HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2001/05/23
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CAWMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV-01-18; Consideration of a request to allow a property line
fence in excess of six (6) feet located at 281 Bonita Canyon Rd;
Applicant: Ron & Sona Lutsko.
Project Planner: Beverly Blessent, Principal Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-01-07; Consideration of City-initiated requestfor amendments
and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
for San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA), to add Floor
Area Ratio regulations and amend Coverage regulations. The San
Miguel Ranch project site is 743.1 acres located east and north of
Proctor Valley Rd, south of Sweetwater Reservoir and Mother
Miguel Mtn., and west of the Rolling Hills Ranch area; Applicant:
City initiated.
Project Planner: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-01-04; Tenative Subdivision Map to develop nine lots for
single-family homes, at the western extension of EI Lara Street.
Applicant: Dan Irwin.
Project Planner: Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Planning Commission
- 2-
May 23, 2001
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.
C:\My DocumenlslPLANNING COM AGENDA5-23'()1 .doedoc
--.-------....-- '-'--~"--"'---'---
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZAV-01-18; Consideration ofa request to allow a property
line fence in excess of six (6) feet. Applicant: Ron & Sona Lutsko
The proposed project is a request for a variance ITom Section 1958.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code, which limits wall heights to six feet. The request is to allow a fence 112'-6" in length with
varied heights between 8' -6" and 12'-6" in height at 281 Bonita Canyon Dr, a . 57-acre single-family
residential estate lot in Bonita Long Canyon.
Per section 19.14.030 (B)(3), the Zoning Administrator is only authorized to grant variances for
fences not exceeding twenty percent greater than the ordinance requirements. As this request
includes portions offencing in excess of twenty percent of the allowed six feet, this variance request
is being referred to the Planning Commission for review.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt, per
Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance for a fence.
DISCUSSION:
I . Site Characteristics
The. 57 -acre single-family, slightly pie-shaped parcel is approximately 143 feet wide at the
ITont of the lot and 62 feet wide at the back. The eastern edge is 248 feet long, and the
western edge is 242 feet long. The parcel is located along a ridgeline with a single-family
dwelling, swimming pool and patio cover located on the upper portions of the lot and the
remainder of the property sloping steeply into a canyon. The fence in question is located
along the eastern property edge, beginning approximately 100 feet ITom the ITont property
line. Along this eastern property edge, fencing exists consisting of 100 feet of 5 to 6-foot
block wall and the remainder of the length in 5-foot chain link fencing. The applicant is
proposing to construct the fence in question just inside or attached to the existing fencing.
There are also several tall, mature trees along the eastern property line.
Single-family residential lots are located to the east, west, and south. (See Locator,
Attachment 1)_ A complaint was filed with Code Enforcement for the construction of the
fence in question and the applicant responded by filing this application for a Variance to
enable him to acquire the necessary building permits.
__,...,__ .....~n __..___..___._,_.______"
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
2. General Plan and Zoning
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
Site Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
North: Open Space OS Open Space/Canyon
South: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
East: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
West: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
Project site is also located within Bonita Long Canyon Specific Plan.
3. Proposal
The proposed fence, referred to in applicant's project description as a "Property Line Safety
Screen", is a second fence measuring between 3' and 7' -6" over the height of the existing
property line fencing. The fence is proposed in two segments as follows:
, Segment 1: The fence begins approximately I OO-feet from the front property line and extends
approximately 82'-6" to a point adjacent to the Applicant's deck. Due to the changing
elevation of the lots and design of the fencing, the height of this portion of the fence varies
from 8' -6" to 10'-6" Due to the slope and improvements, including raised planters, stairs
and decking, along the property line of the adjacent parcel, the proposed fence height of this
segment, measured from the neighboring "usable grade", ranges from approximately 6' to 8'-
6". (For purposes of this report, "usable grade" refers to the level at which a person stands,
whether on a deck, raised planter or stairwell, above actual ground level)
Segment 2: This segment offence begins 6' from the end of Segment 1, near the beginning of
the adjacent property's batting cage and deck. This segment extends approximately 24' to
just below this batting cage and deck. The actual height, from finished grade on either side,
of this segment varies in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6". Fence height measured trom "usable
grade" on the adjacent property side ranges from 2'-6" to 7'-6". This segment offence has
been constructed without the necessary building permits, but was allowed to remain by staff
while this Variance decision is pending.
The entire span of the proposed fence is to be constructed of plywood panels mounted to 4x4
posts, covered on the Applicant's side with decorative bamboo/grass materials, and topped
with 2-feet of "non-structural" bamboo screen. This material matches the materials and
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
overall theme of the Applicant's landscape. The portions of the proposed fence that are
visible ti-om the adjacent property are unfinished plywood.
The applicant is requesting the additional fence height to address concerns related to
structures existing on the adjacent property.
I) Batting Cage & attached deck: The adjacent property owner has constructed a
batting cage with an attached deck. This batting cage consists of a raised block
foundation and a 9' high chain link fence surrounding the sides and top of the cage. A
deck extends from the entrance to the cage and abuts the fenceline. The deck floor is
approximately 4' -5" high. This puts the floor of the deck and batting cage near even
with the top of the existing fence. The Applicant expresses concern with the balls
escaping the batting cage and also those being thrown by children waiting to use the
cage. These balls have nothing preventing them ti-om passing into the Applicant's
yard.
2) Raised Planters: The adjacent property owner has constructed raised planters adjacent
to the existing block wall. The top ofthese planters are between 2'-6" and 3' from
the top of the existing wall. These raised planters, though resulting from no action of
the applicant, puts the applicant in violation of the 1998 California Building Code,
Section 3152B.I, relating to enclosures surrounding swimming pools. A fence or
wall, ti-ee of protrusions, is required surrounding swimming pools at a height of5' as
measured from the outside of the fence. Using this standard, the fence height at the
points where these planters exist is only 2' -6" to 3' high. Applicant is requesting the
increased fence height in this portion of the yard to meet these requirements.
4. Required Findings
State Law and Chula Vista's Municipal Code require that certain Findings of Fact be made
before the granting of a Variance. Variance findings must describe the special circumstances
that physically differentiate the project site ti-om its neighbors. Further the findings must
specifY the "unnecessary hardship" that would result ti-om these circumstances in the event
that a variance was not approved. These required findings are discussed below and each
segment offence is discussed separately.
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
1) That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The slope of the lot into the canyon has caused property owners in the area who wish
to construct accessory structures, such as pools and decks, elevated in such a way that
they rise above the level of the standard fenceline. This affects the typical privacy
provided by such fences. In addition, structures constructed on the adjacent property,
some of which are higher than the existing fence line, pose some concern to the
Applicant, and may constitute a hardship peculiar to the property. These structures
are:
1. Two raised planters adjacent to the fence in Segment 1 put the Applicant in
violation of the City's Municipal Code related to fence heights required
around swimming pools.
2. A batting cage, adjacent to Segment 2, which, due to the way it is used,
causes a safety concern to the Applicant.
2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
districts and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The adjacent property owner has constructed a batting cage in the rear of his
property. This batting cage is located on a slope, which causes most of the "floor" of
the cage and attached deck to be located above the existing fence line of 5-feet. Its
location, elevated nature and uses associated with the structure c'ause concern for the
Applicant relating to health and safety. The combination of these factors are unique
to this property and the approval ofa variance for Segment 2 of the fence adjacent to
the batting cage would not constitute a special privilege to the Applicant.
The adjacent property owner has constructed two raised planters along the fenceline.
These planters are approximately 2' -6" in height. The construction of these structures
puts the Applicant in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 18.28.020
requires that a swimming pool have an enclosure with a minimum height of 5 feet and
that "The outside surface of the enclosure be free of protrusions, cavities, or other
physical characteristics that would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a
child below the age of five years to climb over." At the time the Applicant
constructed his swimming pool, the fence met the conditions of the code. The
subsequent construction of this planter on the adjacent property causes the
Applicant's pool to be in violation of this regulation. The increased fence height
would allow the Applicant to meet this regulation.
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
3) That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes ofthis chapter or
the public interest.
Because there is an existing fence along the entire length of the property line and
portions of the proposed fence are located on a steeply sloped portion of the lot, the
constructed "usable grade" (deck surface and stairs) on some portions ofthe adjacent
property are elevated above ground level. Due to these factors, the visible height of
the proposed fence from the adjacent property ranges between 3'-0" to 7'-6" in
height.
4) That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Authorization of this variance is specific and addresses a request for a fence. It will
not change the development patterns, permitted uses, or future planned development
of the City or any other adopted plans.
5. Analvsis
The Applicant is requesting a variance for approximately 112' of fencing varying in height
from 8'-6" to 12'-6" at its highest point. The applicant requested the variance to allow a
fence in excess of the six (6) feet allowed by Section 19.58.150 based on the following
reasons:
. The sloping topography of the lot;
. The construction of the batting cage on the adjacent property and the subsequent use
of the structure (balls propelled by both the pitching machine and the throwing of balls
by the persons waiting to use the cage);
. The construction of the raised planter along the existing fenceline causes the applicant
to be in violation of safety fence requirements for his pool.
Staff analyzed the applicant's rationale for the variance and how they meet the required
findings for a variance. The variance for the fence can be substantiated for reasons relating to
safety and potential nuisance.
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance in accordance with the attached Planning
Commission resolution.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Application Description & Justification
5. Neighbor Letter
6. Materials submitted by Applicant
-.---."----..---.,>---,.+-.
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V-01-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A WALL HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 281
BONITA CANYON ROAD
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of .57 acres ofland
located at 281 Bonita Canyon Dr ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Variance (ZA V -01-18) was filed witb the
City of Chula Vista Planning Department on February 22, 2001 by Mr. And Mrs. Ron
Lutsko ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requests a fence in excess of six (6) feet on the Project
Site, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has detennined that tbe project is
categorically exempt, per Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new accessory
(appurtenant) structures, including fences, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
C. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
variance 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 ofthe exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for May 9,2001, at 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 TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
~!:\Planning\DAWN\CaseFiles\reports&resos\ZA V-01-18_LUTSKO PC RESO.doc
Resolution ZA V-OI-I8
Page 2
II. VARIANCE FINDINGS
A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The slope of the lot into the canyon has caused property owners in the area who wish to
construct accessory structures, such as pools and decks, elevated in such a way that they rise
above the level of the standard fenceline. This affects the typical privacy provided by such
fences. In addition, structures constructed on the adjacent property, some of which are higher
than the existing fence line, pose some concern to the Applicant, and may constitute a
hardship peculiar to the property. These structures are:
I. Two raised planters adjacent to the fence in Segment I put the Applicant in violation
of the City's Municipal Code related to fence heights required around swimming pools.
2. A batting cage, adjacent to Segment 2, which, due to the way it is used, causes a
safety concern to the Applicant.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts
and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The adjacent property owner has constructed a batting cage in the rear of his property. This
batting cage is located on a slope, which causes most of the "floor" of the cage and attached
deck to be located above the existing fence line of 5-feet. Its location, elevated nature and
uses associated with the structure cause concern for the Applicant relating to health and
safety. The combination of these factors are unique to this property and the approval of a
variance for Segment.2 of the fence adjacent to the batting cage would not constitute a special
privilege to the Applicant.
The adjacent property owner has constructed two raised planters along the fenceline. These
planters are approximately 2' -6" in height. The construction of these structures puts the
Applicant in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 18.28.020 requires that a
swimming pool have an enclosure with a minimum height of 5 feet and that "The outside
surface of the enclosure be ti-ee of protrusions, cavities, or other physical characteristics that
would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a child below the age offive years to
climb over." At the time the Applicant constructed his swimming pool, the fence met the
conditions ofthe code. The subsequent construction of this planter on the adjacent property
causes the Applicant's pool to be in violation of this regulation. The increased fence height
would allow the Applicant to meet this regulation.
Resolution ZA V -01-18
Page 3
C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes ofthis chapter or the
public interest.
