll that indude good
housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spill dean-up procedures, stonl1water flow control features, and
employee training. The plan would identify practices and facility features designed to control pollution at its
source. Another requirement is the development and implementation of a stom1\vatcr-monitoring plan in
conjunction with the SWPP plan. PG&E Dispersed (fenerating Company \vouJd \\'ork closely with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (R\VQCB) to detelmine Bl\'1P's and identify the most effective way to
design 1t:atures to control potential stOlm water contamination.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING AND PLANS
The facility is designed to be consistent with all governmental codes and regulations, including the Chula Vista
IL industrial zone, conditions that may be included in the Conditional Use Permit, the conditions of the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct and Pennit to Operate, and San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health Permit for the ammonia storage tank.
D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist fonn)
determined that the proposed project will have significant environmental biological resources and noise effects
that can be mitigated to a less than significant level, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will
not be required, This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines,
Biological Resources
The project site was surveyed by Vincent N, Scheidt, biological consultant, on March 21 and April 29, 2000,
The site and adjacent areas were surveyed each day, with particular attention given to areas where riparian birds
were most likely to be found. The site is devoid of vegetation except for exotic plant material located in the
drainage swale along the western property boundary. No animal species are present on-site. The site has not
served as a wildlife dispersal corridor because the property has been fenced for several years. The area
immediately south of the projecr site is a heavily vegetated riparian habitat associated with the Otay River. The
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan identifies the adjacent area as "open space/preserve area."
Riparian woodland vegetation is present immediately beyond the southern fence line of the property. Indicators
in this habirat include Black and Arroyo Willow (Salix gooddingii, S lasiolepis), Mule Fat (Baccharis
glutinosa), San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana), American Bulrush (Scirpus olneyi), and Cattails (Typha
latifalia). Also present in and along the periphery of the riparian area are noxious and weedy species, including
Castor Bean (Ricinus communis). Tamarisk (Tamarix), Giant Wild Reed (Arundo donax), Indian Rice Grass
(O'yzopsis miliacea), and others. These have degraded the riparian habitat to a degree, although this wetland is
still of regional significance to area wildlife.
The only animals associated with the project site itself are locally common species, such as Housefinch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), English Sparrows (Passer domesticus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), Western
Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and other vertebrates that are tolerant of or dependent upon
development. The riparian area, however, supports a diversity of native species, including Song Sparrows
(A1elospiza me/odia), Yel10w Warblers (Dendroica petechia), Least Bell's Vireos (Vireo bellii pusillus), and
others. ~ ~
3
06/23/00
PG&E Disnerscd Generation LLC
Peak Load Power Plant
Utilization of the site will have no direct, adverse impacts to area wildlife or sensitive species. Only
insignificant impacts, as defined by CEQA, to locally COnID10n species and weeds will result from site
development. However, indirect impacts are considered potentially adverse and significant, as defined by
CEQA, A number of obligate riparian songbirds were detected during the surveys for this report, including
several sensitive species, and others are anticipated to occur in this area. These species could be adversely
affected by noise created by the construction of the proposed power generating facility. Mitigation measures
listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
Noise
Noise sources associated with the proposed project can be identified within three categories: (1) construction
noise; (2) mobile noise sources, generally consisting of noise from cars and trucks; and (3) stationary
mechanical equipment operation. The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition
activities from its exterior noise level limitations. However, most municipalities consider construction activities
on Sunday or Nighttime as intrusive. Construction noise will usually exceed typical background noise levels but
will generally be for a short teno and will generally occur during daytime bours on weekdays and Saturdays,
Mobile noise sources after construction is completed will consist of operations and maintenance vehicles that
will contribute negligible overall noise to the area and will not further be considered.
Noise from the stationary mechanical equipment will come from five dominant sources:
. The two separate engine air intakes and single turbine exhaust. Full acoustic data is not currently
available for these engines; however, initial engineering estimates are for each of these three openings
generate about 140 dB(A) directly at the opening,
. Direct noise radiation from the equipment, a currently unknown sound level, is estimated to be a
maximum of 105 to 115 dB(A),
. The high pressure reciprocating natural gas compressor is estimated to operate at 100 dB(A) at a
distance of 10 feet from the unit. This is based on data taken at other natural gas compressors. The
manufacturer will supply actual data at the time of unit specification.
. The high volume air blower for generator cooling is estimated it to operate at 100 dB(A) at intake and
exhaust openings. Full acoustic data is not currently available for the blower.
. Noise data for the absorption chillers and pumps, to be located inside the turbine enclosure, is not
currently available. The manufacturer will supply sound data at the time of unit specification.
The starionary mechanical equipment could produce noise levels as high as 130 dB(A) ar the property line if
noise control measures are not included in the plant design. Precise noise data for each component in the plant is
not available at this time because specific pieces of equipment to be installed have not been selected.
Consequently, it is not possible to provide a final noise control system design at this time.
A variety of conventional noise reduction techniques would be included in the plant design. Noise reduction
techniques would be installed, as needed, to reduce noise levels to 60 dB at the property line, Noise reduction
techniques that would be utilized have noise reduction characteristic as follows:
Technique
In Line Silencer
Louvers
Lined Right Angle Turns in Ducts
Lined Covers at Inlet/Exhaust
Noise Containment Walls
Noise Reduction
2 to 5 dB per foot
10 to 20 dB per unit
4 to 8 dB per turn
4 to 8 dB (one per unir)
6 to 18 dB per unit
Ji.f
4
06/23/00
07/29/00 SAT 13:11 FAX 925
Jul-28-00 IO:46P A_
672 7504
Dale E, ~[esp]
!ill 004
,HINSHAW ASSOC_
6_3 280 1637
P~03
!'G&r: D;.'fl!..:.neJ G.~craaotl. I~C
---~.
p'~{}k ",<lad I~Q~!!!.
]Vule.,' TIft'! m::lllol va1ue.~ of$i}Und 7/!.dUr,:rimJ an:-ff'''qtiR,ff-9' <Hr.d u"it depP.tldent. T!U?s.: lIofur:f ",.<!
ifftP.Pldl!d ljn~v a.o; all o~rd~", of~afhlbiliti~5.
As QI\ be :sc<:n from th(" above list, 20 feet of siltncer:at 3 aJ.B pet" fool (60 dB) plus rwQ righl angle turru; (6 dR I
lum). a I()uvc:r (IS dtl). aDd a cover (() dB~, f'fQ'\'idcapproxi.rl1.aldy 93 dB J:~ductiQn in nQise. Thcrc.lo1'<,~. noise
from cach Of1W() combuslion engine inlcls ,,1140 dD(A) ,hould be reduced to 47 dB(A), While this i. relatively
quid. it sbou1d be noted that if aU of the individu'Jl noise: generating (:Qmp()n~n1S ace $UlJUnC'd a(t.cr reducrion to
an equivaknl Jevd fOT 1hc five known fuaed noise generating t:OJI1ponc.nts listed. illbov~, ~ sum of d,e nQ1S'l"
wo\tld equal almost 51 dB(A)_ Thi~ analysis is not intended as ;!I fimd description of techniques fnr this projed.
The final malysis wuuld incJude ~pccHk: details indl1ding fuU frequency an~lysi~ for each system component.
Portions of the project require $p~jaJ cOIlt::ide.rattOll tor the noise mitigat]on systems. These include:
. The 900-ddgrce (F3~lheit) sy~ltm exbaust_ This will require s.itendng sysl~nl$ dc:5"igned [0 CTlsure
ongoing sy~m fundionality,
. The high-prcs:su~ IWnua1 gas COl.rrpre~<;or. The State: of CaJifomii:1 IDi'ndate..:: Open-Hir ventilJtion
requircmmts; Ih~1!': must be mallHAlincd by \hc- floi$c qui(:ting sY$km.
A Si~-Sl\.'P miti,gati()n program has, hccn prep3red that l.ssme5 compliance with thl: Ciry of Chulil Vjsra Noise
Ordi.n~nce: Fit3:ndaros and the 60 dB(A) guiddlnc c..:o1l1ained in tht" City of (])ula ViST3 dra.ft MSCP Suba~a Plan.
The srx-stt.-p mlti~atjon pTogrd.Ul i~ eontilincd in tile: att:.1chcd Noise Mitigation and Jo..1.:mitoring Pfogram. A lutill
set of mitigulion m,easlIrcs. .....iU be f(,rTnuhttcd dudng th(.' (,1<.'sign and constnJcttOI1 phase (0 t:lcidl-es~ r,.~C"i~e noise
data troUl each componeDI piec~ of cquipmlo".ur ttl he ins{i;llJed. Tmf'lcmcntation of the specific noise attCDLJ~fj(ln
nUligatir:m rrrogram wou1rl ro..iuC"c nois~ Impacts 10 60 dD(A) at the: plopt'rty line amd I-.e.su1t in 21. les.s th>ll\
significant Icvd of no;:o;e impact.
),;, MITIGATION N),;CESSARVTO AV5)1J) STGNfFIC~T IMPACTS
Project-'Specific mitigation measures: an: ~qllired to reduce potential envircrnmcnt.al i.npac~ JdCT11ified in the
lrlirial Study to (t less than ,;ignificmt J<:"el. The micig.atioIl measurt:s v..ill be made .1. candition vi appfl"Iva1. as
wdl a~ rc:quireJn~nt!:: ('Jf the Hl.'Ulched Mitigaticm Muniror;IJE and. RCpo11ing Pmgr.3m (Attachror.nt "A").
stOlted in the: Mitigation Manitoring and kcrortil1g
,_lL to
Name. Titk
7h ~Oc)
-~. Date
I)
,
Q6J2:-VHlJ
PG&E DisDersed Generation LLC
Peak Load Power Plant
F. CONSULTATION
1. City of Chula Vista:
Bryon Estes, Redevelopment Coordinator
Miguel Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist
Benjamin Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator
Captain Edward Thomas, Fire Marshall
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
Beverly Blessent, Planning Division
Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department
M,J, Donnelly, Engineering Department
Scott Harris, Plans Examiner
Elizabeth W, Hull, Deputy City Attorney
Applicant's Agent:
Dale Mesple,
Biological Consultant
Vincent N. Scheidt (Douglas Eilar and Associates)
Acoustician
Charles Terry (Douglas Eilar and Associates)
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Biological Survey Report, (May 2000) Viuceut N, Scheidt, Biological Consultant
Noise Impact Analysis, (May 24, 2000) Douglas Eiler & Associates, Env'l & Acoustical Consultants
G, INITIAL STUDY
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial
Study and any comments received during the public review period for this negative declaration. The report
reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infol111ation regarding the environmental
review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Departmenr, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910,
B~~~
Planning & Environmental Manager, CD
Date:
(9- -z..-:s, of)
/(P
6
06/23/00
PG& E Disnersed Generation LLC
Peak Load Power Plant
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
PEAK LOAD POWER PLANT
PROJECT LOCATION:
3497 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,:
629-06-204
PROJECT APPLICANT:
PG&E Dispersed Generation, LLC
CASE NO,:
IS-00-39
DATE: June 23. 2000 (Revised 7/20/00 to reflect
comments from RCC meeting of7/17/00)
A. PROJECT SETTING
The project site is located at 3497 Main Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA, The property consists of one
legal parcel (APN 629-062-04-00) that has no frontage on Main Srreet The property is approximately 835 feet
south of Main Street. A 20'.::!: private easement road provides access to the site. The road is partially paved.
On-Site Land Use
The site is currently used as an operation and storage site by three small businesses - a house moving
equipment company, a sandblasting equipment company, and an auto towing company. Structures on-site
include (I) a high-bay steel garage 43' x 14' x 18' high, (2) a 10' x 10' office/toilet building, and (3) a small
10' x IS' x 9 high portable, wooden office building on the southern portion of the property, A security fence
surrounds the property.
The entire site has been graded and some areas improved with pea gravel or coarse sand. The southern portion
of the site has been filled with imported soils. The site drains to the south into the Otay River, and to the west
into a drainage swale that empties into the Otay River.
A 20'.::!: sewer easement crosses the northern end of the site. A covered manhole is located near the western
property line. Water from the Sweetwater Authority is available in the access road a few feet south of Main
Street A north-south 69 kV power line is located along the eastern property line,
Surrounding Land Uses
The properties to the north and east are occupied by auto storage and wrecking yards. The property to the west
is vacant, but was previously used as a trailer storage yard. The surrounding area south of Main Street is
characterized by similar auto storage and dismantling activities. A single-family home residential area IS
located across the vacant lot to the west. The Otay River is located along the property's southern boundary.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The planned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas compressor, electrical
generator, and associated equipment. An underground gas pipeline in the access road would connect to the
existing gas pipeline in Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site. The site is not proposed to be paved.
The air-cooled gas turbine (approximately 70 feet in length, IS feet wide and II feet high) would be within an
enclosure 100 feet in width, 80 feet long and 25 feet high. Water use would be limited to on-site domestic use,
inlet chilling and combustor water injection (if utilized). Smal1 cooling towers \-vould be required for the inlet
chilling system. The turbine would be fitted with air pollution control equipment, noise suppression devices
and exhaust stack, The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) air pollution control equipment would use
ammonia injection and be approximately 70 feet in length, 35 feet wide and 40 feet high. The exhaust stack
would be 15 wide, 20 long and 45 feet high, A nuisance fluid (turbine and gear box seepage) collection system
/7
06/23/00
Potentially
Potentially SignifiCant Less than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
portion of the site has been filled with imported soils, The site drains to the south into the Otay River, and
to the west into a drainage swale that empties into the Otay River.
A 20':!: sewer easement crosses the northern end of the site, A manhole is located near the western
property line, Water from the Sweetwater Authority is available in the access road a few feet south of
Main Street. A north south 69 kV power line is located along the eastern property line,
Surrounding Land Uses
The properties to the north and east are occupied by auto storage and wrecking yards, The property to the
west is vacant, but was previously used as a trailer storage yard, The surrounding area south of Main
Street is characterized by similar auto storage and dismantling activities, A single-family home residential
area is located across the vacant lot to the west. TheOtay River is located along the property's southern
boundary .
Proiect Description
The facility is designed to be consistent with all governmental codes and regulations, including the Chula
Vista IL industrial zone, conditions that may be included in the Conditional Use Pennit, the conditions
of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct and Pennit to Operate, and San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health Pennit for the ammonia storage tank.
The planned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas compressor,
clectrical generator, and associated equipment. An underground gas pipeline in the access road would
connect to the existing gas pipeline in Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site, The site is not
proposed to be paved,
The air-cooled gas turbine (approximately 70 feet in length, 15 feet wide and II feet high) would be
within an enclosure 100 feet in width, 80 feet long and 25 feet high, Water use would be limited to on-site
domestic use, inlet chilling and combustor water injection (if utilized), Small cooling towers would be
required for the mlct chilling system, The turbine would be fitted with air pollution control equipment,
noise suppression devices and exhaust stack, The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) air pollution
control equipment would use ammonia injection and be approximately 70 feet in length, 35 feet wide and
40 feet high, The exhaust stack would be 15 wide, 20 long and 45 feet high.
An on-site electrical substation would transfonn the electric output to 69,000 volts, The facility would
tap into the existing 69,000-volt line along the eastern edge of the site, This overhead 69,000-volt
transmission line may require upgrading with larger, higher capacity, wires, Ifrequired, San Diego Gas
and Electric would be responsible for the re-wiring,
The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E Dispersed Generating Company (pG&E
DG) control center personnel. PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect,
service and maintain the facility, It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit
the facility 2 to 3 times per week. Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance
vehicles, Major overhauls of the turbme generators and pollution control equipment would occur every
two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians.
II,
POPULATION AND HOUSING,
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
Would the
o
o
o
/g0
2
7/20/00
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
Comments: Implementation of the project would' not create any additional employment opportunities
or housing units in the area, The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PO&E DO control
center personnel. There are no housing units located on the property, No significant population or
housing impacts would result from construction and operation of the facility.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g" through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving.-
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 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
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifK3nt
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
t!!J
o
o
o
o
t!!J
Comments: The site is underlain with stream-terrace deposits (QT) that occur locally as a thin veneer
along larger drainage courses, The deposits include unconsolidated sand and gravel derived locally from
the sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks ofthe area, The southern portion of the site has been
filled with material from an unknown source, The site has been graded to a level pad,
The soils on the site consist ofHuerhuero loam (HrC) with a 2-9% slope, These soils are noted as having
a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of (I) clay soils with a high
swelling potential, (2) soils with a high permanent water table, (3) soils with claypan or clay layer at or /9
3 7/20100
Potl'nti;!II)-
Signiflamt
Imp4)ct
near the surface, and (4) shallow soils over nearly impervious materials,
having a moderate erosion hazard.
Potl'nti;!Uy
Significant Lesstban
Unless Significant No
Mitigated Impact Impact
These soils are also rated as
Gradin~ and Drainage
The projeet site is a graded pad adjacent to the Otay River. Finish grading required for the project
involves 2,578 cu,yds of earthwork. The maximum cut slope height would be four feet at the project site
entrance.
The existing on-site drainage pattern is to the southern property line and the Otay River and to the west
where runoff flows rrom the property into the Otay River. The existing drainage swale is part of the City
of Chula Vista stOffiJ drain system that conveys runoff rrom north of Main Street to the Otay River. The
existing stOffiJ drain system would remain in its current condition with no alterations,
The proposed grading would direct surface runoff to a catch basin with a built-in filtration system in the
southwest comer of the site, An 18-inch RCP stOffiJ drain would convey surface runoff to a headwall and
energy dissipator located in an existing drainage swale immediately southwest of the project site,
Development of the site would result in a negligible increase in the rate of surface runoff. The site would
not be paved with impervious surfaces, No significant impacts to water resources have been identified
and no mitigation measures are required.
No significant geophysical impacts would result from the construction and operation of the plant. The
Engineering Department as a standard requirement of grading peffiJit approval would require a soils report
and compliance with the applicable recommendations,
Source: Michael p, Kennedy and Siang S, Tan, Geolo~v of National City, Imperial Beach and
Otay Mesa Ouadran~les. Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area California, 1977
Source: V,S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survev. San Diego Area,
California, December 1973,
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g" temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
4
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
,J.D
7/20/00
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less tban
Significant Unless SignifwlDt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 t><J
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 t><J
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 t><J
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 t><J
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The only portions of the site that would be paved are the turbine and equipment enclosure
and the electrical substation, The paved area would include approximately 14,000 sq, ft, (S-percent of the
3,8-acre site), A negligible increase in the rate and volume of runoff would occur as a result of the
proposed development.
The existing drainage pattern would be maintained (see Section I above), Development of the project
would result in a less than significant increase in the rate and volume of surface runoff. The containment
system described in Section I above would reduce the potential for contaminants in the stonn water runoff
to a less than significant level.
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) floodplain maps show the site as being
within a 100-year floodplain, However, the FEMA maps were prepared prior to the filling of the site that
occurred several years ago, The FEMA maps indicate the 100-year floodplain level at the site is 44 feet
Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), However, the site has been filled to a minimum elevation of 55 feet
AMSL. Thus, the site is 10 to II feet above the 100-year floodplain level. The project would result in
a Jess than significant impact to the Otay River valley floodplain and downstream waters,
No groundwater extraction is proposed, The containment system described in Section I above would
reduce the potential for groundwater contamination to a less than significant level.
Stonnwater Management
The facility will have two containment areas and a containment pond to minimize the potential release
of non-stonn water materials (transfonner oil, aqueous ammonia) into the Otay River. The aqueous
ammonia tank and electrical switchyard containment areas would be sized to hold 150% of the tank
volume of ammonia and electrical transfonner oil, respectively, The containment areas will also be sized
to hold 150% of the rainfall falling within a containment area during a 100-year stonn event. The
switchyard facility, containing transfonners filled with non-PCB oil, would be surrounded by a
containment dike, In the event that an oil leak occurs, all oil would be contained within the diked area,
The 12,000-gallon aqueous ammonia tank would also be enclosed within a containment dike, In the
event of an ammonia tank leak, all ammonia would be contained within the diked area, The plant
operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the containment areas during their nonnal plant
inspections, In the event of an oil or ammonia leak, the containment basins would be pumped out and
disposed of as'required County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations,
The switchyard and ammonia tank containment areas would be connected to a containment pond designed
to prevent the release of non-stonn water materials into the stonn water drain system, The plant
operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the switchyard and aqueous ammonia containment areas
during and after rainstonns, Stonn water collected in the diked containment areas would be pumped into
a tank truck for removal from the site as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations, If oil or
ammonia are not present, the stonn water in the containment areas would be released into the containment
5
~/
7/20/00
Pot~ntially
Significant
Impad
Pot~ntiaUy
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impad
No
Impad
pond,
After stann water is transferred to the containment pond it would be inspected a second time for oil,
ammonia or other contaminants, If none are present, the operator/maintenance personnel would open the
valves releasing the stann water into the sewer system, If contaminants are present, the containment pond
would be pumped out and the materials disposed of as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations,
Back up waming devices on the valves will wam operators ifthc valves are inadvertently left opcn,
The facility will bc required to obtain a Statc Industrial Activities Stonn Water Gcneral Pcnnit as required
by Federal Regulations (40CFR, Parts 122,123, and 124) that implement the Clean Water Act of 1987,
The goal of the pennit is to reduce or eliminate stormwater pollution and other impacts to surface waters
[rom industrial sites. The stonnwater pennit requires operators of industrial facilities to develop a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan, The Plan would idcntify existing and potential sources
of stormwatcr pollution, and describe how the facility would reduce or eliminate the potential for
storm water pollution. The SWWPP Plan would outline the facilities stormwater contaminant assessment
(high quantities of suspended solids), Tlie plan would display a stonnwater site map identifying drainage
patterns, discharge stmcturcs and points, paved areas and buildings, areas of pollutant contact, and areas
with soil erosion potential. The plan would include Best Management Practices (BMp's) to reduce the
pote11\ial fe)r storm water pollution that include good housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spill clean-up
procedures, stonnwater flow control features, and employee training, The plan would identify practices
and facility features designed to control pollution at its source, Another requirement is the development
and implementation of a stonnwater-monitoring plan in conjunction with the SWPP plan, pG&E
Dispersed Generating Company would work closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) to determine BMF's and identify the most etTective way to design features to control potential
storm \vater contamination.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
131
o
o
o
131
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non-
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The power plant consists of a simple cycle, natural gas-fired turbine operating at not more
than 15,600 BtulkW-hr with a net output not greater than 49,5 MW and heat input of 764.4 MMBtu/hr,
The turbine would operate not more than 15,75 hours/day and not more than 4,980 hours/year. Startup
and shutdown of the units would be limited to ensure operation would not exceed Air Quality Impact
Analysis (AQIA) threshold levels, A Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit with an ammonia injection
grid would be installed for control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, A high temperature SCR
system would be used to control NOx emissions to not more that 5 ppm @ 15% 02, Ammonia slip would
be limited to 10 ppm @ 15% 02, Natural gas firing and good, efficient combustion practices would be Z 2-
used to minimize particulate matter (PM I 0), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and volatile organic compounds
o
o
o
131
o
o
o
131
o
o
o
131
6
7120/00
Potentially
Potentially Significant !A$S than
Significant Unless Signifkant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
(VOC) emissions, Gas turbine operations would comply with Rule 69.3,1, as well as with other Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) rules associated with fossil fuel fired operations,
A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation was prepared in fulfillment of the current San
Diego APCD Regulation II, Rules 20,1 through 20,9, New Source Review (NSR), The BACT evaluation
addressed control of NO x, VOC, PM 10, S02 and NH3 emissions ITom the proposed turbine. Annual NOx
emissions from the site would be below major stationary source and AQIA thresholds, The BACT
Evaluation submitted to the APCD demonstrated that the proposed turbine installation would be in
compliance would all applicable emission rules, and that the emissions would be below the standards
cstablished by the APCD, No significant air quality impacts would result ITom the operation of the
proposed turbine facility,
Source: PG&E Dispersed Generating Company, LLC, Application for Authority to Construct
Chula Vista Power Plant Submitted to San Diego Air Quality Pollution Control District, January
6, 2000,
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
1) 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 facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E DG control center
personnel. PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect, service and maintain
the facility, It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit the facility 2 to 3 times
per week, Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles, Aqueous ammonia
would be delivered by tanker truck as needed, During the peak operating period of May through October
onc to tv,.'o tanker trucks per week would be required. In the winter season few, if any, deliveries would
be required, Major overhauls of the turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every
two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians,
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g"
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
o
o
o
C!I
o
o
o
C!I
0 0 0 C!I
0 0 0 C!I
0 0 0 C!I
0 0 0 C!I
o
o
o
C!I
o
o
o
C!I
Access to the site would be from Main Strcet via an existing access road located within a private
easement. The access road would be improved as per City of Chula Vista requirements, No hazards to
pedestrians or bicyclists would be created, The proposed electrical plant facility would be consistent with Z 3
7
7/20/00
PotentiaUy
PotentiaUy Significant Le!;s than
Signirlcant Dntes!; Significant Nu
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
all local transportation policies, including parking, and would not result in impacts to rail, water, or air
traffic, No significant transportation/circulation impacts would occur.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern
or species that are candidates for listing?
o
~
o
o
b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage trees)?
o
o
o
~
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g"
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
o
o
o
~
d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning
efforts?
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
Comments: The site is devoid of vegetation except for exotic plant material located in the drainage swale
along the western property boundary, No animal species are present on-site, The site has not served as
a wildlife dispersal conidor because the property has been fenced for several years. The area immediately
south of the project site is a heavily vegetated riparian habitat associated with the Otay River. The Otay
Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and the City ofChula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) Subarea Plan identifies the adjacent area as "open space/preserve area,"
Vincent N, Scheidt conducted a focused biological survey of the adjacent area to the south in March and
Apri] 2000, Riparian woodland vegetation is present immediately beyond the southern fence line of the
property, Indicators in this habitat include Black and Arroyo Wi1low (Salix gooddingii, S. lasiolepis),
Mule Fat (Baccharis glutinosa), San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana), American Bulrush (Scirpus
olneyi), and Cattails (Typha latifolia), Also present in and along the periphery of the riparian area are
noxious and weedy species, including Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Tamarisk (Tamarix), Giant Wild
Reed (Arundo donax), Indian Rice Grass (Oryzopsis miliacea), and others. These have degraded the
riparian habitat to a degree, although this wetland is still of regional significance to area wildlife,
The only animal species associated with the project site itself are locally common species, such as
Housefinch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English Sparrows (Passer domesticus), House Mouse (Mus
musculus), Western Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and other vertebrates that are tolerant of or
dependent upon development. The riparian area, however, supports a diversity of native species, including
Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia), Least Bell's Vireos (Vireo
bellii pusillus), and others,
Utilization of the site will have no direct, advcrse impacts to area wildlife or sensitive species, Only
insignificant impacts, as defined by CEQA, to locally common species and weeds will result from site
development. However, indirect impacts are considered potentially adverse and significant, as defined by
CEQA. A number of obligate riparian songbirds were detected during the surveys for this report, including
sevcral sensitive species, and others are anticIpated to occur in this area, These species could be adversely
affected by noise created by the construction of the proposed power generating facility, Mitigation
measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the potential
8
21
7/20/00
Impacts to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Signincant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Uo"'"
Mitigated
No
Impact
Lesstban
Significant
Impact
Noise produced by the operation of the plant could result in adverse impacts to sensitive species
occupying the riparian habitat south of the project site, An analysis of plant operation noise is contained
in Section X of this Initial Study,
Sources:
City ofChula Vista, Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan February 21,1997, p, 37,
City of Chula Vista, Multiple SDecies Conservation Program Subarea Plan, January 4, 2000
(Administrative Draft),
Scheidt, Vincent N, A Biolo.;ical Resources Survev Report for the Proposed PG&E Dispersed
Generatjn~ Company Power Generating Plant, May 2000,
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, would this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed facility is an electrical power generation plant designed to meet the local
and regional electrical requirements as well as providing for regional transmission system and local
distribution grid support, Providing transmission and distribution grid support as well as additional
electrical capacity would enhance the reliability of electrical service to the San Diego region, The project
site does not contain any known mineral resources. No significant energy or mineral resource impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures are required,
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Woulii
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
9
o
o
o
Ii]
o
o
o
Ii]
o
o
o
Ii]
o
o
Ii]
o
0 0 0 Ii]
0 0 Ii] 0
0 0 Ii] 0
0 0 0 Ii] 2.S-
7/20/00
_.*...._~-~.....-
PotentiaUy
SigniftCant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Un""
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments: Main Street is identified as an Evacuation Route in the City's General Plan (p, 8-6), The
unmanned power plant, located south of Main Street, would not result in a significant impact to the City's
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the plant would not require evacuation,
Traffic congestion would not occur as a result of the plant's operation and maintenance,
A Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be prepared in accord with the requirements of the County
Department of Environmental Health requirements, The Business Plan would identify emergency
response coordination with the City's emergency responders, emergency drills, and associated training,
Hazardous materials that would be used at the proposed plant include transformer oil, lubrication oil,
cleaning fluids, and aqueous ammonia used in the control of NOx turbine emissions, The aqueous
ammonia is the primary hazardous material of coneern for accidental release, The aqueous ammonia
would be in a 19% concentration, and would be stored in a single l2,000-gallon tank,
A Risk Management Plan (RMP) that identifies safety procedures, accident prevention, analysis of
external events, and emergency response procedures would be submitted to the County of San Diego,
Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division for approval as required by the
California Accidental Release Program (CaIARP), The RMP would identify the potential effects of
accidental releases and design features to minimize risk. The design features would include containment
berms and secondary containment as shown on the project site plan, emergency shutdown procedures,
ammonia sensors, training procedures, emergency response, and other safety procedures required by
CalARP,
Preliminary modeling prepared for the project indicates no adverse health affects would be experienced
under reasonable accident scenarios utilizing on-site control features required by the RMP, Final
modeling results would be submitted to the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH), The
DEH would issue the RMP for public review and comment; public review is anticipated to occur in July
2000,
Natural gas used to fuel the turbine would be delivered to the site by an extension of the existing
underground natural gas line in Main Street. Natural gas from the underground line would be injected
directly into the turbine and would not be stored on-site, Automatic shutoff valves would close the gas
line in the event of a plant malfunction or ground shaking activity that could allow natural gas to escape
to the atmosphere, An automatically operated fire suppression system would be installed at the facility
to extinguish gas or electrical fires,
Flammable brush, grass, and trees are not present on-site or on the adjacent properties, The project would
not result in a significant fire hazard
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 0
Comments: The project site is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north, east, and west. The
adjacent area to the south, within the City of San Diego, is designated as "open space/habitat preserve,"
The nearest residential property line is 360 feet west of the project site, The City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan requires that excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas, including
temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the
10
2.~
7/20/00
Potentially
PotentiallJ Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
breeding season of sensitive bird species, The applicable nOIse standards are:
Lesschan
Signirtcant
Impact
No
Impact
. The City of Chula Vista Municipal. Code (919,68,030) noise standard for light industrial land use
areas is 70 dB during the hours of7:00 A,M, and 10:00 P,M, on weekdays (8:00 A,M, to 10:00
P,M, on weekends) and 70 dB during the hours of 10:00 P,M, and 7:00 A,M, on weekdays (10:00
P,M, to 8:00 AM, on weekends),
. The City ofChula Vista Municipal. Code (919,68,030) noise standard for residential land use
areas is 55 dB during the hours of7:00 A,M, and 10:00 P,M, on weekdays (8:00 A,M, to 10:00
P,M, on weekends) and 45 dB during the hours of 10:00 P,M, and 7:00 AM. on weekdays (10:00
P,M, to 8:00 AM, on weekends),
. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (p,64) states that, "Construction noise within 500
feet of an occupied nest for the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo and raptors
should not exceed 60 dB during the following periods: February IS through August 15 for the
coastal California gnatcatcher, March 1 through September IS for the least Bell's vireo, and
December I through June 31 for raptors, If grading activities are proposed within 500 feet of an
occupied nest identified in a pre-construction survey during the applicable breeding season(s),
noise reduction techniques, such as temporary noise walls or benns, shall be incorporated into the
construction plans to reduce noise levels below 60 dB Leq, Outside the bird breeding season(s),
no restrictions shall be placed on temporary construction noise,
Noise sources associated with the proposed project can be identified within three categories: (I)
construction noise; (2) mobile noise sources, generally consisting of noise !Tom cars and trucks; and (3)
stationary mechanical equipment operation, The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts construction and
demolition activities from its exterior noise level limitations, However, most municipalities consider
construction activities on Sunday or Nighttime as intrusive, Construction noise will usually exceed typical
background noise levels but will generally be for a short tenn and will generally occur during daytime
hours on weekdays and Saturdays, Mobile noise sources after construction is completed will consist of
operations and maintenance vehicles that will contribute negligible overall noise to the area and wi]] not
further be considered,
Noise from the stationary mechanical equipment wi]] come from five dominant sources:
. The two separate engine air intakes and single turbine exhaust. Full acoustic data is not currently
available for these engines; however, initial engineering estimates are for each of these three openings
generate about 140 dB(A) directly at the opening.
. Direct noise radiation from the equipment, a currently unknown sound level, is estimated to be a
maximum of 105 to 115 dB(A),
. The high pressure reciprocating natural gas compressor is estimated to operate at 100 dB(A) at a
distance of 10 feet from the unit. This is based on data taken at other natural gas compressors, The
manufacturer wi]] supply actual data at the time of unit specification,
. The high volume air blower for generator cooling is estimated it to operate at 100 dB(A) at intake and
exhaust openings, Fu]] acoustic data is not currently available for the blower.
. Noise data for the absorption chi]]ers and pumps, to be located inside the turbine enclosure, is not
currently available, The manufacturer wi]] supply sound data at the time of unit specification, '2..,
II
7/20/00
PoteotiallJ
Signifiamt
Impact
Potentially
Sigoifkaot
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The stationary mechanical equipment could produce noise levels as high as 130 dB(A) at the property line
if noise control measures are not included in the plant design, Precise noise data for each component in
the plant is not available at this time because specific pieces of equipment to be installed have not been
selected, Consequently, it is not possible to provide a final noise control system design at this time,
A variety of conventional noise reduction techniques would be included in the plant design, Noise
reduction techniques would be installed, as needed, to reduce noise levels to 60 dB at the property line,
Noise reduction techniques that would be utilized have noise reduction characteristic as follows:
Technique
In Line Silencer
Louvers
Lined Right Angle Turns in Ducts
Lined Covers at Inlet/Exhaust
Noise Containment Walls
Noise Reduction
2 to 5 dB per foot
10 to 20 dB per unit
4 to 8 dB per turn
4 to 8 dB (one per unit)
6 to 18 dB per unit
Note: The actual values of sound reduction are ji-equency and unit dependent. These values are
intended only as an overview of capabilities,
As can be seen fTom the above list, 20 feet of silencer at 3 dB per foot (60 dB) plus two right angle turns
(6 dB / turn), a louver (15 dB), and a cover (6 dB), provide approximately 93 dB reduction in noise,
Therefore, noise fTom each of two combustion engine inlets at 140 dB(A) should be reduced to 47 dB(A),
While this is relatively quiet, it should be noted that if all of the individual noise generating components
are summed after reduction to an equivalent level for the five known listed noise generating components
listed above, the sum of the noise would equal almost 57 dB(A), This analysis is not intended as a final
description oftechniques for this project. The final analysis would include specific details including full
frequency analysis for each system component.
Portions of the project require special consideration for the noise mitigation systems, These include:
. The 900-degree (Fahrenheit) system exhaust. This will require silencing systems designed to ensure
ongoing system functionality,
. The high-pressure natural gas compressor. The State of California mandates open-air ventilation
requirements; these must be maintained by the noise quieting system,
A six-step mitigation program has been prepared that assures compliance with the City of Chula Vista
Noise Ordinance standards and the 60 dB(A) guideline contained in the City of Chula Vista draft MSCP
Subarea Plan, The six-step mitigation program is contained in the attached Noise Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, A final set of mitigation measures will be formulated during the design and
construction phase to address precise noise data fTom each component piece of equipment to be installed,
Implementation of the specific mitigation program would reduce noise impacts t060 dB(A) at the property
line and result in a less than significant level of noise impact.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
o
o
o
~ .2.. ~
12
7/20/00
PoCentiaUy
PotentiaUy Signifi~nt Less than
SignifICant Unless Signifi~nt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0
c) Schools? 0 0 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 0
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0
Comments: No new or altered governmental services would be required to serve the project. The Fire
Department has specified that the existing access road be improved to a minimum 20- foot wide all
weather driving surface between Main Street and the project site, No impact to schools would occur
because the project would not generate any students, School fees would be paid as required by the school
dis1Ticts, Development impact fees and 1Taffic signal fees would be paid as required by the City of Chula
Vista fee schedule, Fire and police protection can be adequately provided to the site,
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the Threshold
Standards,
o
o
o
o
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the
cases, The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard would be met,
since the nearest fire station is three miles away and would be associated with a six-minute
response time. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments:
The fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department.
b) Police
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4,5
minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes
or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less,
The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments:
The police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
o
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections, Intersections west of 1-805 are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F"
during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are
exempted from this Standard, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold
Standard,
Comments: As indicated by the Traffic Section of the City's Engineering Division comments, the traffic
threshold would be met because the projcct would result in only two or three trips per week.
o
o
o
o Lc,
7/20/00
13
Potentially
SigniflCaDt
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UDless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/1 ,000 population, The proposed
project would not result in additional population,
Comments: No additional park and recreation facilities would be required because the project would not
increase the population of the City of Chula Vista,
e) Drainage
o
o
o
00
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards, Individual projects would provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards, The proposed project would ,comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: The project is designed to comply with all of the City Engineering Standards, Drainage
Master Plan requirements, and RWQCD regulations, Section I above describes the proposed on-site
drainage facilities, The project design would be consistent with the drainage threshold standard,
f) Sewer
o
o
o
00
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards, Individual projects would provide necessary
improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards, The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard,
Comments: No sewer facilities are proposed to be installed at the power plant facility,
g) Water
o
o
o
00
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities
are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project would comply with this
Threshold Standard,
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set
program the City ofChula Vista has in effect at the time of building pennit issuance,
Comments: Potable water would be extended to the site from the existing water main in Main Street.