Because there is an existing fence along the entire length of the property line and portions of
the proposed fence are located on a steeply sloped portion ofthe lot, the constructed "usable
grade" (deck surface and stairs) on some portions of the adjacent property are elevated above
ground level. Due to these factors, the visible height of the proposed fence from the adjacent
property ranges between 3' -0" to 7' -6" in height.
D. That the authorizing of snch variance will not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Authorization of this variance is specific and addresses a request for a fence. It will not
change the development patterns, permitted uses, or future planned development of the City
or any other adopted plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES
HEREBY APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH
BELOW:
m. TERMS OF GRANT OF VARIANCE:
1. Construct the project as described in the application, except as modified by this
resolution.
2. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifY, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against 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 ohhis Variance, (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 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 Variance where indicated, below.
Applicant' s/operator' s compliance with this provision is an express condition of this
Variance and this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Applicant' s/operator' s
successors and assigns.
IV. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT
I. A copy ohhis resolution shall be recorded against the property.
3. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for
Resolution ZA V-Ol-I8
Page 4
revocation or modification of variance.
V. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner shall execute this document by signing on the lines provided below,
said execution indicating that the property owner has read, understood and agreed to the
conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy with
original signatures shall be returned to the Planning and Building Department. Failure to
return the signed true copy of this document within thirty (30) days shall indicate the
property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission 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 the applicant or its assigns or successors in interest challenge
anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions, and 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.
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
this 23rd day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
Resolution ZA V-01-18
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Page 5
Bob Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas,
Secretary to Planning Commission
--""'--"~--__'------T'~__+_
~
\
---\ i~ j--~~.--~
.~IY~" \
\:-::::--~~ - \
-----.-. -
~.. \
~. \
PROJECT \
LOCATION
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT RON LUTSKO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: VARIANCE
PROJECT 281 BONITA CANYON DR Request Property Line Safety Screen necessitated by
ADDRESS: neighbor's commercial batting cage which allows hard
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: balls to be propelled Into the Lutsko yard
NORTH No Scale ZAV-01-18
h:\home\planning\carlos\locators\zavO 118.cdr 3.22.01
... ,-_.' .---.--....-.-,.-.
RECEIVED
.~
Dawn M. Van Boxtel
Project Planner
Planning Depanment, Public Services
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
__ ._.____---l
rL\NNING
Re: Case NumberZAV-01-18
Mr. and Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd. (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Dear Ms. Van Boxtel,
This letter is to inform the Chula Vista City Planning Commission that as residents of
Bonita Long Canyon, we are opposed to the building of an interior property line fence in
excess of six feet.
The property in question is visible rrom both street level and rrom trails in the open space
adjacent to this property. Fences in excess of six feet would be an eyesore and
inconsistent with the ambience predetermined for this neighborhood by the builder and
set forth in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions governing this area. We chose to live
in this neighborhood and pay the additional taxes (fees) required to protect the ambience
and enforce the CC&Rs.
Please do not allow a variance for an interior property line fence. Thank you for your
anention.
Sincere~. 'C71~ -zr
~AnnO'Neill
1479 Country Vistas Lane
Bonita, CA 9] 902
.;'.~;)en~:^ :3
-;-'-E CI-, Ji" CHULA VISTA DISCLOSU,,:: STA. dv1ENT
Yau ar;; ';;quir;;d to fil;; a Stat;;ment of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or camaalgn contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the.part of the City
C:xmci:, ?:anning 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.
Mr. and Mrs_ Ron Lutsko
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.
The property in question is a residence, not a business_
3. If any person" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any a;;rson serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the lr;JsL
N/A
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes X- No_
If y"s, please indicat" person(s): Ken Lee Memorial Golf Tournament - Sid Morris
:0. PI"ase identify each and ev"ry persan, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
indeaendent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
We are representing ourselves_
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 X--If yes, state which
Councilmember(s): 4 .
(NOTE: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES
nature of contractor/applicant
Ron and Sona Lutsko
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
Date: o~~/
/ /.
"
.. Person is defined as: "Any individual,jirrn, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, freaternal organization, corporation,
eSIQle, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, ciry and country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit. "
",\ r I r
~. '/'
-~-
:::: --
=,--,~-,......,., ~" :---,
'-' . "':=1 J:.. ,2::1-;; l...JepC~iTle:-:1
P13nning Division - Development Processing
="''2 :C":.;;:h :\venue, Chu!a Vista, C"; 91910
i6:9\ 691-510]
~(y
CHUL" \'15L\
Application Appendix "Au
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: Property Line Safety Screen
.-'\PPLlCANT NAME: Mr - and Mrs. Ron Lutsko
Please describe fully the proposed project, arJY and all construction that may be accomplished
as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the
neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain
tr,e scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background
Infc),cr,ation and sU::JDorting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the
appil.:atlon. Use an a,adendum sheet if necessary.
r Jf al: Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as listed in
I:S;;;: ,;1 lhe APDII:=ti::>n Procedural Guide.
DeS:riDtlOn & Justification.
Description of proposed project: The construction of a property line
Safety Screen, the height of which, when measured on the outside of
said Lot 586 (measurement done within Lot 585 property), will be
approximately 6 feet. This measurement for the Safety Screen height
is to be done from the outside in compliance with the Chula Vista
Municipal Code for yards with pools_
Project's benefits: This property line Safety Screen will help ~o
procect the life, health and safety cf. people and property within the
Lutsko yard from possible damage, injury or death due to the very
hard balls propelled at speeds of 100-125 mph. from the commercial
batting cage located in the neighboring lot (Lot 585).
FINDINGS SECTION FOR A VARIANCE:
1_ Finding: That a hardship peculiar to the property and not
created by any act of the owner exists.
This Safety Screen has been necessitated by the adjoining neighbor's
construction of a commercial batting cage which allows exceptionally
hard balls, 3 inches in diameter, to bepropelle~'into the Lutsko
yard at speeds of 100-125mph. The health and safety.of people and
pets"in the Lutsko yard is threatened, as well as the possibility
of rlcmage to the Lutsko property.
(Continued - see attached pages)
:-,uts}:o - !...p~lication_Appendiy. ".l." ;"J2C0' _
". ?inding: That such a variance is necessary for the preservation,
and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
~roperties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity,
and that a variance if granted, would not constitute a special
?rivilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
This property line Safety Screen is necessary to maintain the
health and safety of people, pets and property within the
Lutsko property, in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Section 19.12.010.
3. Finding: That the authorizing of such a variance will not be
of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not
materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest.
The public interest of safety will be better served by the
installation of this~fety Screen. The property line Safety
Screen will benefit the adjacent property as it will help to
keep the very hard balls within Lot 585 wherein the
commercial batting cage and ball propelling machine are
located.
~. ?inding: That the authorizing of such variance will not
adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted
~lan of any governmental agency.
We see no way this property line Safety Screen could
adversely affect the City. We see only benefits, as it
would co~ply with Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections
19.12.010 and 15.48, and it would help to protect the
~eople, pets and property in the Lutsko yard from injury
cr damage due to the fast flying balls propelled out of
~he machine in the commercial batting cage located in the
adjoining property, Lot 585.
We have provided pictures on the following three pages
which will show the situation as it exists today.
,~ U 1 ~: ~ :., oj: 1 ,.: '-'"
; ::~e W3rr~er ~~~~p
! 8 5 8 S :-1 S 8 :3 ~~ 2
~.
Ma~ean Boettcher
294 Bonita Canyon Dr
Bonita, CA 91902
FAX #: 858-578-0076
FACSIMilE TRANSMISSION
Reference; Case numberZAV-01-18
DATE:
May 1, 2001
TO:
Dawn Van Boxtel
Project Planner
FAX NUMBER:
619-409-5861
FROM:
MarJean Boettcher
858-635-8203
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER 1
Ms. Van Boxtel and members of the City Planning Commission,
As a home owner in the Bonita long Canyon community I strongly object to the
City grantin9 Mr. And Mrs. Lutsko a variance to build a fence in excess of six
feet. This clearly would set a precidence that I find unacceptable.
Many of the home owners in this area paid a premium rate for lots that have
views and to allow one of the home owners to erect a fence that far exceeds the
six foot limit and could "materially obstruct the view from other lots' violates the
Declaration of Restrictions for BonITa long Canyon Unit No.7.
Allowing a fence that varies in height from over 8' to over 12' would be an
unsiahtfy addition to a very well kept and planned neighborhood.
Due to my work schedule I am unable to attend the May 9, 2001 hearing.
Please consider my objections when making your decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
11~#~~
M~ean Boettcher
______.."._...,__. .n
i
, 9-
t:!
>'- ~
~ 5:J
'" :E
~ zo
i c I.
, r z. I"
! "
~ Ii
i "
I ..
I
r'O;" , ..
~. '.
. .
.:.~:::),f~
.L
.....:...h
.....
.
~: .
. .
.;~. ~.~~t~~.<...:
....;.c/..;.'.
.:'"",::";
-
..
.."-"
.....-.'
...
I~
I",
I'e:!'
\f,
I.
i
I
I
I
-~:...
.". ..'
~'.. ~.
--
,
..1.._ ~~-"":..--tI.....:;: j
-:.. ~~~~'; i
x- -: ;-i" ~":.-; !
".':- -I x.
- ",~~q;~
% i'~~~~ i
~ 13.;' ~~ I
:.' I_~o;" ~
~ z.\i~t" 1
~ I ~ ~.i
I .'
!
.~
,I;!
;;;.-::: '.-"':::;;
'.~.:'1~
I .'
...,.;,;
-I-~~::
j>[t.
:!f-
"'~
:;1;
b~
~I~
(;~
~I
......
.
,.
:"fiD~~'
L
~~
.:,,1'~
Xt':T"
f.i .'"
.:::,:'C
." a
..!F
"'-;rJ"r
"'~
~ ...
..~r-
',3C ,
r'~:~.
!!~'"
J!!'" ~,
. u~
'r
..
o
n
'\. ~:
t2;
Ii
, 1'0,
\ I~l
\ r I
~~
ii~1'
!II1i;: .
=J
iii~'; ,~I
~~!
,"
tUn
lit-'
1
I
I
~I _,
(~) ~~~
1_!1!~':
'-\-Ie' .
:;\== /Ii
iii''''''
~m~
.,,,. 'I
,
i
,
,
!~I@
.;~~~
~~;F~"
.! .
d..'f.c"
.
^
',",
"'-.,
-
"
=
!
.' ." . IJ"
].; ~~,I
,; 1'~~;:'J!
1~ L Z :
-" [' 1:\ "f
I'~ I" -.s ;
. .' .z. j
i~ '
1~ I 71 i
- "-
7'
~R
......
.. ~
. -3;..
,,'f,
~ . f.~-
~
.~
. .
.' -
.~ " .
,
. --',''1
;...,.....
."-,...:,,
,='~~$(:~
f~~~~2
...-QQt'\..A-
r .....,.~~
,........,,+"1:.tS
'\. I~~%..";;-
, 1 ^ I 0 r~
'1-1~' ~--I) \""'"
11~;;p5
,"'" (t\ ,$
I!.s.~,:,= "";:j(
,! ",,~-:-I!~
"~n:'~li
11/\ c ",;;;::<
"I'" -m
t &J
il
-:..
.
'~
I
~~~r.:'
_-..~-.../
~~FO:'
~.J\~F-
. :,0 ~
b~-';
--;'-'
i~
t;:/.()'"
. .;...."'-
. ~:
." ..- ~ .
,...>
.'
,-
...
-
..-
c"
,:. ::-::
~ c
"~f"
3i
I
'"
?
~
f
F
; ~-
. >i:
i i~
, .."1
, -
:~
!~
!~
, <-
,'"
I~
I~
I,)"~.
./ :
..
Ie
,--;
I"
I?
~w::;;
LJfi:.;;.
I
Ii=;
I~
!\>'I
!~
i'll
,
".
:~'
,~.
.--\
,
Ie::
n' I ~
~ !i
~ i I~~~
~ J Ir-
: Iii
~. I~;:'
\J II ~~_
'.~., .I~I~;
~I !~
I ~ .
I I
Ii
! !"-
i iQ
I I =
1 !