Potable water would be used only for the drinking needs of operating personnel and equipment
maintenance, The natural gas turbine and other equipment would be air-cooled and would not require
water for cooling purposes or operation, However, the plant may choose to use water injection for a more
efficient pollution contro1. Inlet chilling may be used to minimize power output degradation due to high
ambient temperature, These uses, if utilized. would range from 3,000 gallonslhr to 6,000 gallons/hr. The
operation of the power plant facility would not result in a significant impact to the City of Chula Vista
water system,
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems. or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
o
o
o
00
b) Communications systems?
o
o
o
00
14
30
7120100
PotentiaUy
PotentiaUy Significant u-ssthan
Signmcant Unless SignirlCaDt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 0
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 0
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 0
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 0
Comments: Electrical service would be obtained from circuits located on the existing 69 kVelectrical
transmission line along the eastern property line, An underground natural gas line would be extended to
the site trom the existing natural gas line in Main Street. An underground telephone line would be
extended to the site trom the nearest available service, Water service would be extended to the site trom
the existing water main in Main Street. Sewer service is not proposed to be installed at the facility;
however, it should be noted that an existing sewer line crosses the property in and east-west direction
along the northern property line, The project site would be graded to drain to a new catch basin at the
southwest comer of the site, This catch basin would discharge into an existing drainage swale that is part
of the City of Chula Vista stonn drain system. A negligible quantity of solid waste would be generated
by the unmanned power plant. New services systems, or substantial alteration of existing systems, would
not be required for the operation and maintenance of the power plant.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public or would the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic
route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that could
increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause
this project to fail to comply with Section
19,66,100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comments: The project site is not located in the viewshed of an identified scenic route, vista, or view,
The site is located in an industrially zoned area and is surrounded on the north and east by existing
industrial development. The currently vacant property to the west was previously used for an industrial
activity, and is planned for reuse as an industrial activity, An existing single-family residential area is
located westerly of the vacant property, The project site is screened trom westerly views by mature
vegetation along the drainage swale that parallels the western property line and by fencing along the
drainage swale, Single-family residences are located 1,350 feet to the south across the Otay River valley,
These residences are elevated approximately 40 feet above the project site, and have a distant downward 3/
]5 7/20/00
PotentiaUy
PotentiaUy Significant I..ess than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
view across the project site, The distant southerly views of the site are partly obscured by mature trees
along the southern property line, The proposed power plant project would not result in a significant
impact to views from the north, east, west, or from the distant southerly views,
The Otay Valley Regional Park is located immediately south of the project site, The dense riparian
vegetation along the river channel extends to the southern boundary of the site, This vegetation
completely screens the site from view to hikers using the existing trails along the river channel.
Consequently, the proposed power plant would not result in a significant visual impact to trail users, The
Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan shows a conceptual trail along both sides of the river channel.
However, the alignment of the trails is at a concept stage and an exact alignment has not been identified,
Given the location of the existing trail along the north side of the channel, and the configuration of
properties abutting the park, the future trail alignment is likely to be located near the existing trail. Thus,
it is anticipated that the power plant would not have 'a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on future
trail or park users,
No night lighting of the facility is proposed except for required safety lighting, Implementation of City
Code standards would reduce light and glare produced by the installation of safety lights to a less than
significant level.
The project landscape plan proposes a ten-foot high chain-link fence with opaque screening slats around
the perimeter of the site, Tristania conferta and Pinus canariensis trees in IS-gallen and 24-inch boxes
are proposed to be planted along both sides of the fence with grouping of trees in selected locations, The
existing slopes along the eastern property boundary would be planted with one-gallon Cotoneaster
dammeri, four-feet on center. The proposed fencing and landscaping would further screen the power plant
from off-site views,
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
o
o
o
III
o
o
o
III
o
o
o
III
o
o
o
III
o
o
o
III
Comments: There are no known cultural resources on the project site, or in the immediate surrounding
area, The site has been previously filled with imported material from an unknown source, Consequently,
the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to cultural resources,
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Will the
16
o
o
1113~
o
7/20/00
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignifICant
Unl~
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources?
Comments: The site has been graded and imported fill material placed on-site, Adjacent areas to the east
and west have been similarly graded and filled, There are no known paleontological resources on the site
or in the adjacent area, The extent of proposed grading is limited; therefore no potential impacts to
paleontological resources are anticipated,
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 I1J
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 I1J
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 I1J
or programs?
Comments: There are no recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site other than the Otay Valley
Regional Park located to the south, The proposed power plant would not result in significant impacts to
the park as discussed in Section XIV (Aesthetics) above, Existing and/or future uses of the park would
not be significantly impacted by the power plant,
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of
significance, If an EIR is needed. this section should
be completed,
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods or California history or prehistory?
o
I1J
o
o
Comments: A number of obligate riparriparian sds were detected, inc1uding several sensitive species,
and others are anticipated to occur in this area, All of these could be adversely affected by noise created
by the proposed power generating facility, Such effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the implementation of mitigation measures inc1uded in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program,
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: The construction and operation of Peak Load Power Plant at this location would not result
in a significant impact to adopted long-teon environmental goals of the City of Chula Vista as stated in
the General Plan and other adopted planning documents,
c) Does the project have
individually limited,
impacts that are
but cumulatively
17
o
I1J
o
o
o
o
o
11J32-
7120100
Potentially
Signirlcant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Les5than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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: There are no recently completed projects, current applications, or reasonably foreseeable
applications in the vicinity of the project site,
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: No substantia1 adverse effects on human beings would result from installing a gas turbine
Peak Load Power Plant at the proposed project site, Please see Section IX for a discussion of potential
hazards associated with the project.
o
o
f8]
o
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented during
the design, construction or operation of the project:
None,
The mitigation measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been
incorporated into the project and wou1d be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the
project:
~3
18
7/20/00
XX, AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company(s) authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and would implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental & Planning Manager
for the Community Development Department. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of
this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant(s) and/or
Opcrator(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,
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
Date
Printed Name and Title of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[Operator if different from Property Owner]
Date
3V
19
7/20/00
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages,
D Land Use and Planning D T ransportation/C irculation D Public Services
D Population and Housing . Biological Resources D Utilities and Service Systems
D Geophysical D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality . Noise D Recreation
D Paleontology . Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been
prepared to provide a record of this derermination,
.. "~ Co~S'OC)
~ r."
Bnan Hunter
Planning & Environmental Manager
City ofChula Vista
20
---_...--
D
.
D
D
D
:3~
7/20/00
w
N
~
~~06~~~m<~om~~~~~_~~~nn~
~_~m~crm_~~~gim~mi~o~i~ggm
~ ~~3D~~'~3_nmQ.-mn02~>~~3
~~'o~~=ro-'~ro~oom~~~~~~~~~~imE~~~~
~U. ~ 3~m' -~oo~3c2~E.5~~@
mm~m~~3m~a~~~~gD~g' i~6'5'~
ig~8o~.~a~-mm_= Q~o a ~~~
~.~~'~~~~m~g_~m~~m~~ a~ODO
o.~ O;::;,.<D m Q:O<.5@ g ~~ ro s:-<~ ro 5'8 g ~gr
_ooo6m~-a~oom<D<D~mnc~ ~ Coo
a~~~~aa~'~oogs:~oo~g~~ ~~;. g
3ro~a~~8~mi~<D~~~~gi 5q~~3.
~<DC_O~ oocr=o83<D@~~OO mC,<DID
~~n~~a~75'cr- a ~ag ~~~oo~
~~<D3c_~_mcr~m_ff~oo<D ro5.~<D
~<Dg~.ro~2~2<D2~~3cros:, ~~_cr~
cr~' Da-.nm-oo~2~3m~<Dm a~~~m
2 ::;;-{~!!!.c5 0'<0 52. fit S=O -CD..., CD'''C 3 ...,.,0 CD :::::!.=
~~~~~m?~8g!g~~~~a~ a3~'i~g
~~""~Qamos=~m~5'~O~~~ ""5'oo~
on~m<D~cro<D<D3<D~~<ro~ooo ~~a~8
Doun - ooa~~-' ooro- m _w
~~~~~>QQm_'Qni~~~as= >~a=~
~~oo~~a~~~~m:ct~-{~im ~g3gQ
cC~~m"Cwo~~-<_~~~cr<n c~~cm
~g~_~o=-nm~g~~mm~~ a3rnm~
co~~~~~O~~~m~~~mo-' ~m~
~~~m~~~~g~~m~~3~~~ Brem~s'
oO~~~-~o~ ~mm3~n3~ ~m~~_
8<mo=m _ro 3~ o~m^ ~c2 0
cm~o~~~gE m~~w~~~ m~ ~
~~~ m~mm ~~~~ ~ ~ m
~.:<'Q ~~ mSi-g B
."
iO'
0:
5'
~
'0
ro
~
o'
~
or."
..z~~
~ ::
~~
'0'0
o ~
::1-~
o
o~
""
'1J
Q)
'"
<D
x
x
x
".
'0
'2.
g
~
".
'0
'2.
g
~
."
iO'
0:
-
~
"'
'0
ro
~
0'
=>
x
g "U
~ @
x
o ~
g ~.
~c5
o ~
o 0
~ ~
".
'0
'2.
g
~
I
i
OJ
(5
r
o
Ii)
-<
-
~ (")
1i)" 0
fii 3
't>
i>
<t
0.
o
w
i>
~;:
"-
~ -,
c'"
~ W
ttI~
ZO
~ =>
;:
'"
cD'
!!(
0'
=>
s:
ro
w
"'
~
ro
~s:
~ ro
~:T
no
!!(o.
0'0
=>~
~~
:=;3
o' 5'
w'"
g:g,
=>
;0
ro
~
'0'0
"0
:>=>
'<~
0'
i>
(')
o
3
3
..
=>
C;;
o
OJ
~
N
W
<3
o
s:
=i
i5
)>
-I
o
Z
s:
o
z
:::j
o
2:!
z
G>
)>
z
c
;0
m
"C
o
~
Z
G>
"C
;0
o
G>
~
s:
~
0;
"
::r
:3
CD
;:<
~
"C
G)
Qo
m
o
iii'
-a
CD
~
'"
CD
Q.
G)
CD
:J
CD
~
9J.
5'
CO
()
o
:3
-a
OJ
:J
'<
"C
CD
OJ
^
r
o
OJ
Q.
"C
o
:;:
CD
~
3?
"C
OJ
;:<
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6~~~~~~~33~~O~~~~~~~3Q~
~. -~~-roro~-Q-illOO~amm~%~o
m~'~!a3~Ocm-3~Q5gonQ~.~~E
~ ~mo,~~~m~a~millW~o~~~
~-<-ro WC~_. mw_-._. --nW~w-'
~~m-~~~~.~~~~g~~3~ffa~_Ng
=ro_~~=~ ~ r~o -ww~- ~ -
_~ww-~omOm<ff~.~_~OZm~n
~3~.<3< ~ 35. -com~w_ 0
m __c m~~~< _-m_~a_-~m_
mW~5rom~3~'<m~~~wm 06'D~~
w~@~aa-~~m~~ wcn~m~~cmc
~S' ~m"33~wmm~~33E~goo~~~~
. w ~~~~~<mwm~~~o m-w
~m mi-=~~mo~' ~~mn~3003~a
~3 ;m~. ooQ.~- ~~m!~~g~~~
3~ ~-~-o ~~'ffi'miji !l)m""O_'<rQ.(jj"O=
- WW5 wmQ.om ~5~~~~~og~
~~ ~~~ ~~_.' ~~ ~c~a.3ma._m~
~~ a3m ~_ roW ~~~~m-~g~~
~& 3m~ ~cr (Jj~ ~cr~crm~(Jjmom
~(Jj gi~ ~ro o~ ~~g~~I~~3w
~~ mCu ~3 3~. m~~ff3~mma.~
$-~' ::J ro (t) CJ)CD a. (0 ~a. -< _." ---.~r"'O
(Jj~ ~3~ ~~ ~~ 50 Q >_m~
~ .......... c '" WW 00 ZCD<-
. ~ ~ g: ~ ro..... < ~ ...... = 0 -0 ,,, < ~-
3 .w ~ mm ~ au ~~ ~~~~
~ ~:~ ~~ 3~ ~~ Qg ;~ro~
~ =- ~~. ~l ~~ ~m ~o~~:
..... crO,) rot5 ~ Q . ~- f"-- g
CtI~ g, x ~r @ __
'1J
.,
(C
<1>
'"
~;: 0
Q)
~ N
UI~ w
'" ~ c'" 25
~ .,
CtI !::: 0
ZO
? ~
a.3~0,))>mO,)-o8~~g~g;~
~lli~'~8~~33W~ c'O,)
)>UJ Cb..... c (D'<-o-o ^~rg~-<Q
-:--c wUJ.--..UJUJ.....rowUJwUJ.....
z..... 8 g. O")>(i) - Cb ~..... (t) Cl (i)' 0
Q~~O~--:Ew~.....mo..g:05'
UJ(J)a~:::~=5.Qa.og~:::\1)
CtI g -g-~ 5'a.a.~s...... .....g,i58
3 ~ 3 ~. En ro g ~'tO' Cb 3 ffi 5'::!I3
g a.lli ~ 0-0 C Cl ::Tro~'3 ro ~ 3
:;.:roUJ~-a3;<~Qw()~('[)
o < C :::J" 5'-0 (1).Q 0 W ::I ~ -'"0 ~
~'~ro (t) CD (I) a.c cc: 0 c..z_Cl
t5 (J) UJ o-O~-oij.3 ~(ij'iU'o ~ 3
-o~g}goo=a3(1)~(I)g.-.;;:ro
..........w (J) ~ ~~'CD W _.(0 C O(t) ~
g ::r_..........(I) Cb ~ :::;.(0 ro.....::T(n.....
(t)ro-2(J)' O.....o,,:::J"~CbC_.O
a."oO".....::r .....::::1 --0 (I) '-iUtCI-.
c:.....CDi::~ ctoO.....@UJ<~Cl
~03-.0- w(i).:Em.....O"_.(J)g
CD -0 ::::I 0" C CD (I) UJ S' w (J) ::T UJ
en~'2.uro ..........~.....c:tClnrnr~q-
w..... (D (1) Cl (t) W w..... en '-c
.....'23::!.0 (J)9:cr(t)OQ-iO"Cl
CDS.(t) 03 S:tuen::lc(t)::TCD~
w(t)~a.u tu~Otuo~<DClO
~<D (i~~ .....g-s.~<DCQ.OJ o_~
OXC.a.CD :E_-'tuen~~3tu
o@ :::;;9:0.. =' grD$rn~~~
:E ro s: ~ D.1 tu -i Cl tu ::::I ..... en ..... Q)
~ a.(D g ~ g.ffi~en<Q.~'(jj'~8
~ ~O ~. ~ ~ ;o~
o (t) (J) W OJ -.
::::I ~:::;. = s: g
ro-
z
o
1ii
m
-n -n
16' ii'
c: c: ~;:
3' 3' :!.~
. ~ :::!!::r
" " " 0
ro ro !(c.
g, g, 5' Q,
6' 6'
~ ~ ~
x
)>
"
'E.
g
"-
0 '1J
xg "
!<i-
0 0
x 0 ~
~ 5'
!<i- '"
0 '1J
0 0
=> !<i-
!<i-
)>
"
'E.
0'
.,
~
I
~ n
00' 0
"' 3
"
[
"
c.
o
.,
ro
~
;;'
!(
5'
~
;:
ro
.,
.
c
"
~::i
:=;3
o' :;.
"cc
5"g,
~
'"
"
.
"0."
"0
,,~
'" ~
6'
..
()
o
3
3
"
~
ur
s:
=t
i5
~
<5
z
s:
o
z
=t
o
;II
Z
G>
>
z
c
;II
m
-g
o
;II
-I
Z
G>
-g
;II
o
G>
~
s:
;!':
a;-
"
::r
3
ct>
;:<
~
-0
G>
I/O
m
o
in'
'0
!!:
"'
ct>
c.
GJ
CD
:J
ct>
?l
5'
(Q
()
o
3
'0
Q)
:::J
'<
-0
ct>
Q)
'"
r
o
OJ
c.
-0
o
:E
ct>
~
-037
OJ
;:<
c
'"
a::
~
'"
3:
o
0..
'0
'"
o
-'
-'"
'"
'"
0..
>-
c:
'"
0.
E
o
()
Q)
c:
ro
Qj
c:
'"
C9
'0
'"
1"
'"
0.
<J)
o
w
O/S
C9
0..
~
c
'"
E
.<:::
u
'"
~
o
o
M
N
CO
o
I I
==
.~
C!
'0
tt::
Q.
C!
z
i=
tt::
o
Q.
W
tt::
o
Z
c:(
C!
z
D2
!2
z
o
==
z
o
~
C!
i=
:e
~
~
C
~
E
E
o
o
,
.Si
ro
"
'"
~
~
Q.
E
<3 ~
~I
~
:c
'~~
o ro
Q.Q,
~
~
'"
c
~
~
~
~
't). "~
& 8
c
-0
0,_
o~
c'"
'Eo;::
,- ~
1->
~14
't: 5x
au
I~
-
0,9
"'1ii
o u
:is::
~ ~
::;~
c
o
13
~
0.
~
E
e
~
~
ro
~
::;
c
o
~
'"
~
i
'C
W
" u::
..... ~ 'C
C ~
'>"', ~ QJ ~ <;:::
"~ .0 -Q.Q) 53
,., 5: =.b J:: :Q
......... .: Q) 3: 8 ";;; >-
' ffi=23.!: ~
..... ~.9 ID ~ E ill
:. ~>-E~.$! TI
c:;::; Q) 0 Q) Q)
8~~Cf)-o .Q
Q)~ ~{g.9 .~
I'<:~?' "5'~ E ]3 .~ (/)
1\'~i;z'ij)(])5U g
CDQ)..caJrn---::;:::;
='5.....~E.!:~~
I, o:g~ m.!!2~.Q
',.:', cc.9;? Q) 5 g; 0>
g 8 dI=:g"o"e
ro II) coO)
: :',' :..... E ~ '0 € E 'C ;!: .!:
"...... ~ e c ":;: ~ 5 6 :::
Q,):::J~usoE~
Q) 0 ..... Q) i5I CD "0
"C :5 ~ ~ ~ a5 TI.!!! II)
c: U) m Q.J:: ro 0 c
,'.: :-'gE~:::.DZO
o
cO
oZ
:;t!
.21 ~ .:',
==:g
::;::;
'0
N1:
o
~
I
c
c ,~
c.
c ,~ 0.
,~ C. ~
0.
0. ~
0.
~
X
X
C
o
1:5
~
0.
~
C
'0
C
o
'in
~
'E 15
.no.
~~
'C
~
u..
o
ro
C -;;;
8. g:~ >-
::J~ro.~c Wro
ii5::::~t5ro :5~Q)
"Q~~~~ BO'6
-'(1).. ('II -o......c
-g>,g.;u wow
02~~!.Q ~z....c
UQ)a>_:5 E(31-
~6g--gc .-g61i
-C.....E--:"O(/)O$
roQ)CQJC~Q) _iJj
LJ::.!!!..c.Qro.c..:~u
(/)...... D._t5 0..= O)'_:::J
c-:=--,(ij::J~roC)1i)o
roc:<{.c-oo..~g?:::::ISC
a.OiJ5'II)~Q)tro ;;
O,)t5u ~Q,).Q o~ rn rn
:; 20"(j)'5=ffi g.$ ~~
............CDiVc..c:O:::u......t::
o ~ I/) U...... C/) .~_ 0
.2 O-Cc O.!!? g>e 0 a.
ID~ ~~ai OO..::a.. 5 ~
.....o~a.>~.9ro:o;:;c
rocQ)cv~c.cc~Q)
.S?Q cv.s-c ro 0 Q) a.E
u>iD.!:-o ~ro:2: E Eo ~
:::J_ - c.- 0 Q) C :::J
8 E € ro 5-~ .!!? e ~ ~
~8~~~5~.~gQ)
roQ)o~~o<CW:::JE
~:S QO..... ro
'"
..,.
x
'"
Q)
OJ
'"
(L
c
o
~
:g,
~
E
'C
W
iL
e
,,-
g 8
"'~
C ~
~'o
~ C
'!:c
J'j~
Cro
'(ij .~
E1}
~ ~
.n~
_0
c ~-g
c: c.2 (1)-
o Q) rn c c!!i
-g~,Q ~Q)~
..... - '0 E.-
--.J~a ::::a.~
-0 ro-o ~'~.9
ffi~ffi 8Q)~
11)--..... ~ a~
E~:i5-.J; o~~
t=OE_(1)Q)2~
_:::: 2 <C IV E..... c 00
.8~t)moro~2E
ro:::JCOZZS'C$
00_ Coo
=8~
.. .<C_
000
"'
3~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 8/9/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS 00-03; Tentative Subdivision Map known as EastLake
Trails North Chula Vista Tract 00-03 for a 207 lot subdivision on 30,6 acres
acres at the southeast comer of Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway -
Applicant: EastLake Company
The applicant, The EastLake Company, has submitted a request for approval of a Tentative
Subdivision Map known as EastLake Trails North, Chula Vista Tract 00-03 for 207 single family
lots on 30,6 net acres located at the southeast comer of Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road within
the EastLake Trails Master Planned Community(see locator)
The Environmental Review Coordinator has deteI111ined that environmental review for this project
was covered under previous FSEIR 97-04, EastLake Trails/Green Replanning Program, and
therefore no further action is necessary,
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Resolution PCS 00-03 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative
Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 00-03 in accordance with the attached draft City Council
Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The subject site consists of two "Super Lots" (ei" large parcels designed for further subdivision)
which were created as part of the recently approved (1999) EastLake Trails Master Tentative
Subdivision Map. The EastLake Trails Master Subdivison Map subdivided approximately 323 acres
into residential lots accommodating approximately 794 single family lots and four super lots to
house 394 units for a combined total of 1,143 dwelling units, The two super lots are identified on
the Master Tenative Map as parcels TN5 and TN6 and shown as a portion of Parcel R-4 in the SPA's
Site Utilization Plan (see Figures A and B).
Site Characteristics
Existing terrain consists of rolling hills with lowest elevations approximately 25 feet lower than Otay
Lakes Road and 30 feet lower than Hunte Parkway Grading plans are currently being reviewed for
mass grading ofthe project site. The applicant proposes to add fill to raise the finished grade level to
approximately 12 feet lower than Otay lakes Road and 20 feet lower than Hunte Parkway, The site
I
Page No.2, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/3/99
is limited to the north by Otay Lakes Road, future single family development to the south, future
CFP site to the east, and Hunte Parkway to the west.
Zoning and Land Use
Zoning Site Utilization Plan Land Use District Existing Land Use
Designation Map Designation
Site PC(Planned R4(portion) Low- RP,SL(Res, Small vacant
Community) Med Res, lot); RP-13
(Res,Planned
Concept)
North Otay Lakes Road Nla Nla Nla
South PC(Planned R-4 (low med res) RS-5(Res, Single Nla
Community) Family);RP-SL (Res,
Small Lot)
East PC(Planned CPF CPF vacant
Community)
West Hunte Parkway Nla Nla Nla
Proi ect Description
The proposed tentative map consists of subdividing two super lots,identified as TN 5 and TN 6 on
the Eastlake Trails Master Tentative Map, totaling 30,6 acres into 207 single family and 4 open
space lots, The majority of the residential lots in the western portion of the project (TN-6) are
approximately 45'x 60' with a minimum lot size of2,500 square feet. The majority of the lots in the
eastern portion of the project (TN-5) are 45' x 70' with a minimum lot size of3,000 square feet.
Circulation through the project includes a loop road and 3 cui-de sacs.
A total of four open space lots have been proposed on the Tentative Map in order to incorporate all
slope areas which will be maintained by the Home Owners Association, These open space lots allow
also allow the developer to achieve the requirement of the City Subdivision Ordinance that all
proposed lot lines occur at the top of slope, The proposed open space lots are long and narrow in
shape and occur adjacent to Hunte Parkway, King Creek Way and North Creekside Drive,
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with the EastLake II General Development Plan and EastLake Trails
The EastLake II General Development Plan (GDP), which establishes the general patten, intensity
and character of development, designates this site LM, Residential Low Medium density (3-6 dulac) ,
The SPA Site Utilization Plan identifies this site as a portion of parcel R-4 which contains 533
target dwelling units at a density of 5,0 dulac, The proposed 207 residential lot subdivision is the
..J...
Page No.3, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/3/99
remaining portion of parcel R-4 previously mapped under the Eastlake Trails Master Tentative Map.
The combined total residential units is 532 which is one less than the target density and pennitted
number of dwelling units, Thus, as conditioned, this tentative subdivision map is in substantial
compliance with the EastLake II General Development Plan (GDP) and Eastlake Trails Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan,
Compliance with Planned Community Regulations
The project consists of two super lot parcels identified on the EastLake Trails Master Tentative Map
as parcels TN-6 and TN-5 (see figure A), Each of these two two super lot parcels contains its own
set of development criteria under the PC District Regulations, described as follows:
TN-6 (western portion of project)
The land use designation for this portion of the project is RP-SL (Residential Small Lot),
The applicable lot development standards for this land use designation, as well as those
proposed by the applicant are delineated in the table below.
TN-5 (eastern portion of project)
This portion of the project is identified on the Land Use District Map with a designation of
RP-13 (residential planned concept), The existing lot development standards for this land
use designation, as well as those proposed by the applicant, are delineated in the table below,
TN-5 required TN-5 TN-6 required TN-6
(RP-13) proposed (RP-SL) proposed
Lot Area: 3,000 s.C. 3,150 2,500 2,750 s.C.
Lot Width: 38 45 50 50
Lot Depth: 50 70 50 55
As shown above, the proposed subdivision exceeds the minimum development standards prescribed
in the PC District Regulations,
Noise Attenuation
The acoustical analysis conducted under previous subsequent EIR 97-04 (EastLake Trails/Greens
Replanning Program) requires noise mitigation measures in the fonn of sound attenuation walls.
The 1ocation of such walls includes those portions of Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road which
provide frontage for the project. The precise location and height of said acoustical walls is currently
being studied based upon the actual grading of the project site, Staff has included a condition of
-3
Page No.4, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/3/99
approval requiring that the precise location and height of said walls be submitted to staff for review
and approval prior to issuance of first final map. Because the required height of said walls will
exceed 6 feet in some locations, the additional height must be reviewed and approved as part ofthe
administrative Design Review Process,
Scenic Highways
Both Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road are designated as scenic highways in the Land Use
Element of the City ofChula Vista General Plan, Because the project is located adjacent to these
scenic highways, the City ofChula Vista General Plan requires the finding of design compatibility.
This would include the provision of such things as landscape buffers, decorative walls, enhanced rear
elevations, etc, This will be detennined through the administrative design review process, which
should include review of architectural design, siting and height of structures, landscaping, signage
and utilities,
Administrative Design Review Process
Small lot products are subject to administrative design review in order to establish adequate
development standards (building setbacks, lot coverage, etc) and compatible architecture, The project
will be conditioned to obtain administrative design review prior to approval ofthe first final map,
Said design review of the project must also include scenic highway compatibility and height of
required acoustical walls.
Conclusion
A portion the overall EastLake Trails area has already been lotted for small lot products as part of
the EastLakeTrails Master Tentative Map (CV 99-03), The proposed project will provide a
continuation of this small lot design which features standard public streets and cul-de-sacs with
pedestrian walks on both sides and ample maneuvering area for emergency vehicles, A conditon of
approval requires that, where feasible, pedestrian linkages be made between the tenninus of each
cul-d-sac to the closest public street. The proposed 3,150 and 2,750 square foot products allow the
applicant the opportunity to provide a wider variety of housing product within the planned
community and complement the existing housing composition and the character envisioned in the
SPA plan.
The applicant is requesting approval of a number of street and lot design waivers in order to
accommodate the proposed small lot product. Engineering staff has reviewed each of these criteria
and found them to be acceptable for this project. Condition 78 ofthe draft City Council Resolution
describes each of these waiver requests and staffs position,
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-03 in
~
Page No.5, Item:
Meeting Date: 11/3/99
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached Draft City
Council Resolution.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Draft City Council Resolution
3. Figures
4. Disc10sure Statement
5. Blue Prints
~-
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-00-03
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISON MAP FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS NORTH, CHULA VISTA TRACT 00-03,
WITHIN THE EASTLAKE TRAILS PLANNED COMMUNITY AND PC ZONE
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the Planning and
Building Department of the City ofChula Vista on April 14, 2000 by The Eastlake Company ("Developer");
and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to subdivide two super lots, identified as TN 5 and TN 6
on the Eastlake Trails Master Tentative Map, totaling 30,6 acres into 207 residential lots and 5 open space lots
("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at the southeast comer of Otay Lakes Road and Hunte Parkway
within the Eastlake Trails Master Planned Community and P-C Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is a further subdivision of two super lots created by Eastlake Trails Master
Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that the proposed project was
covered under previous FSEIR 97-04, EastLake Trails/Greens Replanning Program, and therefore no further
action is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision map
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city 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 Planning Commission has previously considered FSEIR 97-04 and, therefore, no further
environmental action by the Commission is necessary,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely August 9,2000 at 7:00
p,m, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the
public hearing with respect to subject application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution approving Tentative
Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 00-03 in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the attached City Council Ordinance,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. (,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H:\HOME\PLANNINGVEFF\PCRESO\PCSOO-03.
7
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR EASTLAKE TRAILS NORTH,
CHULA VISTA TRACT 00-03
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and commonly known as Eastlake Trails North Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula
Vista Tract 00-03; and for the purpose of general description herein consists of30,6 acres
located on the east side of Hunte Parkway between Otay Lakes Road and Clubhouse Drive,
within the Eastlake Trails Planned Community ("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2000 The Eastlake Company ("Applicant") filed a tentative
subdivision map application with the Planning and Building Department of the City ofChula
Vista requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map known as EastLake Trails North,
Chula Vista Tract 00-03, in order to subdivide the Project Site into 207 single family
residential lots; and 4 open space lots ("Project"); and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various
entitlements and agreements, including: 1) Master Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03
for EastLake Trails; 2) a General Development Plan, Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion)
General Development Plan previously approved by City Council Resolution No, 15198
("GDP") and amended by City Council Resolution No, 19275 on November 24,1998; 3) the
Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan; 4) Eastlake Trails Air Quality
Improvement Plan (AQIP); 5) Eastlake Trails Water Conservation Plan (WCP); 6) Eastlake
Trails Planned Community District Regulations; 7) Eastlake Trails Design Guidelines; 8)
Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 9) Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable
Housing Program, all previously approved by City Council Resolution No,19275, and
Ordinance 2765 on November 24, 1998; 10) Eastlake III Development Agreement, approved
on February 27,1999; and II) Eastlake Park Agreement, approved on August 8,1998; 12)
Escrow Agreement, approved on March 26, 1996; and,
e
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on
August 9, 2000 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted ( ) to
recommend that the City Council approve the Project, in accordance with the findings and
subject to the conditions listed below,
E. City Council Record of Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City
Council of the City of Chula Vista on August 22, 2000, on the Project and to receive the
recommendations ofthe Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to
same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision
map application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property
owners within 500 ft, of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
August 22,2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and
said hearing was thereafter closed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine
and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Project held on August 9, 2000, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
thereftom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding,
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby determines that this project was covered under previous FSEIR 97-
04, EastLake Trails/Greens Replanning Program and Addendum to EIR-95-04, and therefore
no further action is required in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City ofChula Vista,
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473,5 ofthe Subdivision Map Act, the City
2
9
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for Eastlake
Trails, Chula Vista Tract No, 99-03 is in conformance with the elements ofthe City's
General Plan, based on the following:
a, Land Use
The Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning Area (SPA) identifies the subject site
as a portion of parcel R-4 which allows for a total of 533 units, The Master
Tentative Map approved 326 residential unts for Parcel R-4, The 30.6 acres
for the "project" request an additional 207 units. Thus the number of
proposed units is consistent with the number of target units allowed per the
adopted SPA Plan,
b. Circulation
All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be
constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the
EastLake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan, All streets required to serve
the subdivision will be constructed in accordance with the City design
standards and/or requirements for public streets and provide for vehicular and
pedestrian connections with adjacent streets, The westerly adjoining street
system was designed to handle anticipated flow oftraffic trom this and other
area projects, The required and anticipated off site improvements shall be
designed to handle this Project and future projects in the area,
c, Housing
The Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program has been adopted
and incorporated into the Eastlake Trails SPA Plan to ensure that a minimum
of 10% affordable housing is provided, In addition, a mix of housing types
and lot sizes for single-family, townhouses, condominium and various
apartment densities will also be provided for persons of various incomes.
d. Conservation
The Environmental Impact Report FSEIR-97-04 and Addendum addressed
the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and
found the development of this site to be consistent with these goals and
policies,
e, Parks and Recreation, Open Space
An overall Master Tentative Map was previously approved for the EastLake
Trails Master Plan Community, As such, the Master Tentative Map provided
3
(0
for parks and open space per the requirements of the adopted General
Development Plan and Site Utilization Plan (SPA) for EastLake Trails,
f. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in confonnance with the goals and policies of
the Seismic E1ement of the General Plan for this site,
g. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed
the proposed subdivision for confonnance with City safety policies and have
detennined that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for
emergency services,
h, Noise
Noise mitigation measures inc1uded in the Environmental Impact Report
FSEIR-97-04 and Addendum adequately address the noise policy of the
General Plan, Required mitigation involves the construction of sound
attenuation walls along Otay Lakes Road, The project has been conditioned
to require that all dwelling units be designed to preclude interior noise levels
over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA for all outside private
patio areas, An additional acoustical study will be required prior to issuance
of building pennits to detennine if any construction measures must be taken
to ensure the above maximum noise levels are adhered to,
1. Scenic Highway
The project site is located adjacent to designated scenic highways (Hunte
Parkway and Otay Lakes Road), Administrative design review approval will
be required prior to issuance of the first final map in order to ensure the
adjacent proposed development (the project) will enhance the scenic quality
of the highway(s) per section 8,2 of the City of Chula Vista General Plan
Land Use Element.
j, Bicycle Routes
Bicycle lanes have been incorporated within the Eastlake Trails design and
will be connected to the existing Eastlake Greens SPA bicycle lane system, In
addition, the public streets within the project are of adequate width to
accommodate bicycle trave1 within the interior of the subdivision,
4
If
k, Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to
RCT fees prior to issuance of building peffilits.
B, Pursuant to Section 66412,3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it
has considered the effect ofthis approval on the housing needs of the region and has
balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents ofthe City and
the available fiscal and environmental resources,
C, The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the
optimum setting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as
required by Government Code Section 66473,1.
D, The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal confoffils
to all standards established by the City for such projects,
E, The conditions herein imposed on the grant of peffilit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact
created by the proposed development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject
to the general and special conditions set forth below,
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as
described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-03 and FSEIR-97-04 and
Addendum to EIR-95-04 except as modified by this Resolution,
B, Implement Mitigation Measures
Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining
to the Project identified in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FSEIR-97-
04, Mitigation measures not listed as specific conditions of this Resolution or by the project
design are incorporated by reference and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Review Coordinator.
12..,
5
C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to the project
Unless otherwise conditioned, comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms,
conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this
Tentative Map, of: I) EastLake Trails Master Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 99-03,
established by Resolution No, 19477 and approved by the City Council on May 4, 1999; 2)
The Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP); 3) Eastlake Trails Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plan; 4) Eastlake Trails Planned Community District Regulations; 5) Eastlake
Trails Design Guidelines; 6) Eastlake Trails Public Facilities Financing Plan; 7) Eastlake
Trails Water Conservation Plan; 8) Eastlake Trails Air Quality Improvement Plan; 9)
Eastlake Trails Sub-area Water Master Plan; and 10) Eastlake Trails Waste Water Master
Plan, all approved by the Council on November 24,1999, Resolution No, 19275 ("Plans"),
prior to approval of the corresponding final map,
As an alternative, the Developer shall entered into an agreement with the City, providing the
City with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and
implementation procedures as the City may require. Also assuring that, after approval ofthe
final map, the developer will continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such
Plans, The Developer shall also agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water
Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition ofthe
condition,
D, Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan
Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Eastlake Trails Public
Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold
standards adopted by the City ofChula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building
Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should
conditions change to warrant such a revision,
E, Design Approval
The project is conditioned to require administrative design review approval prior to first final
map approval approval in order to determine the appropriate development standards for the
project as well as review the height of proposed acoustical walls and the design of the
subdivision in relation to the adjoining scenic highways.
F, Project Phasing
If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the
Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of each final map.
6
1.3
The phasing plan shall include:
I. A site plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers, the phase lines and phase numbers
and number of dwelling units in each phase.
2. A table showing the phase number, the lots included in the phase and the number of
units included in each phase.
Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provide with each phase or unit of
development shall be determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City
reserves the right to conditionally approve each final map and require improvements,
facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the
requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may
at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvements and construction should conditions
change to warrant such revision(s).
G. Tentative Subdivison Map Conditions
Prior to approval of the first final map for any lot or unit unless otherwise indicated, the developer
shall:
STREETS, RIGHTS-OF - WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
I. Construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure in accordance with Chapter
18.16 ofthe Municipal Code, full street improvements for all onsite public streets shown on
the Tentative Map as required for each final map in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include but not be
limited to: asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer,
reclaimed water, potable water, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, fire
hydrants, and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City
Engineer.
2. Prior to approval of the first final map, construct or enter into an agreement to construct and
secure, in accordance with Chapter 18.16 of the Municipal Code, the off site improvements
listed below. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to: asphalt concrete
pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water, potable water,
drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, fire hydrants, and transitions to existing
improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer.
a. Improvements that have not been installed along Hunte Parkway fTom Otay Lakes
Road to North Greensview Drive. Those improvements shall include the necessary
grading and construction required to provide an 8-foot wide meandering walkway on
7
If
the eastern side of Hunte Parkway and any other street improvements deemed
necessary by the City Engineer. Any additional right-of-way required to
accommodate the completion of said improvements shall be granted to the City prior
to approval of the first final map.
b. Otay Lakes Road as a full width six-lane arterial along the entire fTontage of the
EastLake Trails northern boundary. All offsite and onsite right-of-way needed to
construct the eastbound transition to the existing improvements and the ultimate
street improvements shall be granted to the City prior to approval of the first final
map. The schedule for construction ofthe above improvements shall be determined
or approved by the City Engineer prior to approval ofthe aforementioned first final
map. The amount of the security for the above noted improvements shall be 110%
times a construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement
plans have been approved by the City, 150% times the approved cost estimate if
improvement plans are being processed by the City or 200% times the construction
cost estimate approved by the City Engineer if improvement plans have not been
submitted for City review. A lesser percentage may be required if it is demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that sufficient data or other information is
available to warrant such reduction.