,
,
I~
t .It,
I !~~-
. if'1:.'!.
, I.iI -
i
,
I
.
i
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
;
,
i
I
i
,
~ :"
1'1
I i~
I iG
Ii
I ,>_
! J~-;-
jr~-
lli
l~
[~
i
i
I
I
!
!
I
I
;
!
!
;
,
i
!
,
! :
j ~
! ~
:....i
iPi
!I....
~!
11
! i
I I
II
I!
, ,
, "
i II'?-
I 1i'""_
I;,
, I
if:i
, '0
I!"
I foj<
I,r.!
!P
i
i
,
I
t
i
I
I
I
i
I
j
I
I
I
..,.
r
i-i
~-
'.!I
')
~
~
c
~
,
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
J
.1
~
!~
j""'"
!~
'"
,t
,
"
I~
,0
,.--
"
Is
I~
II
;~
~I~-
. T"I"= .
'Y
~~ 1-1
'::$t~:~ .!
:-..~~
c_ ~.,r --~~~
'-<. ~
,,~
!
I
I
I
'. !.--:--r .
~~Il
; .,1 . I .
~:". :::~~ .:.iB: ~i
. ~/)\r~~~~
.. '-""15..:. ".~<r
."'~ _ .. ..,..-n ._
. .<>r;!;'- .-....... ~., -:z:.. --~.
.:;~_,,::';:!'.ii{'(-:';:;7 i ~r~i
!;::'~~'~~;-~ t~
. ~h' . .. .'-. ..~
"'. '. :- ~
"
~"1?Jf
,.
r-
I
,
,
_J I
f"- ~ >r
'.../ v p-
.~ ~ ~iii"
1:: r> . I::t ~
z. B ......,.
C - -\...... 'W.
-=, ~~
-r. ~ ..
~ )' ",21 [
!; ~ -12:..
\-'" ') ~t: .
ro. ;. \f; ~ ~
~ ! ~~
: 1/
Vl'_
<.......
..
---
f
.::<
~
i
'"
1';~I::'
~s:-:E;:::'
. -'ttJ}:
~-r:=-
. ~ .~{;9
.1 ~
f ~-4
I'~~~
I ~!'1"
.Qo~
I~
I ~/-
j.../'-
, .. :.---'-~
: ..~\. .,i-:-:~:i;:,
'--------1.;t..s.. ,. -.:...;:;:~
'~'--'l'
\~t! . -
\'i\i I
\,\
-.--'+-
--'" -,
____ ~jl I
/ 1~1 I
1//1 I
//p .
,.j' _1"
;./! i
."
i.!j: i
1\ ! 1
..-'-.__1
: i i !
..~-~!:i'
'-.. _.--+-----_ ,_ I
'----- I'; ---I
-,- .'
; ~ ) 1 1
~~ ('.-.... i I
;i"f.\ ~w ....,.., I
~;:; ''-", i
'.:J 'ii" I'" I
~_ ~ ~ 1
~:.: ~ . !
'.("):::: E. --j
~E t
~ ~ _=~j i
~~.{ i~
..~ : !
c'
!
~
,
-.
;
~
ir.
-,
".
,) I
i
------1
,~, I
)I - I i
~T__-'-1-.J.
:::-'.';" ; i ,i
. F~k: ~
.~:: 7:~~:~~-
-,---t~ ,oj
::-:"-F ..-,.0'1
'~;~~~~;~.~
.0
\1:;
.---" ---"',~
~~ .s'
~.~ E
~!"'1 "
o ~
%!II :-E
"?t:"'\ \
z-"-I
-~
f"\Z !
11'. .
1 ;
, I
--'
I
I
,
,
.. F~
I
1&'-c1
~.~. j.
6~,,1
~~,'"
;::<:
:tl~
-i'"
c.....:-:3'
~~!ffIT
? <? <1\ ~ '"
\\~~ .z 71
?)!5":-\=!
---' <> ~ I - "
_.(O~ I ""
-t2O:. --
';.::.;::7 I ~
, ~ ... '(,
~:
~.
~'
;:;;;-.
.J;
I
1 "11.
.r-
,~
:
i
1
1
w
~
Z
-1
>-
\\
)>
Z
-(
\:,
Z
-c::s
--,.
~
~
,
I
I
i
i
I
I
,
I
I
!
i
i
,..
-=I~~
.,~~ .
~I-( .
~F':
..
I, X,,"o.!-
ilt' ....-::=~
1'";<1""...
!W 00
I)> ==<1C11
~O_...
.....~..
il ::11=...
o c
i o c,
'"~
iD ~:;)<1~
'"z--
!\11 z;...<::::
,a 'C''<>~~
:" -" <
"':;<..
:/.'1 ~,",-'"
0.......
:OO>-!7
j-:"t 1'::0> -
0,-
-'j c .
'", ~?E~
.Z .....~-::
~:::...?
coo
~........
~ "
,,-
::::=-
. ...:==' ,
;>-0:; >
- -,
"-<:>.-
_zo...;
- -.
"
;::.-
..-i=::
H
~~~
, 0
-0>
0_'
" no
0>:::
I ....s_
......%
=0_
I ...~...
n_.
g!"?
I .
" :'
i ~
x
-,
" " j ~~ ,n~
ii'i ~ i I
'"
--; u I --"'"
f~ ~y ;~
'5 i i
' , ~. -'-I 0 '>
:~ I I;!.Q" ~ '~ -
.0 i "
i' f ,
'!:' , -:;. -.:
,0' ~ , 0 :.:-
I '"
- , ~
~
-
-
:
"
c
;:- ,~
~Q
, -b-
~
tti'";J
1'\:
$-"
~
P
\J'
\t,
~.
'"
~
~
-
~
10
}.
T3
r-
...::."
_.
'"
o
(i\
Q
~ So:
! ~- ~
8 if.
~ ~~.
..:::; 6:"
t "' ;!;
I' ~
I~I
I ~.!!,,-'- ;
] ":L. 1 . ~-_.~ ~ V
. ..@r' ~-'i J Ut::1 i
}~.";'" I ."r\ ~I)' I~:!. ~ I. 1 c.:,Z:I~~ ~
'.~' ,. ,..;J I' J' \)i' ~ i. ., f '
{-I~ i">,!~ Iii ~~\lr!'~i; j i I .
-.JZ ~,:Sn J Ii or- rfI ~"! J Ii ". I I t
-Cl\U't : ~ I;; == '\ ;'. ' .,; I~';.I....
1 ~ ~ _ ,~. I ~ I..: .-.:-.--.-------.? - 1 r
.~ ,;~--"I ii '..-~J:~l~;~~i~l~.i /~~:)_.~
~",'..~'__ .._ .....' --, I ..' '/' \ ,.'- -..' . . ~- I
-= :;:i J~ )>. \ - / ~~ --~ ~".;..:a,.- J ~. .
. - I ~ .~1'" 1- . ., ~~~..\:fe~;;-.. :
! \'v...r/.".-;. .-....:._..~. 1,_\\., '
- ) . ' .~~_. ~ ," \ ~\ I
.... ' . ~~" .\!- :_~ ."~ }.-"', ~ ~---------.!
.' '----r .T....... ~~.' ,"'-~0',." ~. ~..~\\ !--
,. ,r---..,: ;,:~.\ '';0.':; ~~~:;/ ~~""0\J:.~' \ "---t.-;}(~.j'~~';' .0''' \ i
;.1- ~~ L' .;:: ~ .;./-~.-\ ~....,,-"I\-J;>_........______.~.p-ts-~~y :
. ."., 0; ~ '-------;~' =-- ~~. \ -~~--"'/:';-''r,\\ ______ \ I
~ \ ~'" ., ~.!----~;d-i,J\\~-.--. '''V '
.-;". --.. ~ ..' .. .-:-;;: ~/fJ ':-;;::.i/c.~~ ..--:..; \ \:
\\ : _~ " ~~~..~:-....?"" .\_---;::-ccCt\ \ \ \ \ !
: ''; '....; .--'_ -Vi; .::,..___ "....t-.-...:.~f __.--' ~. I \ ~ \ " \ .
..\" ~ ". .----'ii' ..-.---- \ .... '\ \"
~- ..r;:--\\(!;..:-~:-:~ \ " A--\ ~--
"l" ~- \ \..,,'
\~\\ ~ ~ ~ \ \ '\ ~~~\ \
.....~.\,\. ~,.~ :::; \ \ 'i-~\ '. \
,,". .~ '. '" -t \ \ . ""'\ '
\,,\'. " ~7:.:<....... -" \ ,--. \
,\\. :.-.~~..\"';. '- ., ... ~~ \ .'
_ .\" 6,A- \c!- "" \ \ - .-. \
'\",\", ~:::; ...s- ~ ...., \ \ \ -;; \ " -.'~
\\' ~ ~:.->, '-- \ \" \ '" '~
'.\\_ ';:....-:'5...-............ '\ \
\\_ .;--"'6 ~ ~ -.. \ ."...
'>::..~ ~ ""-\ \ ~
..,~ ........':n.r--- '\. \ \ .--
,.~ \~
'\ ~ i \../-\
\\~\ \; .J---- ../ '\ \
\\\ .-------- - f I \,
\.\\ ~ i ! r
\.\ .....-~,! I j
\:.\ _______~- i I
\\\ ~ >flrm ."'C'"~
\ \\ ---------- ~ ~~! ~:;-"'
\_\\ . =7 =\1\=-
\,~......-- 0 ~2-;;r. \z.
-. ~ .......
. \ ~ 1"\ N' (.
\ \ ~: ~2'_"~:-~
\~"~ ........./If ~ --
___ _.;. J:; fP:- i.
~ r'\. x.
\P5! ~
R-g ~:
J;"~, .;-
~"'--
j>m-\
FG'r
. '"
'J'
~
~
-'
:>
8_
r
"'
'"
>'
~
:>
I
:::!
:;':J'
I
-
Q
It,
\\
~
..
...
"'-
".
,\
7'
~
I
I
*
,
i
I.
I
i
;;I ~ a.
; l' ~;
, ~
i ;?i
!2.
I .. I
I
I
I
I
I I
,
,
",'.
!:"~
-*
"~I'
I'
,1
ii"
i.,.,.i
~ r
,I r
. f... 1.
":",
!.I~
:",.
'I'"
;.j:-
I
I
I
i
.1
J
..
'"'0
""
1..-
(~
F
~~
~~
=;
ffi
;.'
.-
I
'...
1-
i'-'
I......
,
r",
\
\
\
\
"
,.
;
"
T
','
f:
of,
:Ti
1
i
,
-,--------
~ ~
. !
!
!. .j
I
,
~
'"
I
I i
_ !.i
- ,I
a ~5=~~ ~
~n.~o ~<i Q
f' --'I 0' "'.,; ~
'JIt'!:!:r=
~. ,":;7~'q\
<'\\1''''-
~:n(\: 1'~w.
- ~~~ T
~ C1 .~-~
1;--< >(\
. - -L ~.
.r?~~
--.5~ .~
~::;'Q
'" '"-~
>>1>
,-.,~
~"""J.r-
s&~
...., \J 1:\
C' -I
zorz
.---(!t,
=' .
="S
~?
~g
~IJI.
Z>
C'.-,::
1"'"
It
r
~
~
~
or.
7'
"
x
~
~=
'---'
:>-
I-~
i~
~, !<
~i~ I\,,\
~\~ fL-
,-
1--1
H
,-
j-S...
!>
i-U
I
,
"
'"
"
'--
~
-;' i
r
-3 i
'"
~ I
I I
"- r
~
;IEJ .....
i
:,
I-
I>
'-''1\
1
I
,
i
-~. 9
.~,.,,,
~ Mr
~. ~z '
~.~
... ~
)?;
~
'"
i
--
--
~~
.!::! .
......,=
:f;"'-
,"
,~
'-' .
g' ~ 2' 5-=i!