Include with the improvement plans for Otay Lakes Road the installation of a source
for reclaimed water necessary to irrigate the sewer pump station property at the
location along Otay Lakes Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Open Space Coordinator.
c. Reconstruction of the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Hunte Parkway and
Otay Lakes Road as required by the City Engineer to improve southbound traffic
driving conditions at the intersection.
d. King Creek Way from Hunte Parkway to North Creekside Drive.
e. North Creekside Drive from King Creek Way to the existing improvements as depicted
in Chula Vista Drawing No. 99-261.
3. Submit and obtain approval fTom the Director of Planning and Building and the City
Engineer for all street names. No two intersections shall have the same street name and street
name suffixes shall comply with City standards.
4. Obtain approval from the City Engineer for street light locations.
5. Construct sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet "Americans with
Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. In the event the Federal
Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the
standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards
8
1\-
shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required by federal law, City
ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after
construction has commenced.
6. Provide a letter fTom the Otay Water District indicating that the subdivision will be provided
with adequate water service and long term water storage facilities.
7. Design all street vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to
the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets, which intersect other streets at or near a
horizontal or vertical curve, must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in
accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to
comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Lighted sag vertical
curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at intersections per
AASHTO standards
8. Provide minimum 5' wide bicycle lanes on King Creek Way from Hunte Parkway to North
Creekside Drive.
9. Acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of-way necessary for the installation of
required street improvements for the affected phase prior to approval ofthe first final map.
10. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to City Council consideration ofthe affected final map,
if off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required above (Only off-site right-of-way or
easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this
condition). After said notification and prior to the approval of the affected final map, the
developer shall:
a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the
Tentative Map conditions of approval.
b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements.
The amount of the deposit is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
c. Prepare and submit all easement and/or right-of-way documents, plats and appraisals
necessary to commence condemnation proceedings.
Ifthe developer so requests, the City may use its power of eminent domain to acquire right-
of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the
tentative map. The developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said
acquisition.
If the City does not acquire or commence proceedings for immediate possession of the
property within the 120 day time limitation specified in Section 66462.5 of the State
Subdivision Map Act, the condition to construct the related off-site improvements, which fall
9
I~
under the purview of the above mentioned Section of the Subdivision Map Act, is waived.
11. Construct a temporary turnaround or street improvements, as determined necessary by the
City Engineer and Fire Marshal, at the end oftemporarily stubbed streets greater than 150 ft.
in length (as measured from the nearest centerline intersection).
12. Provide an interim eastbound deceleration lane along Otay Lakes Road for the entrance to
park site (P-3) concurrent with the completion of P-3 if the ultimate south half-street
improvements for Otay Lakes Road are not completed at that time.
13. Provide interim traffic control devices, as required by the City Engineer, to detour pedestrian
traffic to the nearest street crossing if a signalized pedestrian crossing is not available when
the greenbelt trail is completed and connected to Otay Lakes Road and Olympic Parkway
14. Design and construct the lane reduction transitions along King Creek Way within Eastlake
Trails to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Install, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, street lights on traffic signal poles at the
intersections of Hunte Parkway with King Creek Way. Ifa traffic signal is not required at
this intersection, install standard street lighting fixtures.
16. Design and construct underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards at the
locations determined by the City Engineer.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
17. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for
all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of
downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets.
18. Accomplish storm drain design on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual
and the Grading Ordinance #1797 as amended.
19. Provide graded access to all storm drain clean outs or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
20. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices
to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer.
21. Designate on the plans as private, to the first cleanout within the public right-of-way, all
storm drain systems that collect water from private property.
10
17
22. Design and construct storm drain cleanouts to not be located on slopes or in inaccessible
areas for maintenance equipment.
23. Design and construct all public storm drains as close to perpendicular to the slope contours
as possib Ie but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours.
24. Designate as private and maintain by a Home Owner's Association all storm drain clean outs
carrying private property water and determined by the City to be in areas inaccessible for
maintenance equipment. Include in the CC&R's conditions and restrictions to assure proper
maintenance.
25. Design and construct brow ditches to not flow over a slope greater than 10 feet in height and
steeper than a 3:1. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried to the bottom of the
slope in an underground storm drain.
26. Provide runoff detention facilities or demonstrate the adequacy of existing detention
facilities, to be approved by the City Engineer, to assure that the maximum allowable
discharge after development does not exceed pre-development discharges. The developer
also needs to provide for the future maintenance of the facilities via the landscaping
maintenance district.
27. Provide energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the City Engineer to
maintain non-erosive flow velocities.
28. Process and obtain approval of necessary documents for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) for that portion of Salt Creek located within EastLake Trails, prior to
City issuance of grading permit for grading proposed within Salt Creek. The City Engineer,
in his discretion, may require revisions for the project area due to improvements to Salt
Creek.
29. Submit to and obtain approval fTom the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building
for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans.
30. Provide a minimum of 3 feet of flat ground access area fTom the face of any wall to the
beginning of the slope rounding for wall maintenance, unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer.
31. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as approved by the City Engineer. Lots shall be so
graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be
permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property.
11
If
32. Design and construct all grading and pad elevations to be within 2 feet of the grades and
elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer and Director of Planning and Building.
33. Obtain notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading work prior to issuance of
grading permit for work requiring said off-site grading.
34. Submit a list of proposed lots, prior to approval of the corresponding final map, indicating
whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two situations
prior to approval of the first final map.
35. Design and construct the inclination of each cut or fills surface resulting in a slope to not be
steeper than 2: 1 (two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defined.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both
geological and soil properties. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and
one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5:1) contingent upon:
a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist
containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These
results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and engineering geologist to certifY
that in their professional opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the
slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not
pose a danger to persons or property, and
b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and irrigation system.
c. A "Minor Slope" is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical dimension in
either cut or fill, between single family lots and not parallel to any roadway.
36. Enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City is held harmless from any liability
fTom erosion, siltation or increase in flow of drainage resulting fTom this project.
SEWER
37. Design all sewer access points (manholes) to be located at street centerline or at the center of
a travel lane or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
38. Provide a sewer profile study for all deep "Local" and "Trunk" sewer lines (15' in depth or
greater) which indicates that no other feasible alternative exists except for deep sewer lines.
If the City Engineer approves the profile study, the deep sewer lines will be permitted for
construction.
12
19
39. Install parallel sewer lines for sewer lines greater than 15 feet in depth iflaterallines are to
be connected to these lines unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. For sewer lines
greater than 20' in depth, C900 P.V.C. shall be used fTom manhole to manhole.
40. Submit a letter of credit, prior to recordation of the subdivision final map for said lot, for all
sanitary sewer facilities fees required for development of any lot subject to Telegraph
Canyon Sewer Pumped Flows DIF.
41. Provide improved access to all sewer manholes to withstand H-20 wheel load or other
loading as approved by the City Engineer.
42. Design and construct sewer access points to not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas
for maintenance equipment.
43. Provide sewer manholes at all changes of alignment of grade unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a
minimum grade of 1 %.
44. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a manhole placed at the center of
the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
45. Provide for the costs associated with the maintenance and the potential upgrading of the
sewer pump station located at 2660 Otay Lakes Road in accordance with the agreement
between the City, Pacific Bay Homes and The Eastlake Company, dated January 20,1998.
46. If a new pump station(s), or the upgrade of an existing pump station(s), is proposed to
accommodate additional sewage flows from the proposed Project, the Developer shall
provide a sewage capacity study when such facilitie(s) are proposed in accordance with City
of Chula Vista Policy Number 570-03 (Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy).
47. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the
assessmentslbonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the city have
been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s).
48. Pay in full, prior to recordation of each final map, all sanitary sewer facilities fees required
for development of all lots subject to Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF.
AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL
49. Developer shall enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each
final map, where the developer agrees to the following:
13
2..0
a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision ifanyone of
the following occur:
1. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended fTom time to time, have been
reached.
2. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance and Growth Management Program. Public utilities shall include,
but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water.
3. The required public facilities, as identified in the EastLake Trails PFFP or
otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction
of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing and
sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected.
In such case, the EastLake Trails PFFP may be amended as approved by the
Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works.
b. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and
employees, fTom any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents,
officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City,
including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its
agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section
66499.37 ofthe State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of
any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully
cooperates in the defense.
c. Agree to permit all cable television companies franchised by the City ofChula Vista
equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot
or unit within the Tentative Map area. Developer further agrees to grant, by license
or easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City ofChula Vista,
conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the
final map only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula
Vista the condition of such grant being that (a) such access is coordinated with
Developer's construction schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's
construction schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to accomodate
that placement of such conduits; and (b) any such cable company is and remains in
compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and
procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as
14
.1.(
same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City ofChula Vista.
Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said
covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation
of said grant upon determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated
the conditions of grant.
d. Developer agrees to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of the
drainage channel in Salt Creek or for the maintenance oflandscaped medians, open
space, and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subdivision.
e. That applicant will comply with the provisions of the City-wide Parks Master Plan
when it is adopted.
50. Enter into an agreement with the City to provide affordable housing units as specified in the
adopted Eastlake Comprehensive Affordable Housing Program prior to approval ofthe first
final map.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
51. Grant Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IOD) on the final map for Open Space lots within
the subdivision.
52. Annex the project to the existing Eastlake Trails (Eastlake III) Homeowners Association
prior to approval of the first final map for maintenance of alllandscaped sloped maintenance
areas, private open space lots, public street improvements and medians and parkways on
King Creek Way prior to approval of the first final map.
53. Conform to the design elements of the City's Landscape Manual for all landscaping which
falls within the maintenance responsibility ofthe Homeowners Association unless otherwise
approved by the Director of Planning and Building.
54. Maintain all decomposed granite (D.G.) walkways providing pedestrian access and
connections from edge of cul-de-sacs and nearby streets by the Home Owner's Association.
55. Provide proofto the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building
that all improvements located on open space lots will be incorporated into and maintained by
a Home Owner's Association. Include the obligation to provide for perpetual maintenance of,
but not limited to, landscape and irrigation improvements, including perimeter and sound
walls within open space lots, and medians and parkways on King Creek Way, North
Creekside Drive, Hunte Parkway (fTom Otay Lakes Road to King Creek Way) and Otay
Lakes Road (from Hunte Parkway to the easterly subdivision boundary) prior to approval of
the first final map. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may approve
15
2<..
that certain of the aforementioned improvements be maintained by the existing EastLake
Open Space District.
56. Enter into a maintenance agreement and grant easements as necessary for landscaping
maintained by a Home Owner's Association within City right-of-way or such other areas
required by the City.
57. Avoid installation of privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any
public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future
construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if
the following is accomplished:
a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the
following:
1. Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities
within the public right-of-way.
2. Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert
Service.
3. Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is
performed in the area.
4. The terms ofthis agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns
of the developer.
b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations
where private facilities traverse public streets.
58. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City assessment districts
as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary prior to approval of the each final
map. Submit an apportionment form and provide a deposit as determined by and to the City
to cover costs.
59. Prepare a disclosure form, to be signed by the home buyer, acknowledging that additional
fees have been paid into the Assessment District or the Transportation DIF Fund, and that
these additional fees are reflected in the purchase price of the home for those units, should
the development have a density change from that indicated in the Assessment District
Engineer's Report.
60. Submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure forms for each model size or EDU for the
16
2.-)
approval of the City Engineer.
61. Comply with the terms and conditions of the Acquisition/Financing Agreement for
Assessment District 94-1, CO 94-064, approved by Council Resolution 17483 as said terms
and conditions may be applicable to this development.
62. Design and construct all ofthe utilities that service open space within the limits ofthe open
space or dedicated City right-of-way.
63. Agree to have owners oflots which have adjoining walls located within an open space lot
sign a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the wall is on Open
Space property and that they may not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto Open
Space property. These restrictions shall be reflected in the project CC&Rs, and a copy of
said restrictions shall be provided to the City for its approval.
64. Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit for Chula Vista Tract 99-03, prepare,
submit and obtain the approval fTom the Director of Planning and Building for the Project's
Community Park Master Plan (P-I and P-3.) The Community Park Master Plan shall include
facilities and amenities prescribed in the forthcoming City-wide Parks Master Plan as
adopted by City Council. In the event that the forthcoming City-wide Parks Master Plan is
not adopted before the community park design begins, the Director of Planning and Building
shall determine the appropriate park facilities for the community park.
65. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building for detailed
landscape and irrigation plans, including water management guidelines in accordance with
the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Section 11.4, Design Guidelines, of the Eastlake
Trails SPA for the associated landscaped areas in each final map prior to the approval of each
final map. IfPoplus species trees are incorporated in the Eastlake Trails Landscape theme,
appropriate installation methods acceptable to the Director of Planning and Building shall be
prescribed in the landscape improvement plans.
66. Construct pedestrian walkway connections between the edge of all cul-de-sac termini and
adjacent streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and City
Engineer. Approval shall be obtained documented prior to the approval of each final map.
67. Relocate at Developer's own expense, the necessary above and underground utilities serving
individual homes to accommodate the required street trees within the street tree planting
easement if determined necessary by the City.
68. Prior to the Approval of the first final map, Applicant shall satisfy the Parklands and Public
Facilities Ordinance obligation for the 207 dwelling units with a payment to the City of
Chula Vista of a minimum of$467,820.00 and the dedication to the City ofa minimum of
17
2'('
0.54 acres of park land contained within EastLake Trails Parcel P-l or P-3. The exact amount
of each to be determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
EASEMENTS
69. Grant on the corresponding final map minimum 15' wide easements to the City ofChula
Vista, as required by the City Engineer, for construction and maintenance of sewer facilities.
70. Grant on the corresponding final map minimum 15' wide easements to the City ofChula
Vista, as required by the City Engineer, for construction and maintenance of storm drain
facilities.
71. Grant on the corresponding final map 10' wide general utility easements, as required by the
City Engineer, along street right-of-way adjacent to open space lots.
72. Grant easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of
any final map requiring those facilities. The easements shall be the size as required by City
standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
73. Grant 20' landscape buffer easements adjacent to Otay Lakes Road.
74. Grant to the City on the corresponding final map easements along all public streets within the
subdivision as shown on the tentative map and in accordance with City standards unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building.
75. Dedicate for public use all the streets shown on the subject tentative map within the
subdivision boundary.
MISCELLANEOUS
76. A summary of City responses to each of applicants waiver requests fTom City standards is
contained within the following Table I, which includes the "Approved" or "Not Approved"
status of each waiver. The summary descriptions for each waiver within Table I are brief and
the approved Tentative Map should be consulted for more complete descriptions of the
waiver requests.
18
~J
I TABLE I:
TENTATIVE MAP WAIVERS
WAIVER BRIEF DESCRIPTION STATUS COMMENTS
1\0.
I Less than Standard 35' Lot Frontage for I,ots 16,25, 26, 56, 68, 69 & 70 Approved None
2
Street intersections within horizontal curves or within 100' tangents of * Approved None
horizontal curves.
j upen ~pace lots shall have a mInimum ulmenSlOn 0 I V except Lots Hand C Appproved None
4 L,?!/')<,~~~!I.!1:~ve an easemeI1t.J? mOu1J1eu LO vary lrom v \0 .,J..,J' to Approved None
al ow for retaining and 2: 1 s10pe
, Stre,et ,Irf;e, l::...aseme!1~ ~dJacent to reslpen la sl~eel flfttJ1 ,01 ways sna,11 oe Approved None
ffadeq wIth 2: 1 (5: 1) slopes except where streets are 19her than pad
e evatJons.
* The City's approval of the waiver request is contingent upon submittal of a letter from applicants Engineer-of-
Work explaining that, in their professional opinion, no public safety issues will be compromised.
77. Submit "as-built" improvement and grading plans as required by the City Subdivision
Manual. Additionally, provide the City said plans in a digital D.X.F. file format.
78. Submit a copy of each subdivision in a digital D.X.F. file format prior to approval of its
associated final map or as requested by the City Engineer. The digital file shall be based on
accurate coordinate geometry calculations and the NAD 83 State Plane Coordinate System.
The digital file shall specifically include each of the following items in a separate drawing
layer:
a. Lot Boundaries,
b. Lot Numbers,
c. Subdivision Boundary,
d. Right-of-Way,
e. Street Centerlines, and
f. Approved Street Names.
Submit the digital file in accordance with City Guidelines for Digital Submittal on 3 %"
disks or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In addition, submit as-built grading
and improvement plans in a digital D.X.F. file format. Provide security to guarantee the
ultimate submittal of grading and improvement digital files. Update electronic files after any
construction pen and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and resubmit to the
City.
19
4
79. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System - Zone VI (1983).
80. Include in the H.O.A. CC&R's that the maintenance of all public facilities and improvements
within open space areas and public right-of-way is managed by the Home Owner's
Association if, in fact, the H.O.A. has such responsibility. Submit to and obtain approval of
said CC&R's by the Director of Planning & Building and City Engineer prior to approval of
the first final map.
81. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, conditions and restricting provisions assuring
maintenance of private facilities including the private streets, private sewer and drainage
systems, and the maintenance of all public facilities and improvements within open space
areas and public right-of-way to be maintained by the H.O.A. Name the City ofChula Vista
as party to said Declarations authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions in the
Declarations in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision.
82. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow by a document to be initialized by the
owners ofthe maintenance responsibility of the H.O.A. and their estimated annual cost. The
form of said document shall be approved by the Director of Planning & Building and the
City Engineer prior to approval of the first final map.
83. Submit and obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer of
the proposed CC&R's for the subdivision prior to approval of the first final map.
84. Modify the Eastlake Trails Water Conservation Plan to incorporate all new water
conservation policies adopted by the City Council. Comply and remain in compliance with
said policies.
85. Prior to approval of the first final map, applicant shall prepare and submit a request and
receive approval for administrative design review of proposed development standards to be
utilized for the project. Said review shall also include the design of the development per
Section 8.3 of the City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element regarding scenic
highways and the height of the proposed acoustical walls along Hunte Parkway and Otay
Lakes Road.
86. Contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the
Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a
frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas ofthe City. The
Developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final residence, in
each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has
accepted the street or 60 days after completion of all punch list items, whichever is sooner.
The developer shall also provide the City Conservation Coordinator with a copy of the memo
requesting street sweeping service. The memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and
the date the sweeping will begin.
20
.:1-7
87. Provide the Initial Cycle offire management! brush clearance within lots adjacent to natural
open space areas subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and Director of Planning and
Building.
88. Instal1 fire hydrants every 500 feet for single family residential. Install and make operable the
hydrants and 20- foot fire access roads prior to delivery of combustible building materials.
89. Submit to the Planning and Building, and Engineering Departments service availability letter
from the Otay Water District prior to approval of each final map.