-;3~---I'J'- ~'~
.~ ;;;? J):.Q:
~-:: Z :::; L;
).! >- -,---of
~2;; ~
~?~ :=-
;~ ::: ~ ~
,
~....::
'3'
LUTSKO VARIANCE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION RE: CASE NUMBER ZAV-01-18
Provided by Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko
The most important fact to realize is that we had a property line wall of legal height
prior to our neighbor making modifications to his property which made us in violation
of the fence height code for yards with pools and endangered our SAFETY by his
installation of a permanent, hazardous, commercial batting cage approximately
75' long x 10' wide x 15' high and electronic ball propelling machine in a Residential
Estate Zone.
On May 16, we picked up a copy of the Planning Department's recommendation to the Planning
Commission. We noticed our color photos of our neighbor's hazardous situation, which were
submitted with our variance application, were omitted. We feel these pictures would give you a
better understanding of this unusual situation, so we have made more color copies for your
better understanding.
THIS SAFETY SCREEN WILL BE ABOUT 6 FEET 6 INCHES ON MUCH OF MR. DAVENPORT'S
SIDE DUE TO THE MODIFICATIONS HE MADE TO HIS PROPERTY.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE THREATENED OUR LIFE, PROPERTY, HEALTH AND
SAFETY BY HIS INSTALLATION OF A COMMERCIAL BATTING CAGE WITH A
PROFESSIONAL BALL PROPELLING MACHINE.
1. This structure sits above the top of our fence level.
2. The batting cage is pointed directly into our yard.
3. Balls travel up to 100-125 mph.
4. We are frequently picking up these hard 3 inch balls in our yard.
5. One ball missed our son's head by inches!
6. This structure was COMPLETED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.
7. The ball propelling machine was never permitted.
8. No variance was ever required for this commercial batting cage, or the attached
deck which is built within the1 0 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone and
situated within about 9 inches of our fence.
9. This enclosure measures about 3,000 square feet-heightllength/width.
THE DAVENPORT'S HAVE, WITHOUT A PERMIT, MODIFIED THE USE OF AN EXISTING
PERMITTED WALL TO BE A RETAINING WALL, AND HAVE, WITHOUT PERMITS,
ATTACHED A 10' x 12' STRUCTURE, PLANTERS, AND STAIRS TO THE WALL.
Lutsko -2
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS PUT US IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE FOR FENCE HEIGHT
FOR YARDS WITH POOLS:
1. He backfilled his pool dirt along and against the property line wall, modifying the use
of a permitted structure to a retaining wall, raised the elevation of his property
thereby lowering the height of the wall.
2. He added large 2' 6" high permanent planter boxes further reducing the height of the wall.
3. He constructed his deck so that the floor of the deck is above the top of the 5 foot
property line fence and within the 10 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone-
therefore, no fence height exists at this area and the deck sits about 9 inches from our
property line fence.
4. His dog has trespassed into our yard frequently and in the middle of the night
confronting our dogs due to the low height of the wall.
MR. DAVENPORT'S CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MODIFICATIONS HAVE VIOLATED
CODES IN OUR OPINION, AND NOTHING WAS DONE TO MAKE HIM CORRECT HIS
ACTIONS AFTER WE AT VARIOUS TIMES REPORTED THESE ACTIONS TO THE CITY.
THE CITY DID MAKE HIM APPLY FOR THE PERMIT FOR THE BATTING CAGE AFTER WE
CALLED ABOUT THE MASSIVE STRUCTURE, AND ALSO APPLY FOR RENEWALS FOR
THOSE PERMITS THAT HAD EXPIRED SOME YEARS EARLIER.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
FOR THE FIRST SAFETY SCREEN WHICH WE WERE ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN BY
SOME CITY PERSONNEL. WE ESTIMATE THE COST OF COMPLETING OUR SIDE WILL
BE BETWEEN $10,000 TO $12,000. WE WOULD NOT INCUR THIS EXPENSE IF IT WERE
NOT FOR OUR NEIGHBOR'S ACTIONS! WE FEEL IT IS UNJUST AND UNFAIR FOR US
TO HAVE TO INCUR SUCH A LARGE EXPENSE IN ORDER TO HAVE SAFETY AND
COMPLY WITH CODES WHEN WE WERE NOT AT FAULT. SINCE THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA PERMITTED THE BATTING CAGE RETROACTIVELY, AND REQUIRED NO
VARIANCE HEARING, WE FEEL IT IS FAIR AND JUST FOR US TO REQUEST THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA REIMBURSE US FOR THE ACTUAL COST TO MAKE OUR PROPERTY
SAFE AND MEET THE FENCE HEIGHT CODE.
WE DO APPRECIATE MR. JIM SANDOVAL'S PERMISSION ON MAY 2 TO TEMPORARILY RE-
ATTACH SOME OF THE PANELS TO TRY TO KEEP MR. DAVENPORT'S DOG IN HIS YARD.
WE BELIEVE IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANDIOR PLANNING COMMISSION HAD
BEEN ABLE TO PROPERLY REVIEW MR. DAVENPORT'S MODIFICATIONS TO HIS
PROPERTY PRIOR TO HIS BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS
HAZARDOUS SITUATION ALLOWED BY RETROACTIVELY PERMITTING THE BATTING
CAGE, AND THE OTHER MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHICH PUT
US IN VIOLATION OF FENCE HEIGHT, ETC.
Lutsko - 3
If I were a Planning Commission member considering this case I would be asking myself many
questions about the situation on 283 Bonita Canyon Drive-some of which might be:
"How did Mr. and Mrs. Davenport at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive get approval for this
hazardous commercial batting cage with an electronic ball propelling machine, as well
as the other construction projects with no variance for any project, and no inspections
for many such as the deck pilings, and in the case of the batting cage---no permit
prior to construction?" THE BATTING CAGE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AFTER
CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED, AND SIGNED OFF WITH NO VARIANCE!
"Realizing that Mr. Davenport, at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive, is a licensed contractor,
and should know the proper procedures prior to construction of acquiring a permit, why did
he build structures without first applying for a permit, or without applying for a variance?"
"Why is a permanent structure commercial grade batting cage measuring about 75 feet
long by 10 feet wide and over 15 feet in height as measured from the highest point to
the finished grade allowed in a Residential Estate Zone?"
"Why is the total square footage of this structure when considering the enclosed area-
(height/length/width) about 3,000 SQUARE FEET, approaching the square footage size
of another house on the lot?" The approximate 3,000 square feet of this chain link
structure are visible 4 Y, miles away from South Bay Freeway!
"Why did the Davenports not list the electronic commercial grade ball propelling
machine on their batting cage permit applied for after construction?" This machine
should have had a public hearing for SAFETY.
"Why don't the Davenports have a 10 foot set back on either side of their property as
required in the Residential Estate Zone?"
"Why is the Davenport's complaint about the LUTSKO SAFETY SCREEN HEIGHT given so
much precedence over the Lutsko SAFETY ISSUE regarding life and property due to the
commercial batting cage?"
"Why were the Davenports allowed to jeopardize the safety of their neighbors, the
Lutsko family, with this batting cage pointed directly into the neighbor's property?"
"Why is it that these actions of a neighbor modifying his yard are allowed by the City to
put the other innocent neighbor in violation of fence height and SAFETY, and it is the
innocent neighbor who has to apply for the variance and pay for the fence to make it
once again of legal height and safe within their yard?"
"When the City realized that the batting cage was constructed, and could be hazardous
and controversial, why did the CITY not REQUIRE THE DAVENPORTS TO APPLY
FOR A VARIANCE as they have required the Lutsko family to apply for a variance for their
SAFETY SCREEN TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from the Davenports' actions?" This
would have been equal treatment and allowed public input.
.. ~.~ __._________.__ _._...__m_ ___....___------.,-.-._~__.. ..__.._...___..._._
Lutsko - 4
"Why has the intent of the Legislative Zoning Procedures not been followed because
the City allowed Mr. Davenport's property modifications to infringe on our SAFETY and
the ability to use our property for its intended use safely and without our property
value declining due to safety issues and this hazardous, unsightly, huge structure
blocking the view for which we paid a premium price?"
"Why is it that structures, like the batting cage which was built without a permit or variance
prior to construction beginning, are allowed to stand just because they are already
constructed, but the FIRST SAFETY SCREEN necessitated by the hazards of this batting
cage was not allowed to remain while the variance was applied for and during the variance
process?"
"Why does the City not require the Davenports to remove their batting cage, deck,
stairs, tile roof structure and planter boxes while they apply for a variance for these
structures-equal treatment?"
"Why is the Lutsko family at 281 Bonita Canyon Drive having to spend thousands of
dollars to protect themselves from their neighbor's hazardous batting cage, as well as
enduring all the stress of living next to a hazardous batting cage, and having to spend
precious time presenting a justification in writing why they should be allowed to
protect themselves.
"Why are we not allowed to protect ourselves and property from this hazard?"
"Why is it that the Davenports have been allowed to keep:
a. the deck with the 6 foot tall pilings, the depth was not inspected prior to
installation, and included on the batting cage permit for retroactive approval,
b. the non-permitted stairs, which are attached to the existing property line wall
and the deck, modifying the use of a permitted property line wall and within
the 10 foot set back for side yards and NOT considered "on grade,"
c. the 10 by 12 foot tiled roof structure attached to the fence, modifying the use
of an existing permitted property line masonry wall and within the 10 foot side
yard set back,
d. and the permanent planter boxes 2' 6" high attached to the existing masonry
wall which further lowers the height of the existing property line wall violating
Municipal Code 15.48 fences for yards with pools-
all of which are also in violation of the 10 feet side yard set back for a Residential Estate
Zone?"- See19.22.070, and 108.5.2 and other code violations.
"Why is it that AFTER the City gave final approval of the property line masonry wall, Mr.
Davenport is allowed to modify the use of a permitted and approved masonry wall
designated as a property line wall by attaching structures to it and changing it to a
retaining wall with no variance or permit applied for to do so?" i.e. the 10 foot by 12 foot
tile roof structure and the stairs leading to the deck. Also, the piling up of the excavated
pool dirt making it more of a retaining wall which also modifies the use of the
permitted wall, and permanent planter boxes 2' 6" high which further decreases the
height of the wall. The City knows about these issues and has done nothing to try to
rectify the violations-no after-the-fact variance, no public hearing, no hassle.
Lutsko - 5
"Why is it that on at least a half a dozen occasions we offered to the City Officials to go
with the Davenports to a mediation to see if the mediator could help resolve the
violations, determine what modifications will be made to the Davenport property to
comply with the Code, and what we will be allowed to do to protect ourselves, and
nothing ever was done to help us-no mediation or meeting was ever set up?"
"Why is it that no one acknowledges that, should there be a necessity for emergency
personnel to gain access to the lower portion in the canyon of the Davenport's lot, the
only known access is by an 8 foot ladder leaned up against the north side of the deck-
this is due to all the massive construction across the width of his lot-including the
batting cage."
'-,' ~._--_...,_...- ..
-, ~.^
I .
. , . ,
1 North East view from house toward Lutsko deck and pool showing Hawaiian theme
Note: Hawaiian theme with palm trees, etc. prevails throughout our neighborhood
,;,J
ij"
---iF'"
2. North East view from Lutsko deck (Lot 586) toward adjoining yard (Lot 585) showin
adjoining lot with deck and batting cage g
Lutsko Variance
Photo Attachment
Page 1 of 3
Lot 585 oattlng cage
.._.___.0----..-----
3. View from North to South standing on Lutsko property Note batting cage opening
facing west toward Lutsko property and deck of Lot 585 above the top of the 6 foot
property line chain link fence.
Lot 585 batting cage
Property line chain link fence top
4. View East from Lutsko chain link property line fence showing (Lot 585) deck height
above the 6 foot high chain link property line fence. and batting cage door opening
facing Lutsko property
Lutsko Variance
Photo Attachment
Page 2 of 3
__"_ ___..n__"""_"__r__.__'
5
Shows neighbor's dog on neighbors deck stairs (Lot 585) able to look over eXisting
property line wall toward Lutsko oroperty (Lot 586)
EXisting property line
palapa covered
Safety Screen
6 View from Lutsko property East showing eXisting palapa covered property line
Safety Screen with Hawaiian motif Note. Top of property line Safety Screen is
below Lutsko palapa deck roof level. Also note how well the Safety Screen blends
In with the landscaping
Lutsko Variance
Photo Attachment
Page 3 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item d..-
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-OI-07; Consideration of City-initiated
request for amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District
Regulations for San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA), to add Floor Area
Ratio regulations and amend Coverage regulations. The San Miguel Ranch project site is
743.1 acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir
and Mother Miguel Mm., and west of the Rolling Hills Ranch area; Applicant: City
initiated.
This is a City-initiated request for an amendment to the PC District Regulations of the San
Miguel Ranch SPA Plan to establish Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards for the project. The
project has obtained SPA plan approval on 10/19199 and Tentative Map Approval on 2/29100.
On October 19, 1999, the City Council previously considered and certified Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) 97-02 for the San Miguel Ranch SPA and PC District
Regulations. The Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared an Initial Study IS-OI-030
and an Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has determined that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment
RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and adopt the
Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 (see attachment I) in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA; and
2. Adopt the attached Planning CommissiOn Resolution PCM-OI-07, recommending approval
of the amendments and additions to the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations for
the San Miguel Ranch SPAin accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions
contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
This PC District Regulation amendment affects residential development only and therefore
applies to only the residential land use districts in tbe San Miguel Ranch project. These areas are
depicted on the Land Use Districts Table and Map shown on attachments 3 and 4.
Background:
On October 19, 1999, the City Council approved the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan and associated regulatory documents, including the Planned Community District
Regulations. These documents established the land use distribution and pattern, density and
Page 2, Item _
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
character of development, development goals and objectives, and development standards to
guide the future planning and construction of the San Miguel Ranch project.
When the SPA Plan and PC District Regulations were originally adopted, Lot Coverage
Regulations which address the percent of lot area covered by structures were included in the PC
District Regulations Development Standards, but specific Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations
were not. The developer, NNP-Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC (Trim ark) had not intended to
include FAR standards in the PC District Regulations, and Staff inadvertently did not require
inclusion of the standards.
Floor Area Ratio is defined in Municipal Code Section 19.04.097 as:
'The numerical value obtained by dividing the total area of all the floors of a building or
buildings included within the surrounding walls, by the total area of the premises".
Staff finds that FAR's are an important component of the PC District Regulations because they
limit the pennitted square footage of new residences by applying a ratio that sets a ceiling on
building area based on the lot size. FAR's work in conjunction with other PC District
Regulations such as lot coverage, setback and height regulations, and together with Design
Guidelines help to control the design, mass and bulk of residences. It is especially important in
the Planned Community areas where lots are smaller and the tract homes that are produced are
generally larger in terms of square footage, number of stories and height than homes in the older
parts of the City. To maintain consistency with all the other Planned Communities in the City,
staff initiated this application and recommends that the San Miguel Ranch PC District
Regulations be amended.
Staff's goals in establishing the recommended FAR and Maximum Building Area Regulations
were:
(I) To provide reasonable limits to building area, which will work in conjunction with other
PC District development regulations and SPA Design Guidelines to help control the bulk
and mass of residential buildings, and to ensure that homes on larger lots will be
compatible with the character of the neighborhood;
(2) To be consistent with FAR's in similar Planned Communities;
(3) To pennit builders to provide competitively-sized residential products, and
(4) To allow future homeowners to construct accessory residential uses and additions typical
of other planned communities in the City.
Staff reviewed the FAR values in tbe Municipal Code, and those of other Planned Communities
including Rollings Hills Ranch, Sunbow, Eastlake and Otay Ranch, and has prepared a proposal
for San Miguel Ranch which is comparable. Staff has also worked with Trimark to finalize these
regulations and they concur with the proposed amendments.
On December 26, 2000, the grading plan for San Miguel Ranch was approved and the grading
pennit was issued. Presently, final subdivision maps, landscaping plans, and improvement plans
for San Miguel Ranch are being processed. Approval of these amended PC District Regulations
-,-_.,*.._._....__.__.._.._~_..,_..._-_....__._---_._._-~><--.......-..-- --..
Page 3, Item _
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
IS necessary to allow builders to commence filing of Site plan and Architectural Review
applications.
Summary of Requested Amendments to the SMR Spa, Vol. 2 - PC District Regulations:
Statfproposes to amend the PC District Regulations by adopting a revised Development
Standards Table 2-3A which adds FAR regulations with footnote "p" that requires that
Maximum Building Area be determined by a table entitled ,''Maximum Building AI-eaTable 2-
3B". This table would require that the maximum building square footage be equivalent to the
FAR value, or the maximum building area value, whichever is less. We also propose
amendments to decrease the existing lot coverage regulations from 50% to 45% in SF2 and trom
55% to 50 % in SF3, to compliment the new FAR regulations. Also proposed is an exemption so
that any homeowners could add up to a 300 square foot open patio by right. All other chapters
and sections not modified by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
The following is a summary of the requested Amendments and Additions to the San Miguel
Ranch Planned Community District Regulations, which were adopted by City Council Ordinance
No. 2799 on 10/19/99. Also included as Attachment 4 is a table describing the residential land
use districts to which these regulations apply. The Minimum Lot Area is included in the excerpt
trOll table 2-3A below for informational purposes only and is not being amended. For the full
text of the amendments, please refer to Exhibit B of the Draft City Council Ordinance (attached):
I. The Table of Contents section entitled "Tables" at page TOC-3 is hereby
proposed to be amended to add specific references to Table 2-3A, the
Development Standards, Residential Districts Table (revised) on page 13A, and
Table 2-3B, the Maximum Building Area Table on page 14B.
2. Table 2-3A, Development Standards, Residential Districts (Revised 5/23/01) is
attached hereto and is substituted in place and stead of Table 2-3 at page 13.
Table 2-3A includes amendments to "Maximum Lot Coverage" and addition of a
new row entitled "Floor Area Ratio" P, and footnote "p" (see changes in
strikeoutlunderlinelbo ld):
Land Use District SFE SF! SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF A
Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,000/15,000' 7,000 6,000 5,000" 4,5000 4,0000 SP.
Maximum Lot Coverage 35 45 $045 SS50 55 SP SP
(percent) -
Floor Area Ratio" .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP
SP= Regulations to be determined prior to approval of Application for Site Plan/Design Review.
Add text of Footnote "P" to new page 14A:
"The allowable building area for construction of dwellings, or any
remodeling or additions to dwellings for each lot shall be as determined in
the Maximum Building Area Table 2-3B below. The maximum building area
."'___r_..."'.___ _._n_.'._'_ _.,_..,._.____...__..----__._.._.~___._
Page 4, Item _
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
for single family detached, attached, and mnlti-family residential products,
garages, and other accessory structnres shall be the square footage listed or
that permitted by the percentage of lot area, whichever is less. Homeowner
additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300
square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted
on each single-family residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in
this calculation. All residential development proposals are subiect to review
for consistency with the San Miguel Ranch Design Guidelines, Residential
Design Guidelines Sections 4.5 (Single Family) or 4.6 (Multi-Family)."
3. Add new page 14B containing Table 2-3B:
Table 2-3B -"Maximum Building Area" lists the Floor Area Ratio values for each land
use district and corresponding maximum building areas permitted in each land use
district. The maximum building area is calculated by multiplying the FAR times the lot
size, then comparing that number to the corresponding maximum building area value, and
whichever is the lesser number is the maximum allowable building area.
ANALYSIS:
Following is a brief discussion about the goals that staff sought to achieve when developing the
above FAR regulations for San Miguel Ranch, and how the recommended changes implement
these goals:
L To provide reasonable limits to building area,. which in conjunction with PC District
Regulations and Design Guidelines in the SPA will help control bulk/mass of homes, and
ensure that size of homes on larger lots will be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood:
. In the smaller lots in each district, the maximum building area will be controlled
by the FAR because the "whichever is less" provision will ensure that the FAR,
not the Maximum Building Area controls the building square footage.
. The Maximum Building Area value will effectively limit the potential for
excessive building area on the larger lots by providing a cap or ceiling on building
size. Staff found that this is necessary because there is a wide range of lot sizes
within most of the San Miguel Ranch land use districts, and there is a need to
ensure that excessive building area is not permitted on the larger lots which could
result in large homes which are out of character with the majority of homes in the
neighborhood.
2. To be consistent with FAR's in similar Planned Communities:
The proposed FAR values are consistent with other Planned Communities including
Sunbow and the neighboring Rolling Hills Ranch.
_.._._-,,---,_._..._--~_...__.,_...-.--~
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
3. To permit builders to provide competitively-sized residential products:
Staff worked with Trimark and carefully reviewed their preliminary proposed product
sizes, by neighborhood, to help refine the FAR and Maximum Building Area
recommendations. Staff found that the proposed FAR's are consistent with other Planned
Community projects and should allow San Miguel Ranch to be competitive with other
projects for the following reasons:
· Staff reviewed maps and data submitted by Trimark and observed a pattern of
rows of smaller lots in Neighborhoods E, H and I which could accommodate only
one of Trimark's proposed models. This was an issue for Trimark relative to
market segmentation, because they need flexibility to vary their products along
the street. The regulations for the SF2, SF3 and SF 4 land use districts were
written so that the FAR's can be increased only for those specific of lots identified
in Table 2-3B. When the proposed FAR amendments are applied, they will result
in product size and variety which are more typical in other planned communities
in the City.
. The Maximum Building Area values for the SF4 Land Use District, vary ftom
3100 s.f in Neighborhood E to 3500 s.f in Neighborhood G, due to different
average lot sizes in the two neighborhoods.
· Staff utilized Trimark's largest proposed model as the maximum building area
value for each land use district, so that they will be able to provide their largest
proposed product on the larger lots in each neighborhood.
4. To allow future homeowners to construct accessory residential uses and additions typical of
other planned communities in the City:
Provisions have been added to the regulations which permit the construction of remodels,
additions, accessory structures and patios which are consistent with these standards, and
to permit construction of 300 square feet of open patios which are exempt ftom the FAR
regulations. This exemption also applies in other Planned communities.
CONCLUSION
The proposed FAR's are consistent with other approved Planned Communities in the City such
as Rolling Hills Ranch and Sunbow, and the concept of regulation of maximum building areas
based on the FAR or maximum building area, whichever is less, is consistent with the R-l zone
in the Municipal Code. Staff recommends this because many San Miguel Ranch neighborhoods
have a wide range oflot sizes within each Land Use District, and this provision allows the FAR
to control building area on smaller lots and sets a cap on the building area which will act to limit
excessive building area on larger lots. Trimark has reviewed the proposed PC District
Regulations amendments and supports the staffrecommendation.
Page 6, Item _
Meeting Date: 5/23/01
Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PC District
Regulations amendment, and Addendum to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
to the City Council, in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This PC District Regulations amendment is included within the scope of the Staffing Agreement
with Trimark for the San Miguel Ranch project. All costs associated with the project are covered
by the existing deposit account established by the Staffing Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Addendum to FSEIR 97-02
2. Locator Map
3. Land Use District Map
4. Description of Land Use Districts Table
RESOLUTION PCM-OI-07
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL
SUBSEQUENT EIR 97-02 AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO
THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE SAN MIGUEL
RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN. CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, a duly verified application requesting amendments
and additions to the Planned Community District Regulations of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan was filed by the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department ("Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the area ofland which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A and commonly known as the San Miguel Ranch
Planned Community ("Project"), consists of743.1 acres located north and east of Proctor Valley
Road., south ofthe Sweetwater Reservoir and SDG&E substation, and west of Rolling Hills
Ranch, and is owned by NNP- Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC ("Owner"),
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1999 the City Council has previously certified a Third-tier,
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) EIR-97-02, Findings of Fact, Statement
of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to address
environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, this Third-tier FSEIR 97-02 incorporates by reference two prior EIRs: the
original Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan FEIR-90-02, certified by the City
Council on March 23,1993; and the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment / General
Development Plan Amendment FSEIR-9S-=D4, certified by the City Council on December 17,
1996; as well as their associated Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Programs; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study 18-01-030
and an Addendum to FSEIR 97C02 which specifically addresses the amendments and additions to
the Planned Community District Regulations and has det=ined that the proposed changes
would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
Amendments and Additions to the San Miguel Ranch SPA - Planned Community District
Regulations, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners and tenants
within SOO feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on May 23, 2001,
in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, before the Planning Commission;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received, heard and considered evidence on May
23,2001, set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made
certain findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCM 01-07 herein, and
recommended that the City Council approve the Project based on certain tenns and conditions;
and
(~
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 has
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and the Environmental Review Procedures ofthe City of Chula Vista; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution adopting the
Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 and Ordinance approving the San Miguel Ranch SPA-Amendments
and Additions to the PC District Regulations in accordance with the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 23rd day of May, 2001 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bob Thomas
Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas
Secretary
(H:\SHAREDIA TIORNEYlSAN-MIG\F AR.PCRESO.DOC)
Exhibits
Draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance
-_.,,_..._...._..-~..~..-...--_.-.__.,.-"--_.._..__._--"",-_.'._,-.- ...