90. Install potable and recycled water infrastructure improvements as prescribed in the
Eastlake Trails Sub- area Water Master Plan prepared by John Powel1 and Associates,
September, 1998, including but not limited to the following:
a. Provide a letter fTom OWD confirming that upon completion of the potable and recycled
water infTastructure facilities, the Developer shall dedicate the improvements to the Otay
Water District.
b. Extend the existing potable and recycled water mains in Hunte Parkway south to
Olympic Parkway, and construct mains in Olympic Parkway fTom Hunte Parkway to the
Olympic Training Center.
91. Obtain State Department of Fish & Game (1603 Stream bed Alteration Agreement) and
Federal (Section 404 Clean Water Act) permits, if required by those Resources Agencies,
prior to approval of a permit for any grading or construction work within Salt Creek Canyon.
92. Agree to provide noise study prior to issuance first building permit to identify noise impacts
generated by surrounding streets and determine the necessary mitigation measures to insure
that all dwelling units will be design and constructed to preclude interior noise levels over 45
dBA and exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA. The developer shall implement all mitigation
measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise impacts.
93. Prior to the first final map, applicant must provide detailed solution for the sound attenuation
walls along Otay Lakes Road, per mitigation measure ofPSEIR 97-04 and Addendum.
94. Agree to participate in a regional or sub-regional multi-species coastal sage scrub
conservation plan prior to approval of the first final map.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
95. Comply with al1 applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the
21
.:J..t'
final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions ofthe Subdivision Map
Act and the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
96. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code
requirements.
97. Pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including, but
not limited to, the following:
Prior to issuance of the first building permit:
I. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
2. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
d. SR-125 impact fee.
e. Telegraph Canyon Pump Sewer Fee.
f. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Fee.
98. Comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water
Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation
to demonstration said compliance as required by the City Engineer.
99. Design all dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and shield all exterior
private open space to limit noise exposure to 65 dBA.
100. Comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEP A) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and
any regulations adopted by the City ofChula Vista pursuant to the N.PD.E.S. regulations
or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water
Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of
grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction
pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding
mechanisms for post construction control measures.
101. Comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 14.04 to 14.18 and 18.54 for any
work proposed within the watercourse and floodplain of Salt Creek.
102. Ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments"
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and Ensure that
22
02.7
prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" assessments.
Submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to final map approval.
IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits,
deny, revoke, or further condition al1 certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by
Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction top be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be
deemed to be automatical1y revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning and Building
John M.Kaheny
City Attorney
H: \hoJllc\planning\jefl\ TN 5&6
23
30
-..-..--.--.------
-.--
--
---
------.
III
\
\
X,
I
\'
\\('
I'
I',
//
/
\\
/
J __'
r~==--__
</ ;.:
/;/
/:;/
/;,/
/.'
.......~--.:..
"._.---~
-~~..........
~
i
'. \ i
'",<, I
\\:--.- '
';;~ ------- J~:
'~ ~-/
~ <:'/
/
J--:"'~
/ -------=:::::::--.-
--::::-,~--
I - --- ::::::---------
\. ----.
"''-..,
".
., ------., .,--------
"
LOCATOR PROJECT THE EASTlAKE COMPANY LLC PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANr: ' .
PROJECT EASTLAKE TRAILS NORTH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
ADDRESS: SE corner of Hunte Parkway'
and Otay Lakes Road Request: Proposed 207 single family residential units. These
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: units will be part of the larger Eastlake Trails project
NORTH No Scale PCS - 00-03 shown on Chula Vista Tract Map No. 99-03.
C.\rnyflles\locators\PCS0003.cdr 06/16/00
3/
"'!'j
~.
IJC:I
=
.,
to
>
..
t"j
~
'"
-
~
:0;-
to
>-3
.,
~
~.
-
'"
~
~
'"
-
to
.,
>-3
to
==
-
~
-
:;.
to
~
~
"0
'.
.. .j,:~i\~;
,- \(""'\
" "N,,<
I 'r::-:..,.-.,,,, ',",
., r ~ "'\.
J ~'. '-',
"
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
., /;
.Ii.
..
,
.;!f~;"!".
"
';.Ar.:"
.~~< i
~~~ 1\
. II
~~\~
. If I
.1 \
""'k~ ,'.' t
>C."':.:>,;;;: _.......
'_. [. :~i' Jj
,\"'r,~
iRi;"",;. . ~ <)
: .. I,.t,~;~~~~
/, i ':, - ~" .' ~.' -r:;~
i. , -' ',. ", ,-'-- J 1
' " ,,!) ...."
, ,. -'~ h ....~.
<:
f'\
,
'"
~1>
-~~;'.:...'
/ .;f"
-'/':
, -
-
'('~',J ..' , ,
11X;~i , , ,
( ,
,
1,\ ')
\'
,
,
,
,
\
,;1'lV_S !C
if;
II ".. ~ .."
~-'d'll: ~"'...
,*?l,,~w,.;;" :
q .' !:D\I'::,~,*;
~M.II ~
.i,,:. ti. .f," l'f. "
" ,
;:.l( I. ~-.- :.~...
/','Ii\ ... ~. t ;-,,~ ..t',,, 6
;f, ~ ~,,, I'~'~' A.
6ii! .~ ~ Ia!-:,t .. .t
'T, I......J'. 1._ ~
" ~fu...~
,~i "...........~.~,.... 1<.
I....'L.~;..'" ""
::: ({,-~ ,..-~ "-
~ J- ....
b:.,:'-I"'~,',~.r' :I';...
\. oJ. ~_L . --- ......-:.1::.':...::,:
.. ~ \.... ... " ...
.... :~ ::".; ....
, .
~"; . '{IlL", '
. ~.I:I'......... ....
~"':(- ,
,~ ,~ " TN-IYIV L: I '
0" _...-'09-3 ....'-i: ~
~~.~ ' ..' ,,'/.,' ,:
~ . ,
~ I
,
,
.
.
,
... ~ . \ ~ ~ " ... .... ::<::!
: ~\~"I';~':';~"
2. t, jj'" ~ .... ~
... ,f'i";"1L .... ... If
. ... f. ,. ... ~
,., ~~~'" .. ~,I.'''';'''':, , _: ".
"- 'r;S- .... ~ ~_, '!'.f; (I,.'
. . ~ i:::: !l'i" ...,~' "
It. ,,-It. 1" f... .. [E _.: _'_". !,'
-II a", -all~<<:~ 'L~.~
' 'd,/.,'['i" - .. ...;: rz;:! . r:2,;~ .',. .... ",.:= ..'
" , J',!I"f]ti' "~,fl'
~"~;~~:'~,:.,:,i ::::.;i1!,:,r:\,~I, If(~
?.~ , : I ;, I. ,,\. ""'_
...' ~,' ~ j [f.: r '. . .
' .. .. '[::
, ". 'I. II ry ._'"
,: I~ ". ,~.,:~ , ' \' I
,. '. '-" ~ . I
.:;..~.; . <i' , ,';" '11. I "
-..."" ,.It. ...... .," II ~ j ,
\ .. t,j 1', /I .
: :', ...",~/ ..J'~,
I~".~~~_" ~..,.,.~ .~. .~. "',~ _ u \\~
, , '. ,'., '. . ".: ,.'FII" ~ !s'.._'....o:;S'.
", ~,.~" .....".' ~ ',," -,' -
.. ~'" ''..f.'I' " '. ,
"....~~~...!,'~... , ~:tii.,i:
'- <~>) " ~'t, t1~ ' , '. , ., -r;::-;'
. "~'A1. L..::" . d'a.,'I:'__
~ ~ J.~ It.... .. ~ I. .>
/ ,:' ...:; : b~" :
: ~~~~~" : .,., "'1""" - ~_ '1
". 'It'< ,~y, - , ,-' T, ' \
'1;~'" ~..f['1\.>,,~~~, zit,: '" '\
' " !. "~....,?;'q-J. . . 1'---
.~;\'~, .... ,...,..~._t:.:..F '.. 1 .
,\1'._... ~~.. ..., "-':R
..''')\?~r-\\\, " r"c.j .:. ~',_
.';'\'. ~'G\.'i'(' " ' " L ,I _. :J; "
,-,~~~\::,~" ,"'~.'~-,,,,,'\1 i'-~~~~ ~::0
Ii.. '\(,jJ,',. ,'~'.... -: " "~. 'I'~ ~'...;:'", ~
", " ;L:,' <~'~~~1\'~_ '7 '
\\' ,.:"'."-: ~..... - ""::'-.-=-:. '(..I
\. ,~_ - ~ : I!!!r_ __ '.. __...._
':'\:'~'-< J'.'
-.::,,:,,:.'" ..' .,'''''-
\--~ \:'....- -
.
-i,
,
\ '., !
.""1 .I!
~., - ~
.
.
.
. ,
.
,
'.i~
.
,
,
."! , .~'
. "
, . ~j~'
-
~ ~p;&
,
,
,..
,
T"
ii~1
.
, LU:.. ',.~.,:
I J;Y' \ !I.' ., '..
~Vft_' \ 'l ; r"
'/ "" :;.{, . r " .,))-- '.
. ~, \~'
" ~\\ 'X\~\
")" /,(1', "'~'" '.
.~" }'~"""";." .....:~~~.;:./-~,.. ~.:
~,~~ ~ ~ ~-l '\. I~~
''\:'St<r', ,\, : ,"~
\'\~~~ '; ..'
\~~;:'1'-l ,'" & &
'''~ "'Y'
-i;"\t~X.. ..' ,
\~~\. ~~.' ~ ..~
'(~~" .,
.:o::..~ \&
-.:::-=....,ii:~: '
-
.
,
:s: ~ ,:."r
~-,~~
1\\\
'>
~\"
'':.
!~J
. '.
~,
\\~}
'.
!
:
j
I
,
I
I
;,~...,.
f~~ '\~.
.
-
-"-
.
.
'.
(J1
I
'"
'"
....
G
J
I
8
(J1
I
'"
'"
....
\
....
. ....
...~~~.....
,..;:;--
32-.
.-
o
=io
-<Z
c
o ,
'TI >
o ~
Zoo
C -I
, >
>
<;;J
00 >.
-I 0
> -I
o Z
> 0
,"
:;; CD
o ~
::c 0
z (.0)
>
.
Land Use Districts
t"~
'I
'\\
\\
II
It
RESIDENTIAL
P '-'1<1""'" e.-.
<1 . ........ SIngle FomIy
...111...... SIngle FomIy
- .. ............ CancIpt
.. ..-...... SmII LaI
0..4...._
- . "".... ....... CancIpt
.. .........0..4..........
CalQ...,~a.m
D_.IoI>...... M.a f"-.nI)
.. .~..... Mulll-FomIy
VIUAGE CENTER & COMMERCIAl
IIIIIge CenIor
..... CenIor
CenIer
PA PI_II.... & AdmiI_iOIi..
BUSINESS CENTER
~--CenIor'~PR~
~--CenIor-~SeMce~
v
~m
--~~
~1-16.9S
~..>
~fASTLAKE II
A planned community by The Eastlake Co.
Figure B: Land Use District Map
THI:. ~.
Appendix B
OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE _. . ,-EMENT
ATTACHMENT 4
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
-rUo<i ~~'" rl':>>A.PA.l..NJ L. L..C.
2. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
~I~...
1=9_~=...,. ,~.
--f"J.tt:;; '1iLf A.r_~ rn.
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.
foJA
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No K-
If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
CUR." "5M Vi'1-I- - eCo6.1 Lo...< ~ ,..-,.,.
e,\t-t-. ~_ ~-n ^'''F- ~.
"^A.J2"....~ YD<JlJI~ - 1o..l.A.'-I r.::.P.....,p
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No -K- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
~/:2//00
/ .
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES ZESSARY)
~_7L
, Signature of contractor/applicant
C UR....-r- ~ t-rlool
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as Q unit. "
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item f:;
Meeting Date 8/9/00
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCA-OI-OI; Proposal to amend the Municipal Code (Title
19) regarding Design Review Committee membership, scope of
responsibilities, and procedures - City initiated.
On June 13, 2000 the City Council directed staff to process amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
addressing the design review process. Staff has prepared the requested Code amendments and is
now taking the modified zoning language forward for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The modified Code language addresses Design Review Committee
membership, scope of responsibilities and procedures. All proposed amendments have been
written to carry out the Council's intent of further improving the design review process.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an ordinance in order to:
1) Modify Sections 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583, 19.14.584, and 19.14.587 of the
Municipal Code, and add Section 19.14.591 to the Municipal Code, regarding Design
Review.
DISCUSSION:
On January 20, 2000 the City Council conducted a workshop on the Design Review
Committee/process. At the conclusion of the workshop the Council directed staff to return with a
proposal for a design review process without a Design Review Committee, as well as a proposal to
revamp and improve upon the existing design review process. The Council also directed staff to
perform an analysis of such aspects of the design review process as the number of times a meeting
had to be cancelled due to the lack of a quorum, the total number of times projects were continued,
as well as the reasons for those continuances.
At their meeting ofJune 13,2000 the City Council reviewed a staff analysis ofDRC activities over
the past two years. The Council also rcvicwed options for a process without a formal committee, as
well as options for improvcments to the existing (committee) process. After considering the various
options presented, the Council directed staff to make improvements to the existing process in part
through amending the Design Review portion of the Municipal Code.
I
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/9/00
Specifically, staff was directed by the City Council to process an amendment to the Zoning Code
regarding Design Revicw Committee membership, scope of responsibilities, and procedures to
address the following:
a. Clarification of the purpose, role and responsibilities of the Design Review Committee.
b. The existing Code states that persons qualified for membership shall include Architects,
Landscape Architects, Land Planners, apartment builders, and "citizens who have
demonstrated genuine interest in the community and a sensitivity to good design". The
City Council recommended that Code be amended to require the above qualifications
rather than state that these individuals are "among those qualified for membership." In
addition, the category of "apartment builder" should be replaced with "developer".
c. The Code should clearly state that the scope of responsibility of the Design Review
Committee is limited to review of site plans, landscaping, and exterior design of
buildings. In addition, the Code should state that in reviewing a residential project, the
DRC should consider the cost/benefits of any recommended improvement as reported by
the applicant. This is particularly important for affordable housing proposals.
d. In order to expedite the decision-making process, appeals of decisions of the Design
Review Committee shall be made directly to either the City Council or the Planning
Commission. The applicant would have the choice of which body would hear the appeal
of a DRC decision.
e. If a project is scheduled for a meeting of the Design Review Committee for final
approval, and a quorum is not available for the scheduled meeting, the applicant may
choose to have the matter considered by the DRC at its next meeting, may request a
special DRC meeting to consider the matter, or may request that the matter be referred
directly to the City Council (at no cost) at its next available meeting (subject to public
noticing requirements) for action.
f. Any action by the DRC to continue a project shall only be done with the concurrence of
the applicant. If the project is denied an explanation of the reasons for denial shall be
provided.
2.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/9/00
CONCLUSION:
State law requires that changes to the Zoning Code first be reviewed by the Planning Commission,
and then reviewed and approved by the City Council. Stall has drafted changes to the Design
Review portion of the Zoning Code that reflect the above noted items for the Commission's review
and approval (Attachment "A"). Stall recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution recommending that the City Council approve the attached ordinance modifying the
Dcsign Review Section of the Zoning Code.
Attachment "A" - Draft Planning Commission resolution/Council Ordinance
Attachment "B" - City Council staff report from June 13,2000
H:\lwllle\plallning\stevexp\pcaO I Ol.pcrpt
:i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583,
19.14.584, AND 19.14.587 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING
SECTION 19.14.591 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP, SCOPE OF
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee IS
responsible for reviewing all significant development within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review permitting process has an appreciable
positive impact upon the quality of development within the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to modify the Design Review
process within the City in order to help improve project permitting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it necessary at this time to
further define and clarify Design Review Committee membership, scope of
responsibilities, and procedures; and,
WHEREAS, amendments to the Design Review Committee process within
the Zoning Code must be heard by the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days
prior to the hearing, and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely August 9, 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 found the proposal, as a procedural
amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under the General Rule exemption section 15061(b)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS
PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends
that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Sections 19.14.581, 19.14.582,
19.14.583, 19.14.584, 19.14.587 of the Municipal Code, and adding Section
19.14.591 to the Municipal Code, regarding Design Review Committee membership,
scope of responsibilities, and procedures, as shown in Attachment "A."
C(
ATTACHMENT "A"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 9th day of August, 2000, by the following
vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Robert Thomas, Chairman
Diana Vargas, Secretary
H,HOME/PLANNING/STEVEXP/PCAO I 0 I .PCRESO
s-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING SECTIONS 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583,
19.14.584, AND 19.14.587 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING
SECTION 19.14.591 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP, SCOPE OF
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND PROCEDURES.
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Design Review Committee IS
responsible for reviewing all significant development within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Design Review permitting process has an appreciable
positivc impact upon the quality of development within the City of Chula Vista; and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to modify the Design Review
process within the City in order to help improve project permitting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary at this time to further define
and clarify Design Review Committee membership, scope of responsibilities, and
procedures; and,
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2000 the Planning Commission voted
recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Code text amendments
regarding design review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said
amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to
the hearing, and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely ,2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before
the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council found the proposal, as a procedural
amendment, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under the General Rule exemption section 15061 (b )(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby find, determine, resolve, and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Sections 19.14.581, 19.14.582, 19.14.583, 19.14.584,
19.14.587 of the Municipal Code be amended to read as shown in Attachment "A,"
and that Section 19.14.591 be added to the Municipal Code to read as shown in
Attachment "A."
~
H:homc/planning/stcvcxp/PCAO] O! .CCrcso
SECTION II. That the City Council hereby finds that the text amendment
will enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista, is
consistent with the General Plan, and is supported by public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice.
Presented by,
Approved as to form by,
Robert A. Leiter, ACIP
Director of Planning
John Kahney,
City Attorney
7
Il:ho1l1c/planningJstevexp/PCAOJ 0] _CCreso
ATTACHMENT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO.
19.14.581 Design review committee-Creation.
In order to relieve the planning commission of certain routine functions necessary
to the proper administration of this chapter, to intensify this municipality's efforts
to improve its townscape, and to promote the orderly growth and amenity of the
city and environs, there is established a design review committee with such
authority as is granted by this chapter. The desiqn review committee's purpose is
to ensure that development within the City of Chula Vista is orderly, of a hiqh
quality, and consistent with City-approved desiqn quidelines.
19.14.582 Design review committee-Duties and responsibilities.
A. The design review committee shall review plans for the establishment,
location, expansion or alteration of uses or structures in all R-3 zones, all
commercial and industrial zones, and development and redevelopment
within redevelopment project area boundaries and shall approve,
conditionally approve or deny such plans, except when projects are within
the boundaries of a redevelopment project, in which case the committee
shall recommend approval, conditional approval or denial to the
redevelopment agency of the city. The committee shall render decisions on
minor proposals as defined in Agency Resolution No. 71.
B. The design review committee shall also review plans for the establishment,
location, expansion or alteration of multiple family dwelling uses, major use
permits, commercial, or industrial projects or structures located within the
1985 Montgomery annexation area, and governed by Chapter 19.70 of this
ordinance.