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL' SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 97-02 REGARDING
AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, ADDRESSING FLOOR
AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;
CITY OF CHULA VISTA.
I. . RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution are
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", a copy of which is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution, and commonly known as the
San Miguel Ranch Sectional Plarming Area, and for the purpose of General description
herein consists of 743. I acres located east and north of Proctor Valley Rd., south of
Sweetwater Reservoir and the SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch
("Project Site"); and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, a duly verified application requesting
amendments and additions to the Planned Community District Regulations of the San
Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan was filed by the City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department (Applicant) and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
. WHEREAS, the development of the Proj ect Site has been the subject matter of a
prior Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan including Planned Community (PC) District
Regulations previously approved by City Council Resolution 19631 and Ordinance No. 2799
on October 19, 1999; and,
WHEREAS, the Planned Community District Regulations are established by City
Council Ordinance 2799, pursuant to Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
specifically Chapter 19.48 Planned Community Zone, and are applicable to the San
Miguel Ranch SPA Land Use Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of a
Third-tier, FinaL Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) EIR-97-02
Draft Resolution
Page 2
previously certified by City Council Reso]ution 19630 on October ]9, 1999; and
WHEREAS, this Third-tier' FSEIR incorporates by reference two prior EIRs: the
original Rancho San Migue] Ranch General Deve]opment P]an FEIR-90-02, certified by
the City Council on March 23, 1993; and the San Miguel Ranch General Plan
Amendment / General Development Plan Amendment FSEIR-95-04, certified by the City
Council on December 17, 1996; as well as their associated Findings of Fact, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; and,
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
Project on May 23,200], and voted _ L-.J to forward a recommendation to the City
Council to approve the proposed Amendments and Additions to the SPA Plan - Planned
Community District Regu]ations for 743.1 acres known as San Migue] Ranch.
The proceedings and all evidence introduce before the Planning Commission at the public
hearing on this project held on May 23,2001, and the minutes and resolution resulting
therefi-om, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and,
E. City Council Record of App]ication
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project
applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its pub]ieation
in a newspaper of genera] circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within
500 ft. of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten days prior to the hearing.
WHEREAS, the hearing was held before the City Council of the City ofChu]a
Vista at the time and place as advertised on ,2001, on the project and to receive
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony, in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, ChuIa Vista, before the City Council; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds, determines and
resolves as follows:
II. FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR-97-02 AND ADDENDUM TO FSEIR-97-02 REVIEWED
AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS
On October 19, ]999, the City Council of the City of Chu]a Vista reviewed., analyzed,
considered., approved and certified third-tier FSEIR-97-02; and
The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study 1S-01-030 and an
Draft Resolution
Page 3
Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 which specifically addresses the amendments and additions to
the Planned Community District Regulations and has detennined that the proposed changes
would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council hereby certifies that the Addendum to FSEIR-97 -02 has been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council exercised their independent review and judgment with respect to the
Addendum to FSEIR 97-02 in the form presented and has detennined that said document was
prepared in accordance with requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act the
State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented
and maintained according to the their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify
all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of shall future building
permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their
compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or
successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
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'detennined by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so detennines in its
sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in
effect.
, ---.-....-.-.-..-....-..,-..-
Draft Resolution
Page 4
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John Kaheny
City Attorney
H:\sharcd\attomey\san-mig\far-cc~rs.doc
,,-. -. -,.- "'.~ ...~ -
. ., . . ..
(t::;".,;;c;;z.:,c\';';';'..'V:>"';"i"i "
..- -..... . ".' .....
'.::~~'..-,,:- -. .--.. - -:.;~ -=--~~..~ ~.'. ~-<~':.
.-..,....,"-.-- ..-.,.-- -........_~._-"--_._.._-..,,: .' -.-.:.... -
rtnE~t::.y~\;~~C~~_~~{;~~-,~_:BS~~-~~_:;--:. "': .'~:- .:- .- .
.', '-'i>'& ", ., - /
~ "'.C:;"" ~.<
II
\
I
\
II
,I
"
Ii
I!
/
/
EXHIBIT - A
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE
Ii,
PROJECT Y I
LOCATION I I
, 1;-
I .......
I :
,
,
I
,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista PROJECT DESCRIPTlON,
~ APPUCANT: San Miguel Ranch
.==ROJECT NJ1h cf Proctor Vane)' Rd Request: To approve amendments and additions to the
.';ODRESS: & \/iest 01 Roiling HIUs Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 amend building coverage development standards.
------.-.,--...
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AMENDING ORDINANCE 2799 AND APPROVING
AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Ordinance arediagr3IDJ11atically
represented in Exhibit A attached hereto, and for the purpose of general descripd.oIrConSist of a
743.1 acre area north and east of Proctor Valley Rd., south of Sweetwater Reservoir and the
SDG&E Miguel Substation, and west of Rolling Hills Ranch, commonly known as the San Miguel
Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building
Department (" Applicant") filed an application requesting approval of amendments and additions to
the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for
the San Miguel Ranch Project Site ("Project") to establish Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards,
hereto incorporated as Exhibit B; and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of a Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) previously approved by City CounCil Resolution No. 19631 on October 19, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of City Council Ordinance 2799
adopting Planned Community District Regulations, approved on October 19, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Project site has been the subject matter of a third-tier Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report 97-02 (FSEIR 97-02) for the above SPA previously certified by City
Council Resolution No. 19630 on October 19, 1999; and
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said project on
May 23,2001, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned
Community District Regulations text in accordance with the findings listed below.
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on this Project held on May 23, 2001, and the minutes and resolutions resulting
therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista on , ZOO! on the Project, and to receive the recommendations of
the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and,
F. Discretionary Approvals Resolution and Ordinance
WHEREAS, at the same City Council meeting at which this ordinance was introduced for
first reading ( , ZOO!), the CityCounc. i1 of the.. City ofChul.a. Vis. ta app. ro. ved Resolution
No. by which it certified an Addendum to FSEm 97-02 fortlle San Migu~i Ranch Project.
subject to the findings and conditions contained therein.
II NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as
follows:
A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council certified by Resolution No. an Addendum to the FSEm-97-02 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.
B. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council exercised their independent review and judgement with respect to the
Addendum to FSEm 97-02 in the form presented, and has determined that said document was
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
Em Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
C. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby finds that the findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance
2799 continue to be true and correct, and the proposed amendments and additions San Miguel
Ranch Planned Co=unity District Regulations are consistent with the City of Chula Vista
General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare and good zoning practice
support the proposed documents.
D . APPROVAL OF ZONING REGULA nONS
The City Council does hereby approve the amendments and additions to the Planned
Co=unity District Regulations as represented in Exhibit B.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance 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
jurisdictioIl to be invalid, illegal. or unenforceable,' this, resolution shall be deemed to be
automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of ChulaVista,
California, this _th day of ,2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Shirley Horton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
(H:\SHARED\A TTORNEY\SAN-MIG\FAR-CC-ORD.DOC)
EXHIBIT - A
ORDINANCE NO.
/ PAGE
,
I
I
\
I
I
/
/
I I
PROJECT Y !
LOCATION I I
I /1
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
,
i !
.~
COUNTY OF SA.H DIEGO
;~o/'tHl!tXVIS,.v
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCANT: San Miguel Ranch
PROJECT North of Proctor Valley Rd Request To approve amendments and additions to the
ADDRESS: & West of Rolling Hills Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and
NORTH No Scale PCM-01-07 amend building coverage development standards.
'hcroe\D:~r;n:r~T'=ar:cs 'i::C3:::-:;' :Jl:"':: ~ :~-3 ::::r ~~ ::.:.~:~,.
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 4
TABLE of CONTENTS
{Continued)
CHAPTER/SECTION
/
PAGE
9.4
9.5
Chapter X
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
FIGURES
Parking Development Standards. .................................. .................. .63
9.4.1 General Requirements........................................................ ..63
9.4.2 Special Requirements........................................................ ...64
Perfonnance Standards....... ........................ .................................. .65
ADMINISTRATION................................................................. ...67
Pmpose.......... ......................................................................... .67
Standard Procedures............................................... __................... .67
Administrative Review.......................................................... ........ .67
Site Plan and Architectural Approval.......... .... ......... __...... ................ ...68
Conditional Use Permit Review...__ -- .--...... ____..... __.......... ....... ....... ... ...68
Other Provisions.....__..__........ ______ __........ __...... __..... __... ..............__ __..69
PAGE
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
TABLES
SPA Land Use District Plan.... ...__.. __.......... __ __..... __.... __....... __....... __. __..3
Measuring Locations for Building Setbacks. ... ......... ..__... ...__. ............ __ __.15
Measurements for Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks for Lots with
Internal Slopes.. ........................................................................ ....16
Measurement of Split Side Yard Requirements.. ................. ....... ..... ....__.. I 7
PAGE
Table 2- I
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-3A
Table 2-3B
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Table 2-9
Table 2-10
Chart of SPA Land Use Districts.....____. ...... .__................ :.. ........ ...... .....5
Permitted Use Matrix-Residential Districts........ __....... __................... __. ...10
Development Standards - Residential Districts.. .............. .... ... ................13
Development Standards - Residential Districts (Rev. S/23/01)................13A
Maximum BuiIdine- Area ......... ........ ................ ......... ......... ..........14B
Permitted Use Matrix-Commercial District.. __................... ......... .......... ..22
Development Standards - Commercial Districts................. .................. ...28
Permitted Use Matrix - Community Purpose Facility District.................... ..30
Development Standards - Community Purpose Facility District.................. ..32
Temporary Uses. ... ...................................................................... ..38
Off-Street Parking Requirements......................................... ............ ....61
Parking Table Design Standards................................... ..... ................ .64
San Miguel Ranch Spa Pian
NNP - Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
May 23, 2001
Page TOC-3
-~._.~----_.._._.._,,_.._-^ -.,--_._------,.---.---.. '''''~--~'-_.'--'-~,-,-,-
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 4
Development Standards Table 2-3A (Revised 5/23/01)
Land Use District SFE SF! SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MFI
Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20.0001 7,000 6.000 b 5,000 b 4,500 b 4,000 b SP N/A
15,000'
Min. Lot Width (feet) <
Measured 100 d 60 55 < 50 < 50 < SP SP N/A
Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A
Frontage
FJag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP N/A
Min. Lot Depth (feet)' 120 100 90 90 SO SP SP N/A
Maximum lot coverage 35 45 WAS ~50 55 SP SP SP
(percent)
floor Area .45 i .50 55 .60 .60 SP SP SP
Ratio I - - -
-
?~():lt 'I"ard Minim:J!":": S:;'I~ack'
To house 25 I 20 1S I 15 I 15 SP SP SP
To direct entry garage 25 208 208 208 109 SP SP SP
To side entry garage 25 I 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP
To porch 20 I 17 " 17 I 15 SP SP SP
Side '{ard Minimum Setbacks (feet) (h .