C. The responsibility of the desiqn review committee shall be limited to the
review of site plans, landscapinq, and the exterior desiqn of buildinqs, for
consistency with City-approved desiqn quidelines. In reviewinq a residential
proiect, the ORC shall consider the costs/benefits of any recommended
improvement as reported by the applicant.
GO. The design review committee shall review all appeals filed to contest sign
design rulings of the zoning administrator.
idE. The design review committee shall base its findings and actions upon the
provisions of the effected design manuals of the city.
f
IJ:horne/plalloing/stevexp/PCAO I 0] .CCrcso
€oF. The design review committee shall prepare and adopt operational
procedures, bylaws and business forms.
f:G. The design review committee shall submit annual reports on its operations
to the city planning commission and redevelopment agency.
GH. The fee for a hearing before the design review committee is the required
fee(s).
HI. The zoning administrator has the discretion, with the concurrence of the
applicant, to act in the place of the design review committee in the case of
minor projects, including signs, commercial, industrial or institutional
additions which constitute less than a fifty percent increase in floor area or
twenty thousand square feet, whichever is less, and residential projects of
four units or less. The zoning administrator may also act in the place of the
design review committee in the case of new commercial, industrial or
institutional projects with a total floor area of twenty thousand square feet or
less when such projects are located within a planned community area with
its own design guidelines and design review process. A decision of the
zoning administrator may be appealed to the design review committee in the
same manner as set forth in Section 19.14.583. The fee for zoning
administrator design review shall be the required fee(s).
(Ord 2603 ~2, 1994; Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 2365 ~2, 1990; Ord 2350 ~1,
1990; Ord 2309A ~4, 1989; Ord 2142 ~1 (part), 1986; Ord 2036 ~1 (part), 1983;
Ord 1961 ~1 (part), 1982; Ord 1893 ~1 (part), 1980; Ord 1771 ~3 (part), 1977).
19.14.583 Design review committee-Appeal procedure.
A. Except on decisions involving the redevelopment projects, the applicant or
other interested persons may file an appeal from the decision of the design
review committee to the planning commission or city council within ten
working days after the decision is filed with the city clerk. The applicant has
the choice of filinq an appeal from the desiqn review committee directly to
either the planninq commission or city council. The appeal shall be in writing
and filed in triplicate with the planning department on forms prescribed for
the appeal, and shall specify therein the argument against the decision of
the design review committee. If an appeal is filed within the time limit
specified, it automatically stays proceedings in the matter until a
determination is made by the planning commission or city council. All
appeals regarding projects within redevelopment projects shall be filed with
the director of community development and forwarded to the agency.
B. Upon the hearing of such appeal, the planning commission may, by
resolution, affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, any determination of
the design review committee. The resolution must contain a finding of facts
'7
] l:home/planning/slcvcxp/PCAO I 0 I ,CCrcso
showing wherein the project meets or fails to meet the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions of the design review manual.
C. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city
council in the same manner as set forth in this section for appeals to the
planning commission. (Ord 2036 31 (part), 1983; Ord 1994 31, 1982; Ord
1771 33 (part), 1977).
19.14.584 Design review committee-Membership qualification.
A. The design review committee shall consist of five members appointed by
the majority vote of the council. The membership shall be comprised of
persons sensitive to design consideration and interested in townscape
matters. Persons qualified for membership shall includo be limited to
architects, landscape architects, land planners, developers, and other
desiqn professionals with suitable experience apartment builders and other
citizens '.vho have demonstrated a gonuino interest in the community and a
sonsitivity to good design.
B. All members should be familiar with and able to read and interpret
architectural drawings, and be able to judge the effect of a proposed project,
structure or sign upon the surrounding neighborhood and community. (Ord
1771 93 (part), 1977).
19.14.586 Design review committee-Removal or vacancy.
Any member of the design review committee may be removed by a majority vote
of the city council. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as an original
appointment and the person filling the vacancy shall serve for the remainder of
the removed member's unexpired term. If a member is absent without cause
from three consecutive regular meetings, the office becomes automatically
vacant. A member is not absent without cause if the absence is due to illness,
business or vacation. (Ord 1771 93 (part), 1977).
19.14.587 Design review committee-Quorum.
A. Three members shall constitute a quorum. Action by the design review
committee requires a majority vote of the quorum. (Ord 1771 93 (part), 1977).
B. If a proiect is scheduled for a meetinq of the Oesiqn Review Committee for
final approval, and a quorum is not available for the scheduled meetinq, the
applicant may choose to have the matter considered by the ORC at its next
meetinq, may request a special ORC meetinq to consider the matter, or may
request that the matter be referred directly to the City Council (at no cost to the
ICJ
II:ho111c/plmming/stcvexp/PCAO ] () I.CCreso
applicant) at its next available meetinq (subject to public noticinq
requirements) for action.
19.14.588 Design review committee-Schedule of meetings.
The design review committee shall meet at least twice each month. Special
meetings may be held in accordance with provisions of the government code of
the state. The meetings shall not be held on any legal holiday. (Ord 1771 ~3
(part), 1977).
19.14.589 Design review committee-Election of officers.
At the first regularly scheduled meeting of the design review committee, and on
each July thereafter, the members shall elect a chairman and vice-chairman from
among its members to serve a term of one year, and until the successor of each
takes office. (Ord 1771 ~3 (part), 1977).
19.14.590 Fees for appeals and requested actions before the planning commission
and zoning administrator.
For all appeals from actions of the planning commission, zoning administrator or
any appeal filed pursuant to Chapter 19.12 or 19.14, the fee shall be the required
fee(s). In addition, any request for action by the planning commission not
specifically covered within the fee structure established by this chapter shall be
subject to the required fee(s) therefore. (Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 2011 ~1
(part), 1982; Ord 1813 ~2, 1978).
19.58.591 Continuance of project.
Any action by the DRC to continue a project shall be done with the concurrence
of the applicant. If the applicant does not aqree to a continuance of the project
the Desiqn Review Committee shall render a decision. If the project is denied an
explanation of the reasons for denial shall be provided.
19.14.600 Design review approval-Time limit for implementation-Extensions.
Design review approval will be conditioned on the plan being implemented within
one year after the effective approval date thereof. Implementation of the plan
would include completion of construction or substantial expenditures of money by
the property owner preparatory to construction. If there has been a lapse of work
for three months after commencement, the approved plans shall be void. The
design review committee or the zoning administrator may grant an extension of
time for a currently valid plan upon appeal of the property owner provided that
(f
Il:hume/planning/stevexp/PCAO 1 0 1 ,CCrcso
there has been no material change of circumstances since the original grant of
approval which would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare. The application for an extension of time shall be
accompanied by the Required Fee(s). (Ord 2506 ~1 (part), 1992; Ord 2309A ~1,
1989).
/(.
] l:home/planning/stevexp/PCAOIOI ,CCreso
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
ITEM TITLE: Design Review Committee/Process
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and BUilding;;fi{
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes
No --.!...)
On January 20, 2000, the City Council conducted a workshop on the Design Review
Committee/Process. At the conclusion of the workshop Council directed staff to return with
the following:
I. A proposal for a design review process without an appointed Design Review
Committee; and
2. A proposal to revamp and improve the existing Design Review Committee process.
The City Council also requested that staff return with additional specific information about the
existing design review process.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the report and provide direction to
staff regarding the preferred method of Design Review and the proposal to change the name of
the Design Review Committee to Design Review Commission.
/
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The current discussion of the design
review process was initiated when a request was made by the Design Review Committee to
change from a committee to a commission (see attachment A). The Design Review Committee
continues to request the name change.
DISCUSSION:
As previously noted, this itern was initiated by the Design Review Committee's desire to have
their name changed to Design Review Commission. The City Council at that time expressed
support for the name change, but also directed staff to set the matter of the overall Design
Review Committee/Process for a workshop discussion.
The workshop was held on January 20, 2000. At that time staff provided a history of the
Design Review process in the City of Chula Vista, explained concerns that had been earlier
stated by the Building Industry Association (BIA), and discussed changes which had been made
to improve the process over the past twelve months.
13
TT ACHMENT "8"
_'age 2, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
Representatives from the development community and the Chamber of Commerce expressed
their concerns about the existing process at the workshop. Their main concern was time delays
due to the lack of a quorum and due to continuances.
Based upon the issues raised by the various speakers, as well as their own concerns, the City
Council directed staff to address several questions, including membership criteria for the
Design Review Committee and "tightening up"/clarification of the design standards. Based
upon the various speakers' comments, the City Council also had concerns with project delays.
At the conclusion of the workshop staff was directed to do the following:
1. Develop an alternative for a Design Review process without an appointed Design
Review Committee;
2. Develop an alternative which would retain and improve the existing Design Review
Committee process; and
3. Provide additional specific information about the existing design review process.
The specific information requested by City Council pertains to the number of times in the past
year that a meeting had to be cancelled due to the lack of quorum, the total number of times
projects were continued, and reasons for those continuances.
Staff conducted an analysis (see attachment B) of the projects which were reviewed by the
Design Review Committee in both the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. Overall fifty-six projects
were reviewed, and all were approved. The following table shows the number of projects
reviewed/continued over the two-year period.
I No. of Proiects No. Approved No. Continued % Continued
i 1998 27 27 11 40
11999 29 29 7 22
It should be noted that of the 18 cases continued over the two-year period, 8 or 44 percent of
the projects were actually conditionally approved at the first hearing with only a specific item
or two (i.e. signage or landscape elements) requiring further review by the DRC.
In 1998, of the 11 projects continued, 4 or 36 percent received conditional approval at the first
hearing. This improved in 1999, with only 7 projects being continued, and 4 or 57 percent
receiving conditional approval at the first hearing.
Conditional approval allows projects to proceed with Building Pennit plan check, which either
eliminates or greatly reduces any actual delays in the total development process. In the two
year period of the 56 projects, the 11 which required substantial enough changes that they were
not outright approved or conditionally approved at the first meeting, received final DRC
approval an average of 3 weeks later.
1(.
<'age 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
The Design Review Committee failed to have a quorum on two occasions (3.5 % of the time)
over the past two years. This occurred once in 1998 and once in 1999.
ALTERNATIVES
Eliminate Desil!ll Review Committee Process
If the City Council were to eliminate the Design Review Committee and have design review
become strictly an administrative function, there are two basic options:
1. Planning staff could perform the design review function as they currently do for
projects which do not meet the threshold for Design Review Committee analyses.
The benefit of this approach is that it could result in a minor reduction in processing
time (i.e. approximately one week)
The negative aspect of this approach in that there are no licensed architects on staff so
the emphasis of analyses would be based primarily upon site plan review, not
architectural review. Also this approach would eliminate the diversity of opinion,
which is now received from a committee that includes three architects, an urban
designer, and a contractor.
2. The city could hire a licensed staff architect who would be qualified to do both the site
plan and architectural review.
The benefit of this approach is the minor reduction in processing time, and as opposed
to option 1 above, professional architectural review would occur. The negative
aspects of this approach sirnilar to option 1 above would be the Jack of diversity of
opinion.
The cost of the administrative review by a licensed staff architect would be
approximately $90,000 per year (salary and benefits). This cost would likely be paid
for through developer deposit accounts.
Retain Deshm Review Committee Process
If the City Council determines that the Design Review Committee process should be continued,
staff would recommend several changes (beyond those already made the past calendar year, see
Attachment C) to address the concerns expressed at the workshop.
Since the City Council workshop, staff has worked closely with the Building Industry
Association in an effort to address their concerns. Staff has also met with Rod Davis,
Executive Director of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce and Patricia Aguilar,
I~
.'age 4, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
Chairperson of the Design Review Committee. The following course of action is the product
of the discussions with the BIA, the Chamber of Cornmerce and the Design Review Committee
Chair:
1. Within 60 days, staff will process an amendment to the Municipal Code regarding Design
Review Committee membership, scope of responsibilities, and procedures, addressing the
following:
a. Clarification of the purpose, role and responsibilities of the Design Review
Committee.
b. The existing Code states that persons qualified for membership shall include
Architects, Landscape Architects, Land Planners, apartment builders, and "citizens
who have demonstrated genuine interest in the community and a sensitivity to good
design". Staff would recommend that the Code be amended to require the above
make-up rather than state that these individuals are "among those qualified for
membership". In addition, the category of "apartment builder" should be replaced
with "developer".
c. The Code should clearly state that the scope of responsibility of the Design Review
Committee is limited to review of site plans, landscaping, and exterior design of
buildings. In addition, the Code should state that in reviewing a residential project,
the DRC should consider the cost/benefits of any recommended improvement as
reported by the applicant. This is particularly important for affordable housing
proposals.
d. In order to expedite the decision-making process, appeals of decisions of the Design
Review Committee shall be made directly to the City Council, rather than to the
Planning Commission, and then to the City Council.
e. If a project is scheduled for a meeting of the Design Review Committee for final
approval, and a quorum is not available for the scheduled meeting, the applicant may
choose to have the matter considered by the DRC at its next meeting, may request a
special DRC meeting to consider the matter, or may request that the matter be referred
directly to the City Council (at no cost) at its next available rneeting (subject to public
noticing requirements) for action.
f. Any action by the DRC to continue a project shall only be done with the conCUfTence
of the applicant. If the project is denied an explanation of the reasons for denial shall
be provided.
2. Within 60 days, staff will meet with the Design Review Committee, as well as with a
"focus group" including representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Building
Industry Association, to review the City Municipal Code, Citywide Design Review
If,
.c'age 5, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
Guidelines, and design guidelines for individual master planned communities, and
identify inconsistencies and ambiguities within and among these various guidelines and
regulations. In addition the focus group and the Design Review Committee will discuss
the appropriate thresholds for staff vs. Design Review Committee review of projects.
Within 120 days, staff will return to The City Council with a report summarizing the
results of that review, and setting forth a work program to eliminate major
inconsistencies and ambiguities during the subsequent six month period. As part of this
review, staff will specifically address provisions in the Design Review Guidelines dealing
with "small lot single-family detached housing," and recommend means by which
consistency between these guidelines and those of individual master planned communities
can be obtained.
3. Within 60 days, staff will work with the DRC to establish the following procedures:
a. If a project presented to the Design Review Committee has minor issues still to be
resolved (that cannot be deferred to staff), a sub-committee of the DRC members will
be utilized to speed up the process by being readily available once the applicant has
made the requested changes.
b. When projects receive strong support from a majority of the Design Review
committee members through the preliminary review process, this support will be
reiterated by staff both in the written report and verbally when the item is presented
for formal review. This information will be communicated clearly to those members
of the Committee who were not in attendance at the preliminary review.
c. If an item is continued with the applicant's conCUfTence to address one or more
specific design issues, no conditions will be added except as necessary to address the
issues for which the item was continued. Continued items will receive priority status
on the Design Review Calendar.
4. Staff will work with committee members (if necessary) to make adjustments to future
meeting dates to insure maximum attendance. Staff will also note any multiple absences.
The Municipal Code (section 19.14.586) states "If a member is absent without cause for
three consecutive meetings, the office becomes automatically vacant" .
5. Within one year of adoption of this report, staff will provide to the City Council a report
reviewing the status of changes proposed herein, and evaluating the overall effectiveness
and efficiency of the design review process at that time.
17.
rage 6, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 6/13/00
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council detennines to continue the eXIsting process with the recommended
improvements, there would be no additional long-term costs. Implementation of the
recommended improvements (i.e. amending the Zoning Code and Design Guidelines to provide
clarity and reconcile inconsistencies) would have short-term costs, which could be estimated
for inclusion in the 2000-2001 FY Budget. If the Council chooses to hire a staff licensed
Architect to conduct Design Review, the cost would be approximately $90,000 per year (salary
and benefits); these costs would likely be offset by development processing fees.
Attachments
1. Letter from Patricia Aguilar, Design Review Committee Chair
2. Analysis of 1998 and 1999 Design Review Committee Actions
3. Development Review Major Process Improvements
4. Design Review Approval Authority
H:\HOME\PLANNING\Jim\DRC Agenda Statement.doc
18'"'
DRAFT EXCERPT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
David Fredricksen, 3042 Via Papeete, San Diego, congratulated organizers and panicipants of the
Otay Valley Regional Park Clean-Up Project and asked the City to install gates with a master lock
system to allow emergency access in order to prevent the dumping of trash in a eucalyptus furest near
1-805. Mayor Horton responded that the request would be referred to the Otay Valley Regional Park
Committee.
Ron Boshun, 3944 West Point Loma Boulevard, San Diego, asked the Council to investigate the
alleged IDistreata..,ut of the USO by the San Diego Port District. Mayor Horton responded that the
matter would be furwarded to Port Commissioner MaJcolm
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PCA-OO-01 TO CONSIDER AN.ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 19.14.581 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO CONFORM ALL OTIIER APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19.14.581 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DIRECTING TIffi CITY CLERK TO CONFORM ALL OTHER APPLICABLE
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TO mE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION
(FIRST READING)
The Design Review Committee (DRC) has submitted a request to have its name changed to
the Design Review Commission. The proposed name change is intended to better convey the
DRC's level of responsibility to project applicants.
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on
the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Director of Planning and Building Leiter stated that the proposal had been reviewed and unanimously
approved by the PIRnning Commission.
Mayor Horton opened the public hearing and asked if anyone fi"om the audience wished to speak.
Patricia Aguilar, Chair of the Design Review Committee, explained the request to the Council.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Horton closed the hearing. Mayor Horton
suggested that the matter be referred back to staff for a report and then scheduled for discussion at
a workshop. Councilmember Moot suggested that the Council approve the name change at this time
and then schedule further discussion at a regular meeting rather schedule a special workshop.
ACTION:
Mayor Horton moved to continue the item to a workshop to be held on October 26,
1999. Councihnember Padilla seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1, with
Councilmember Moot opposing.
Icy
10/19/99
Page 4 - Council Minutes
~~rc-
~
-;:::~~~
-""'""'-- ~
ATTACHMENT 1
erN OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLA~!,ING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Date:
September 14, 1999
To:
Mayor Horton and Members of the Chula Vista City Council
Patricia AguiJar, Chairman/~
Design Review Committee CQ>"k.C)
From:
The ;>urpose of 1l>js memorandum is 10 request your consideration of renaming the Design Review
COffitnittee to Design Review Commission.
As you are aware, some of the Council's appointed advisory bodies are calJed "commission," while
others are ca11ed "committee". Our understanding is that this is a historical artifact and no
difference in function or responsibility level is implied by the two different titles. Although we have
no objection to the name "committee," we have noticed that project applicants and architects that
come before DRC for approval of their project designs often do not fully appreciate the
responsibilities of the comminee. even though those responsibilities are explained 10 them in
ao\'a.:Jce by STEJ.-'I. Re2Sons for tilis are probabJy varied, bUl we believe that this simple name change
will give project applicants a clearer picture of the importance that the City of Chula Vista places
on the physical appearance of our community.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to answering any question you
may have on this maner.
2.0
276 FOURTH AVE:NUE . CHULA V!STA. CALIFORNIA 91910
",,,, '--~~>"....... "~~YO"O ~~~~,
ATTACHMENT 2
~
o
'"
"
Q.
'"
"
'"
""
"
'"
"'I
~:
",
I!!
Iii
a;
""
"
'"
""
"
'"
'"
"
.2
m
>
Q)
I
,
I
IQ)
c.
" B
.2'",
"'""
Q) ~
'to '"
!"C ..c::
:Q)lui
:.!?'c'
> C>
I
I
.~I
~)
Q),
'"
'>
jc: i'
i;'
o
I~
II!!
,.!!!
.~
'Q)
I Iii
iE .!E
lci).~
1:5 IV
.J:: ro,
",i
"
C>
i I I I
! III
I I "I
, I C>
I ! I~
""
7::1
Q)'
[' I
I 1-
'0
1-.;
Ii:;
I'~[~
lil~ I~i
I~I'~ ~I-Ul
>.-o.Q rol
ct:I _ 0 a.
'~Io 0 EI
i~ 1-5 ~I'~:
~, Wi ,~:.qjl J!'i :.~ Ei .- i i ,,,[ , i i , m c. "I
IJ.., ",' i en: i , 3:
, i ! i , ml j I i ! I I I I I II~ I !
I I I
, ,
,,1.:0 I , a; ",' I I !:::! ,
'" ",m I-~ m..... m
.,m m mm O/j ~I m m I m O/j m
s:::~co m mm ._m m m m
I ~ ~ ~ '" ~ "'~ "'~m ~ ~ mm ~
~-!1? ~ -- m- j!1?N ~1aE? as ;:a ~~ ;:a
'=00) ~'" -'"
!:::! o~ .,,~ ~o ~ N." ~ ~ ~.... ~
"-N - - ~o N- N-~ - - ~o ;OS
a:"'- ..... ceo - ~ - ~- 0 '"
, o ce 0 0 ~ ce~ m~ mON ~ 0 ce ~ 0
'" '" j~ '" '" I ! '" '" I~ m m m
~I m m m m I m m I m m m
m I~, m m m m 1m m m m
~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ @I [ , ~ "=["=
.,[ 05 ;00 ~ -, ~i , I I:;:'
I~I ~, ~ I .,,~
:1:, ~! '-- 0' i '" I e :ce
-' .;:oieo -..' -, as ,
- ....' 'eD eD '" ,01 ,''' ("):C'?:
'" 0 0 0'0 0 0' 0 ~ , '0 00
..
> ..
0_
~ ..
~c
<(
:
I
I
I
!
I
~
>oi
aI[
000101010
0::0::0::0::0::0::
OCCCOO
~ ~ ml~I~I~
c>>e>>D:lCDQ)(])
~ ~ ~I~I'~II~
-v 1.0 f'o...It) CD co
000000
I I !
'" I'" lco lex> ICO Ice I
~i~,~!~I~!~1
ooir--'OOIO'):O)iO)'
"--'N',,-- "--'0'0
-.. ---'-" -.'-
NINI('f)IC":I'V''I:T
0101010!0101
i
-
~I
-
..,
"
o
..J
::.
"
..
0'
~
"-
I
0'
i,~ ~ I. ~I:! II_I'
ItO OI:c.'=I(f)
Q)',.... "I""I'-E.I"C
>Ito ~ to ,-1....
~!lc3 ~ ~II~I~
Ea>-Z"--
to- _f: ; &01.,18
g l"i ,,!! !~_~1ij Ir.--_
tD I 0 i a!:1ij c.... i Q)
__00 "1_ 0 c
~oCDf'5~
:2:Q)CIJ'iQ<(:;;3
_rn-c~ot:m
~ 0 "'D 0 CD CD1
~ ~I~ ~ ~I'EI
I a::,:E _,~ 0
I I I
'" m ~IN "'I.....
NNC"')(")C"')C'I)
cO rl> cO cO cO Irl>
C) Q') C),mlD:>!C)
o Uioiu!u!u
0:: 0::10::10::10::10::
OOOiOIOIO
..
.,
'"
..
t>
O'Olu'u
a:::a:::a:::c:::
0010 0
'" "'Iml'"
mcnmo>
mC)mm
.................. ......
-1- _1-
el~Ii!;;I~
"""1O~m
01000
I I .
I . !
"'1"""'1"'1
m mlm m,.
(J)(J)O>(J)
~:~I~:~
I.C):O'co IC
~,('") '<'"""'N
~1:MI;nIi:Di
o OiOIOI
, '
I , ,
, , ,
01 I~I '
Q; i!O n::
-5 i CD I~ CD i
.c:: 0>' M1"I:t i
'" .!'! 1.0 Id; "
OC= ml
> C)IZ
o .-"'C
Q) ".-In::1
::! ~IO::IOI
a.. jQ..!O ._
~,t1J
0'11> V'~
!O .~ ~ Ci
co 0 ._ :::J I
. _ CD 0> )(
v'-"'Cw
.c::Q...ffi-
_~ c.
(J) m,m-t:;
Q) u; I u ;:::
~ '" IE
u::::O;::
'" ....I!Oi,.....
M"I:t"l:t"l:t
cbcbrl>cO
C)O>O)(J)
01000
0:: 0:: 0::10::
01000.
0101
0::0::
00
"'I'"
mlm
mm
~I~I
air:::
010,
ro:C:Oi
mlenl
~I~
--. '--'
CO'N
:=;1:0
--. '--' '
f'-if'-j
010,
I
-.~
UJ'lL
....J!~
D,'-
(J)'('\J
",IlL
.-.!:
- "
.!'! C
" '"
"0::
0:: >-
~ '"
"'-
OlD
......iN
010
dJlm
m,m
oiu,
a: 10::
0.01
i
0'0000010001000010001
a: 0:: 0::0::0:: 0::0::0::0::0:: 0::0::0::0:: 0::0::
0000000000000000
"'I'" "''''''' "'ICO co 0) co m m m CD
cnmmmmO)cnmmc>> mmm m
o>cnmO>CDQ)mo>mCD CD 0> CD m
SIISI~I~II~ ~I~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N('I')O......N......~O......O "I........... ......
as ICO 0 :;:: Os 0 lco 0 N N :;:: N IN (;)
001......,......10......0..............- 000 0
! ii, ! I I
"""'1"'1"'1"'1"'1"'10010) co col"'lcoiro co co
enlD) CD CD 0> m 0> CDICD m m C) OJlen OJ Q')
O':IICDIO':I 0> 10> ICD CD m en C) C) CD OJIIJ:I CD en
~'~'~'~I......'...... ......,~j...... ...... ...... ...... ~I~ ~'''''''
t:::~~ ro;Os:~:w!~:~I~ ~ NI~IO!a ~:N'
'<'"""'N:N,NIM'O~O:O,O ~ O'~ININ NIO
t::: it::: it::: jt::: it::: lro coi~io 0 ~:~I~I~ ~1'Ni
~~rO!OO!OIO OiO................. ......1.....1...... ......,......1
I I I 1 I
;_I~I"'C,
IUJI 10::
III>- C
. ,w >-
I I !~~~ 0
'-ini iU'C"')~g. "'COCo>. U5
03:1 >-~"-"'_~ o::"WQ) I~
.!'!'tOI~g!~~og> Qj~~-~ ~
('\JCD_;>a:lONQj ::..c2.,.. -0
"'C e g."'C 0 EU)t- ~ en a.'"E 0 ~(I)a;
~ ED Z ~ m G> R: -- 0 0 ~ :::J 1:) CD I D-
o m 1 '- 1.0..... it)"'C ID 0>1 N 0 IE..... 0,
.....!1t)lwaJjr--.':J!c'OCi.c:: 0 ~ M ~I..Q ....N.....
r-'O......i"l:t(")().2'.........~m G>~"'" taeDeD
~~j.i~.:.:~U)Q)tU~t-tUQ)n..;.;~
('I')m eno......S~1::.gi5.:...:-~ ii ~w.c:: t:
- .- C Q) - m I...:J _ aI ro
Q)~:;2.5Q)c:Ec:::I.O"t:I.OCDOO::;::;
g'c::: (j)U)a:::.Q ~ (j)t::Ci)=WU(J) m CD
~~_t/)oent:_ :::Jmro-._U)Ci)
2ta.g!ro:;~0"5u:"U1D=OI.LCDQ)
UJO>C><(::E::EUJUJcO::>C>::EO::O::
"I:t1.Ot-mCD
00000
~~m~m
m'mlm m m
oiu 0 010
0::10:: 0:: 0::10::
0100010
......N......N~LOCJ)O..-N("')
......~......NNNNMC"')C"')M
cDc:DC>>cDmc>>c>>mcDcDm
~.10 01'~ ~ 0 0 ~~':0 ~ 0
0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::
oooOIOOOOOIOCli
,
~ ~I
DO
m m
mm
m m
~ ~
- -
"'~
~ 0
(;)(;)
00
1
~I~i
Q')1Q')j
......,......'
-'-
N'"'
o~
NIN
~~~
ur;
'" 3:
C ""
" '"
E !e
<(m
OIN:
"'....
'" '"
m-
c."
UJ !!?
:; ~
mCi)
Q) Q)
I 0::
~ ~I
d:, C>>I
m m
010
a:::lC::i
010,
~
Oil I I j ~ I
~ I" ' 'iii I
- Q) I u) c:
... i:3 I~ I I'. i [, ~ 0 .Q> ~
o 0 Q) I OJ 0 m .!2>1
u. 5 c:1 I ,en 0'"0 i en,
I ~ ' i ,
I~i 'i' ' I! j ~I!l j I~I
o .0 ~ NO ~
- - - -- -
.0 ~ ~ ~_ "I""""
"I"""" i "I"""" .0 .0...... ,....
"E m I ~I g 81~ 81
~ ~, I I~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~,
.:. ,~I I I ! 1 I~ . I i~ ~,~ I I ,i3I, I ,
~:OiO'IO!oloioloIO!olo 010 ololoIOi~lol~lol~lololo 010 ~Iolo 0,0
ooc::c:: C::iC::!C::Ic::rc:: C::I~Ic:: C::iOC c::,c::rc:: C::1C::1C::IC::iOC C:::C::IC::IC:: c:: C::1C::'C::IOCiociC::
. 0,001010101010'00010010010100001010100100000001
'0>10> 0> O>ID) m en Q) Q) 0' CD.o.o 0> 0> m C>> 0> 0> Q) CD m c>> m 0> m m m m m Q)
- 1m m m m 0) m m 0> CD .0 m .0 .0 m mo>o> mO)o> m CD 0> 0> 0> m 0> m 0) CD m
~ CO 1m 0> 0) m 0> 0) 0> m m .0 0> .0 .0 0> m 0> mo>o> 0> m m CD en en 0) 0> 0> mo>o> I
! > Q):~ I:.'!:: :: ::: ::: ::: ~ :: ::: ~ ::: ~ ~ ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :!: ::: :::: ::: :: ~ ~ ::: :: :: ::
~ E ftS I CD ,,..... .0 ~ IX) 0' ~ ID ...- .0 to f'.. ,.... 10 ~ r- (") ,.... to 1'- ...... r-- r- r- ...... co ....... ID N ,..... 'V
:~ .-ONO-NO-O-OOO___OOO_N__NNOO_OOO
Ie 1<<; mO>o 0 m C5 :;:: :;::: ,:;:: N N N (;; 10 ia 10 :;:: t=:: i?i CD in in 10 CD ;:::: en Ci5 03 m 0
.<(c.. 1.0.0.0 "I"""" _!e,.-........ _1.0..- 010.0 .01.0.0 --.0 0 0'.0.0 0 C .0 .0 .0.0 0 _I
: 'I I ,I I ,
10>10>0) 0> mlo> 0> 0> 0)'0>10>10>10> 0> 0>10>10>10> 0> 0>10> 0> mlmlo> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>10>
1m 0> 0> m 0> 10> 0> CJ) 0> en 0) CD Q) 0> 0> 1m 0> 0> 0> en 10> 0> 0> 10> 10> 0> 0> Q) 0> 0> 0)
10) 0> 0> 0> 0'> (J) mo>o> CD 0> 0> 0> en 0> iO> CD 0> 0> 0> 0> m m CD 0> 0) 0> Q) en 0> 0>
:~i~II~I~'I~'I~I~ ~I~ ~i~I~I'~I~'I~i~I!~I~~~!~ ~1~la ~ ~ ~II~ ~ ~I~
Q!Q.~ ~ Q,.~I~ ~ ~,.eiQ:~.e,~ ~!~ ~ e ~i~!~;~,~I~i~ ~I~ e,~ ~ ~!
~,~ ~ ~:~'roIID ID'm'O!o~~N'~!N N NIM M'vv'v'v!vl~ ~I~ ~I~ ~I~
= 0000000 0;0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 010 0'0:0 DiD 0 O'OiO'O:OIOIOIO 0'0
I I ,!
I I~II~! 1~I~i I ; i~l~i~li I I>-Q)I~, 11!~!j i~1 !~ 0 10!1 c: I
I ~I~ Ii i~I'~' Ii I I'~,i II~ I c:: c:: I';;; ~ Ilii 5 :2 11 '12~ i= ~ ~
'....1 1-..c:I"" Im..c I 01 UJ ~Q) UJc:76<( Q)-ID.e oi5 CI).~~
iUf IE:: ~1i) 0 ~I ':~I-g-; w"'C Q);..r: ~ ii .-m IU- UJ II) C
.e ~ m ! ,~ _" ,- m W i CD 0 Q) I en ,- ! co 1L E g _ CJ) 13 en Q)
;~! 1l.L.,-WIQ)~O.:; 1.......00 co 1"'0 Q) I.... m''V 1''(;) --=:: mI Q) 0 E
.,!!!. 0'<1' __>1'<1' 1... ,",,"'fro mN <( cn(!)WD/I ICI!~m,",,'"O 0_ "'ot:
a:>coJB<(~ Q) .::tt: 0 ;:)N.,b m Q).- wC"')00JX::.o (/)D. co
:> 'V t:>>"C fl) J. - ~ f;j t= ~:a 0 :-=.. (.) ~ a.. ~ B ~ ~ ~ N U) ~ iD" CD ~ Q; ~ !t
Q) ~_"'O:J"~IG>_ OQ):EQ)CV,.....ol5~ .....OL...-m_=~._U)~
,x Q) !..c 0 3: .~ i5 :r: ~ ~ E I:::'J m Q) in - en 5 Q) I C Q .g> 1:>> . ~ m "f Q) co . _10'>
c'm I (t);_,"'C >.,.c: W '-Irv >"-'()i~ Q.) () m,._ >.'...c: 1....:- 'O).Q > _ C>~ UJ!~
o:~!rr: :J!.~:c."'C!~ c>._g',I..I..I(ij!'-'O>.:= u oW'ro m ::J;~::.~.2 >,C c "Eic:!:
.. m II 0 ..... 8 c: E .~ (I) .- >- Q) Q) 1m> eN. - Q) CD ~ = m U) () m Q) as Q) Q)
cwOCiU)~E U)c~S~~~CI)~m~b~-~~~E5EB~E~
u.---.....;:)-mtJ).xtJ)"50 ~alS~-...J..c:fl)mO)._U)Q) "t:: ()1:::>
oE~~~~~~~~~0m8TI~~~~oc~~~~o~~~O~~TI
~Em_-~.Qc_cuOw~I....m~m~m~g~E_ N_~O"'c:
~~ww~-Q)cm~~~O;:)w_I....c~w_O Q)mN~c ~ro
U CDt---m>oE~c rn..r: ::JOow-..a-olS~O>.~o:>._~E::.a:::
~~~o'V;:)U)""'-::Joo~vo~oU)u~mmoo~omw..aotJ)~
~i.q~EID2~g~~~~~o>_m~~u~uE~~c~moo~
~ore~~~~~~E~~ffi~~:r:~~~o~~~~~~<~~>~5
~ IN ("') ,......1..- N LO ,...... m IN ("') 0 ICO t- CD _ N . t-loo 1'0) _ M . 0) 0 _ C"') oct 10 It-
a 0 a 01"-"-"-"- ~I~ ~ C"')i("')C"') C"') "'f ~ ~1~1~ "'f u;> U;>,U;>IU?ICJ? U? CJ? U? <9 '91
~ 8181'81818888 81818 8181'~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~I~I~ ~ ~I~I~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~I~i
= 010010000 o.ulolo 010 0 o'ulolo U!UIO 0 U olo!o,o U UIOIUi
'" C::'OCIC::!OCIC:::C:: OC OC:OC'C:::C:: OC'C::OCIC:: OCIOCC::IOC'C::iC:: c:: OCIC:::C::IC::IC::IC::IC::IC::IOC
o 0'0101010100010,0100010,0010'010'0'00 01010101010 01010,
"C 0,
!i8:1.
...~
::>0
- ~
111-
0::: 01
I,
.
2~
ATTACHMENT 3
DEYELOPME~l REVIEV,' ~1AJOR PROCESS IMPROVEME~lS
In the past twelve months, the following improvements were made:
1. Pre-application Conference
When an applicant turns in a brief (half-page) project description and a set of very basic
plans by Tuesday, he will be scheduled for a "Pre-Application Conference" on that same
Friday. The pre-app is attended by representatives mm all of the development services
departments/functions. The applicant is provided input on the feasibility of the project,
JikeJy conditions which may be required and other concerns including Design Review.
2. Submittal Reauirements
Application forms have all been revised for clarity and to eliminate the need for
redundant information.
3. Preliminary Desi2D Review
We are strongly encouraging applicants to receive a "prelinllnary" review by the Design
Review Committee before they bring the item for formal action. This enables the
applicant to receive an indication as to whether or not they are on the "right-track"
before they expend additional time and money to finalize their plans.
4. Standards of Review
A new report format bas been used for the last few months which clearly lists the
applicable standard or regulation and explains how the project either complies or does
no! comp]y.
We believe that this provides clear guidance to the Design Review Committee on what
their determination should be based on. If the developer relies on the applicable
standards and regulations (which are available at the public counter and thru the pre-
application conference) when they design their project, there is a greater chance of
receiving approval.
5. Staff Continuity
Previously one staff planner would handle the Planning Commission aspects of a
development proposal and another would write the staff report which went to the Design
Review Committee. We are now utilizing a process which has the same individual
responsible for the project (and available to provide assistance to the developer)
throughout the entire review process.
H:\HOMEIPLANNINGIJimIBIA CommentS.doc
L-.3"
ATTACHMENT 4
Design Re,'iew Approval Authority
Following is a list of project types which are either approved on an Administrative
basis by the Zoning Administrator or by the Design Review Committee:
Zoning Administrator
Projects approved by the Zoning Administrator are typically minor in nature and include
the following:
. Signs (except electronic message board signs).
. Commercial, industrial or institutional additions which constitutes less than a 50
percent increase in floor area or 20.000 sq. ft.. whichever is less.
. Residential projects of four units or less.
. Commercial, industrial or institutional projects with a total floor area of 20,000
square feet or less when in a planned co=unitv with its own design guidelines.
Design Review Committee:
. Establishment. location. expansion or alteration ofuses'stnlctures in all R-3 zones.
. Establishment. location, expansion or alteration of uses/structures in all industrial
zones.
. Establishment. location, expansion or alteration of uses/structures in all commercial
zones.
. Development or redevelopment in any Redevelopment Project Area Boundary. In
this case DRC is the recoffilnending bod\' to the Rdevelopment Agenc\'.
. In the Montgomery area. establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multi-
family dwelling units. use permits, commercial projects and industrial projects.
. All appeals acted on by the Zoning Administrator.
~t