To adjacent residential Jot 15110' I 10/5; 10'5' 5.'5 I 5'5 SP SP SP
To adjacent street (exterior 20 10 10 10 10 SP SP SP
side yard)
Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet) [h
To houseJ 25 ~ I 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP
To garage with minimum 25j I 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP
30-foot driveway
Building Height Maximum 28 ftlJ 28 ft'l 28 ft II 28 nl/ 28 fi!f 28 fi!1 28 nIl 45 feetl
(feet/# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 1 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories
Park;ng Required (Off- 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 garnge 2 assigned spaces, 1.5-!BR
2 garage 2 garage spaces 0 spacesD spacesD min. 1 covered. 2.0-2BR
Street spaces per Unit)'" spaces spaces spaces Guest- 0.33/ 2.5-3BR+
UnitO Guest- 0.33/
Unif
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 - PC Disnict Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguei LLC
13A
M,y 23 2001
._'_'~,..____._._._,._.._..u._._~.___._.'-----.---_.__
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 4
Table 2-3A Notes:
a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning Areas K and L, the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, however,
up to 25% ofthe lots may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provided that the overall average lot size within Planning
Areas K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet.
b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts.
Minimum pad area within the SF2 District shall be 5500 square feet.
c. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions.
Such variations are subject to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfil1ed by site plan
review required by other provisions of these regulations. Minimums such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem
where they would result in lot area which does not meet the minimum lot area requirement.
d. The minimum lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20.000 square feet as allowed by
Note "a" above.
e. For lots with minimum widths of 55 feet or less, the minimum width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of
any side slope within the lot) and for purposes of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the bui1ding line at
the front yard setback.
f. Architectural features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, balconies, steps, stairways, or bay
windows may project not more than four feet into any required ITont or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any
required side yard.
g. May be reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage door, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of
sidewalk be less than 20 feet.
h. Building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions:
The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with internal slopes.
The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet.
The maximum height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4-
foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining walI and a freestanding fence or wall.
The rear yard setback shall be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes.
i. Where there are slopes within the side yard of a lot, building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4.
J. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd- shaped lot or building pad,
these minimums may be reduced subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building.
k. The minimum rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Area L whose property line(s) abut the
SPA boundary of San Miguel Ranch.
I. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval.
m. Parking standards for Senior Citizen or Maffordable" residential development may be reduced from those specified in
the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the
Conditional Use Permit procedure (CYMC 19.14.080), and subject to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic
engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided.
n. Guest parking is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on
the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays.
o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall
not be pennitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units.
"P." "The allowable buildin!: area for construction of dwellin2S. or any remodelin!: or additions to dweIIin!:s for each
lot shall be as determined in table 2-3D below. Tbe maximum buildinE area for sinEle family detached and
attached products. e:araees. and other accessory structures shall be the sQuare footaee listed or that permitted
bv the percentae:e of lot area. whichever is less. Homeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent
with these standards. A 300 SQuare foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each
residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are
subiect to review for consisteney with the San Mie:uel Ranch Desien Guidelines. Residential Desie:n Guidelines
Section 4.5 (Sinele Family) or Section 4.6 (Multi-Family)."
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC
14A
May 23, 2001
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 4
Table 2-3B: Maximum Buildine Area
San Floor Area Maximum
Mi1!uel Ratio Buildinl! Area
Ranch (F.A.R.) (Sq. Ft)
District
SFE .45 N/A*
SFl .50 4500
SFl .55** 4300
SFJ .60** 4000
SF4 .60** 3100 (E)***
3500 (G)
SF5 SP SP
SF A SP SP
MF SP SP
Table notes:
*
Maximum allowable buildine area will be reeulated bV coveraee and setback reeulations in the SFE
Land Use District.
** The maximum allowable F.A.R.'s in the SF2, SF3 and SF4 Districts are as follows. Lots numbers are
as shown on Chula Vista Tract 99-04, approved 2/29/00 (Tentative Map PCS- 99-04):
SF2: .60 for lots 1-21,38-40, and 43-51 in Neiehborhood I.
SF3: .65 for lots 6-8, 11-15, and 37-41 in Neiehborhood H.
SF4: .65 for lots 109-119 in Neiehborhood E.
*** In the SF4 District, the Maximum allowable buildine area shall be 3100 square feet in Neiehborhood
E and 3500 square feet in Neiehborhood G .
SP - Standards to be determined concurrently with Site Plan and Architectural approval.
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel" LLC
]48
May 23 2001
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-97-02
PROJECT NAME: Amendment to the San Miguel Ranch Planned CommunitY (PC)
District Regulations Ordinance
PROJECT LOCATION: 743-acre San Miguel Ranch South Parcel generally located east
and north of Bonita Meadows, west of Rolling Hills Ranch and
south of the Sweetwater Reservoir, 1,852-acre San Miguel Ranch
North Parcel and the SDG&E Miguel Substation. within the City of
Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence.
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department
CASE NO:
Case No. IS-0 1-030
DATE:
April,2001
I. BACKGROUND
The San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) and Planned Community (PC) District
Regulations was approved on October 19, 1999 (Resolution No. 19631). The PC District
Regulations establish the Development Standards for San Miguel Ranch. The PC District
Regulations were adopted pursuant to Title 19, Zoning, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and
are intended to:
. Ensure that the development within San Miguel Ranch IS consistent with and
implements the approved General Development Plan;
. Implement the City's General Plan for the Eastern Territories;
. Promote the 'orderly planning and long-te= sequential development of San Miguel
Ranch to the benefit of the surrounding community; and
. Provide standards for the compatibility of land uses \vithin the project and to the
surrounding areas.
These regulations were established for the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health,
safety and welfare for the people of Chula Vista; to safeguard and enhance the appearance and
quality of development of San Miguel Ranch; and to provide the social, physical and economic
advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly planned_use of land resources.
A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Miguel Ranch SPA and Tentative
Maps (EIR 97-02) was also certified on the same date. The San Miguel Ranch EIR
acknowledges that the PC zone will govern future development of the project site when the site
is annexed to the City ofChula Vista.
The approved PC District Regulations did not include certain provisions regarding Floor Area
Ratios (FAR). The property owner, NNP-Trimark Pacific - San Miguel LLC, intends to sell
portions of the subject p,oject site to merchant builders. A Rezone is required to add FAR and
EIR-97-02 Addendum #2
04/26/0 I
l.-rr AJ Hrt'\r Ni r
amend the maximwn lot coverage development standards to the PC District Regulations for San
Miguel Ranch.
II. THE PROPOSED PC DISTRICT AMENDMENT
The proposed San Miguel Ranch PC District Regulations (zoning) Ordinance amendment would
add FAR <,levelopment standards and maximum building area values where none were previously
adopted, amend the approved maximum lot coverage standards, and would amend the Table of
Contents to reference the newly added development standards table and maximum building area
table. 'The maXimum building area forthe single-family (SF) land use districts (SFE, SFI, SF2,
SB, and SF4) would be defined, and maximum building areas for the SF5, SF A and multi-
family (MF) land use districts would be determined by approval of a future site plan. The
specific F ARs, maximum building areas (square feet), and lot coverage w?uld be i~entified in
the amended San Miguel Ranch PC, District Regulations.,y, The proposed amendments. would
affect the text of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Vol. 2 - PC District
Regulations. A redlined copy of the existing regulation is attached.
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (915162) establishes the conditions under
which a subsequent ErR shall be prepared_
A. When an ErR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent ErR 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:
I. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the ErR 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 ErR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New infonnation of substantial importance which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the ErR
was prepared." ,
B. If changes to a project or its circumstances oc<:ur or new infonnation becomes
available after preparation of an EIR, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent ErR
if required under subsection A. Otherwise the lead agency shall detennine whether to
prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration, an addendum or no further
documentation (Guidelines 915162)_
EIR-97-02 Addendum #2
2
04'26/0 I
Section IS] 64 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that:
A. The lead agency shall prepare an addendum (0 a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of tbe conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
B. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to tbe final EIR.
C. The decision-making body shall consider tbe addendum witb tbe final EIR prior (0
making a decision on tbe proj eel.
D. A brief explanation of tbe decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant. to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR; tbedewlagency's
required findings on tbe project, or elsewhere in tbe record. The explanation"must be
supported by substantial evidence.
This addendum has been prepared to pursuant to tbe requirements of Section 15164 of tbe State
CEQA Guidelines. The proposed amendments to tbe existing San Miguel Ranch PC District
Regulations Ordinance represent refinements to tbe development regulations and in some cases
are more restrictive. None of the amendments would result in a physical change to the
environment that has not already been addressed in the SEIR for San Miguel Ranch SPA and TM
(EIR 97-02).
Therefore. in accordance witb Section 15164 oftbe State CEQA Guidelines, the
City has prepared the following addendum to tbe Environmental Impact Report
for tbe San Miguel Ranch SF A and TM (EIR-97-02).
III. ANALYSIS
As discussed pre\iously, the proposed ariiendment further refines and is more restrictive tban tbe
existing development standards for San Miguel Ranch. The proposed development standards
would not increase the approved number of dwelling units, and tberefore would not result in an
increase in population. Thus, tbere would be no impact on utilities, services or recreational
needs that are primarily based on population. The proposed amendment would also have no
affect on the physical-enviionment beyond tbat which was analyzed in tbe previous EIR because
the amendment relates to development standards and does not change the approved development
area.. In fact, the proposed amendment may have a positive effect with respect to visual qu.a1ity
of residential development because the bulk and scale of structures and maximwn allowable area
for building coverage within residential lots would be regulated.
An Environmental Checklist Form was completed to determine if the proposed amendments to
the San Miguel Ranch PC District Regulatious would change any of the analyses contained in
EIR-97-02. The conclusion is that previously identified environment impacts would not be
intensified as a result of the amendments, nor would any new impacts result. A copy of the
checklist is attached.
EIR-97-02 Addendum #2
3
04/26/01
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based upon the above discussion, I
hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed project will result in only minor technical
. changes or additions which are necessary to make the Environmental Impact Report adequate
under CEQA.
~/~~~,
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Attacbments:
Redline of proposed text amendments to PC District Regulations
Environmental Checklist Form
References:
City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures
San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
San Miguel Ranch SPA and 1M SEIR (EIR 97-02)
EIR-97-02 Addendum #2
4
04/26/01
Case :\0. 15-01-030
E:\TVlRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Same as above
4.
Name of Proposal:
San Miguel Ranch
Planned Community (PC) District Regulations Amendment
5. Date of Checklist: April, 2001
PoteDtially
Pottlltislly Significant Les.stb20
Significant Unless SignifioDI "
Impact Mitig:ated Impact Imp:ac:!
I. LAl\'D USE Al\'D PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 @
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental pJans or 0 0 0 @
poJicies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 @
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts ITom
incompatibJe land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physicaJ arrangement of an 0 0 0 @
established community (including a Jow-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The proposed project is an amendment to the existing zoning regulations for San
Miguel Ranch. The proposed amendment further refines and is more restrictive than tbe existing
development standards for San Miguel Ranch.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) CumuJativeJy exceed officiaJ regional or Jocal
popuJation projections?
o
o
o
@
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
r()I~DII~I1~
f'olu.tiall~ SiCn.ifiC2.1I1 L..o:ulbaa
SiCDifiaDI UlI.ieu SicDirlcnl -';0
Impact Mitit"t<<i Impact Impatl
0 0 0 0
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed amendments would not increase the approved number of dwelling units
and would therefore not result in an increase in population.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 IRI
geologic substruc~es?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 IRI
overcovcring of the soil?
c) . Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 IRI
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any 0 0 0 0
unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 IRI
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 IRI
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 IRI
hazards such as eartbquakes, landslides, mud
slides. ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments:. The proposed amendment relates to development ~dards that would generally be
more restrictive than-allowed by the current PC District Regulations, . The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that_which was analyzed in the EIR.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 0 IRI
or the rate and amount of surface nmof!?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 IRI
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 IRI
of surface \yater quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxYgen or turbidity)?
..
2
"(>I~UIl3H~
f'("(,1J1I3U~ $ll:niriulJl ~lh311
SitUir,UlI1 l'nlt:U Sil:Dific3Dt '0
Imp:lC"l Mitil:lttd Imp:lt1 Imp:lCf
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 0
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 0
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 0
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 0
, groundwater?
,
f'
~. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 [8]
~:
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 0
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 0
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendmeut
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR.
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
o
c) Alter air movement, moisture, 0.- 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 aU- quality?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the cnrrent PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
wonld have nil affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyied in the EIR.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[8]
o
o
o
[8]
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or 1raffic congestion?
o
o
o
[8]
3
..- --...+--.---.....--....-^ "-"-
POIC"lltj:lU~
p('I~uri:oll~- SiCzUficnl Lculbau
SiJ:DirK.:lDI UlI.lus Si;_lfiant ~o
ImpaCI Milia::ued Impac1 Impact
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 0
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 0
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 0
e) Hazards or barriei-s for pedeslrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 0
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 0
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 0
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 0
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle lrips.)
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical em'iroument beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 0
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) LocaIJy designated species (e.g:,_heritage trees)? 0 0 0 0
c) LocaIJy designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 0
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) WetJand habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 0
pool)?
e) Wildlife clispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 0
1) Affect regional habitat preservation planning tJ 0 0 IRI
efforts?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the cnrrent PC District Regulation~ The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed iJi the EIR.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with. adopted energy conservation
plans?
o
o
o
o
4
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource
protection, will this project imp1'ct this
protection?
rOI~lJtia1t~
J'OI!'alu.U~- SiraiflulIl ~lb:aD
$iED.irtCIIDI u..~ Sir_muDI ~o
ImpaC't MitiplNi Imp:aC1 Impact
0 0 0 [R]
0 0 0 [R]
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that wonld generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the enrrent PC DistiiCt Regnlations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond thatwhich was analyzed in the EIR.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 r&I
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 [R]
response plan of emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 [R]
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 [R]
potentia] health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 [R]
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the cUI:rent PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would bave no affect on tbe physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the Ern.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 [R]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 r&I
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District RegIi1ations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the phySical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the Ern.
XI. PUBUC 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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools? '.
o
o
o
o
o
o
r&I
o
o
o
r&I
r&I
5
.._-_._-_.~_..._.- --_._-~-----..--_.
f'UI"DI,:oJl~
I'olralun~ Sj~o,flCJlal Leu Ib:oo
SitDif,cJOal Ualtlol 5iraif,c3DI ,"0
'_n Mititut'd Impac1 Impact
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 0
roads?
e) Other governmentaJ services? 0 0 0 0
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that wonld generally be
more restrictive than aIIowed by the current PC District Regulations., The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR.
XII. ThreshoJds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project docs not adversely impact any of the seen.Threshold
Standards.
a) FirelEMS
o
o
'0
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.
Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in
the EIR. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for Fire and
Emergency Medical Services beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment
would not affect the City's Threshold Standards.
b) Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority I
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I
calls of4.5 minutes or Jess. 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
of7 minutes or less.
o
o
o
o
Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in
the Em. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for Police Services
beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. The proposed amendment wonld not affect the City's
Threshold Standards.
c) Traffic
EJ
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 ofI-80S 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 rreeway ramps are exempted from this Standard.
Comments: The proposed amendment wonld not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in
the EIR. Thns, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon traffic generation beyond what
was analyzed in the Em. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold
Standards.
6
..-.-.. ..__......._,-_..__.--.._-,._~--..._.._-----_._._-_._._--~"_._,--
POf"IHi.aU~
SiCllirI.Clol
Imp"C1
f'of..oti.all~
Si~oifjUDI
L"oltu
Mitll:"f~
Lcsslb"D
Sira.irlulIl
Imp"C1
~o
Imp"CI
d) Parh..Recreation
o
o
o
@
The TIu-eshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I ,000 population.
Comments: The proposed amendment wQuld not increase dwelling units over what was analyzed in
the EIR-' Thus. the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the Ikcreage requirement for
recreational facilities beyond what was analyzed in the EIR.;' The proposed amendment would not
affect the City's Threshold Standards.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
@
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed
City. Engineering. Standards. IndividuaL projects ',. will, provide:.. necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and CitY Engineering
Standards.
Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling units over ""hat was analyzed in
the EIR- Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon storm water flows and volumes
beyond what was anaI)ozed in the Em. The proposed amendment would riot affeCt the City's
Threshold Standards.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
@
The Thresh01d Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects wi]) provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling unr.s over what was analyzed in
the EIR. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect npon sewage flows and volumes
beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. . The proposed amendment would not affect the City's
Threshold Standards.
g) Water
The TIu-eshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and tr.msmission
facilities are constructed concmrently with pl!!DDed growth and that Water quality
standards' are not jeopardized during growth and construction.- Applicants mayalso
be required to participate in whatever water conservati~n or fee off-set program the
City of ChuJa Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
o
o
o
@
Comments: The proposed amendment would uot increase the development area. or uumber of
dwelling units over what was analyzed in the EIR. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no
affect npon water storage, treatment or transmission facilities beyond what was .analyzed in the EIR.
The proposed amendment addresses development standards and thus would not' 3ffect the water
quality. As such, the proposed amendment would not affect the City's Threshold Standards.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systf'ms, or
substantial al/etations /0 the following utilities:
7
"DftDflalJ~
t'olrufi.:lII~- SituirlC:l.of ~Ib:lll
Sitnir'C:l.DI t:olC:$iJ 5i:lliliC:l.ol "
Impact ~iti::Ilrd Im~c:1 JmpaC1
oj Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 0
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 0
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 0
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 [RI
e) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 0
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 [RI
Comments: Tbe proposed amendment addresses development standards for San Mignel Ranch and
wonld not increase dwelling units. over what, was analyzed in. the, E~. Thu~ th~ proposed
amendment would have no affect upon the need for or demand upon' these utilities and services
beyond what was analyzed in the EIR. .
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 0
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
vi ew?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 0
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 0
d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 [RI
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
]9.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Tit]e 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 [RI
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive tha!" allowed by the current PC District Regulations. There would beno impact on
the physical "environment from the proposed amendment.c The restrictions on FAR and m"rlmum
bnilding coverage could have a positive effect on visual resources by restricting the maximum
bnilding area, bulk and building coverage on residential lots.
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, stmcture or object?
o
o
o
[RI
o
o
o
[RI
".
8
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? .
}>olccal,...II~
r()I~Dlull~ Sil;QifiC3DI Les.lIMO
$ij:DirlUat Unless Siz:a..irlC..1CI1 "
Impad Mltir:lI~ Jm~d Impatl
0 0 0 @
o
o
o
@
o
o
o
@
Comments: . The proposed amendment relates to development standards thafwonld generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the cnrrent PC Distpct Regulations.~ The proposed amendment
',-', -.. -- ...., "-,' ,'.- '," :",>-.. .., ....,..". '-' .... - .. .., -.. ."..,', ""-',-,""_" .'-,,',.- ~'-'- "~j'''^ - ':~- .'
wonld have DO affect on the physiealeiiviionint!nt beyond that whicl1:.",asanBIy-Zed:iit the EIR..
.. ',- <,'--,,'
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
projiosal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: The prop~sed. amendment relates to development standards that wonld generaUy be
more restrictive than aUowed by the cnrrent PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR.
o
o
.0
@
X\TI. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 @
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 @
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 @
plans or programs?
Comments: The proposed amendment would not increase dwelling nnits over what was
analyzed in the EIR. Thus, the proposed amendment would have no affect upon the demand for
recreational facilities or opportunities beyond what was analyzed in the EIR.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: _
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a.
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory? _.
9
o
o
o
@
~--_....~ ----.-+ --"--~._-_._---- -
POI!'Dlull~
SiCn.iriUDI
Impact
"O~"Drialt~.
SiCDlricaDI
UDleu
Mltir.ud
Leu rh:IIJ
Sfrairicur
J....~
.'.
Imp.t1
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the.EIR.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
. Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that 'l'i'onld generally be
more restrictive than allowed by'thecurrent PC DIstriCtRegwation$i,The proPosed amendment
wonld have no affect on the physical environment. beyond that which was analyzed in the Ern.
o
o
o
[R]
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumuhitively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of i project
are considerable when viewed in cOImection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probabJe future projects.)
o
o
o
[R]
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that would generally be
more restrictive than allowed by tbe current PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect on the pbysical environment beyond that which was analyzed in tbe EIR.
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: The proposed amendment relates to development standards that wonld generally be
more restrictive than allowed by the curre~t PC District Regulations. The proposed amendment
would have no affect On the physical environment beyond that which was analyzed in the EIR.
o
o
o
[R]
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be
implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
No mitigation measures are required for the proposed rezone other than those aJready required by the EIR.
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate tbatthey have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and win implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Fai]ure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the
10
County Clerk shall mdJcale the Appi1cants' and'or Operator's desire th3! the Project be held in abeyance
wnhOUl approyal and that Applicant(s) and/or Operalor(s) shaIJ apply for an Environmental Impact RepoI1.
Not Applicable
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
PTopcrty Owner
Signature of Authorized Representative of
Property Owner Name
Date
--:JiMkc;.~0~'~/!r;q~flJW/W16 ~bc'
Printed Name and Title of Operat
if different from Property Owner
Date
XXI. ENVIRONMEJ'.'TAL FACTORS POTENTL\LLY 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 Population and Housing
D Transportation/Circulation D Public Services
D Biological Resources D Utilities and Service
Systems
D Geophysical
D Water
D Energy and Mineral Resources D Aestbetics
D Hazards . D Cultural Resources
D .All- Quality
D Noise D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd 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 D
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 MlllGA TED
NEGATIVE DECL.'\R.A. TION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has. been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant Wlless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
o
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 ErR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An
addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this detennination.
[RJ
?1~A?t/N;)l~.
Signature
Date "i/31/19/
Environmental Review Coordinator
City ofChu]a Vista
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 1 of4
TABLE of CONTENTS
. (Continued)
/
PAGE
CHAPTER/SECfION
9.4
9.5
Chapter X
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
FIGURES
Parking Development Standards................................... .:................ .63
9.4.1 General Requirements. ............. ..... ...... ............ ... ........... ..... ..63
9.4.2 Special Requirements..................................... ................... ...64
Performance Standards........... ............... ..... ............ .... ... ............... .65
ADMINISTRATION................................................................. ...67
Pwpose................................................................................... .67
Standard Procedures.................................................................... .67
Administrative Review.................................................................. .67
Site Plan and Architectural Approval.. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. . .. . .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ..68
Conditional Use Permit Review..................................................... ....68
Other Provisions....................................................................... ....69
PAGE
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
TABLES
SPA Land Use District Plan.. ...... ...... ........ ....... ... ... ..... ....... ... ......... ....3
Measuring Locations for Building Setbacks.... ................ ............... ..... ...15
Measurements for Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks for Lots with
Internal Slopes.......................................................................... ....16
Measurement of Split Side Yard Requirements................. ..... ................ .17
PAGE
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-3A
Table 2-3B
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Table 2-9
Table 2-10
Chart of SPA Land Use Districts.................................. .......................5
Permitted Use Matrix-Residential Districts......................................... ...10
Development Standards - Residential Districts.......................................13
Development Standards - Residential Districts {Rev. 5/23/0l)................13A
Maximum Buildine Area........................................................... ..14B
Permitted Use Matrix-Commercial District.......................................... ..22
Development Standards - Commercial Districts................................... ...28
Permitted Use Matrix - Community Pwpose Facility District................... ...30
Development Standards - Community Pwpose Facility District................. ...32
Temporary Uses................................................................. ........ ...38
Off-Street Parking Requirements..... ......... ...... ...... ... ..... .... ... ........ ... .....61
Parking Table Design Standards........................................................ .64
San Miguel Ranch Spa Plan
NNP - Trimark Pacific San Miguel LLC
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
May 23. 2001
Page TOC-3
AiTAO-lMf,v'lTD Af}IJb/J(j.
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 4
Development Standards Table 2-3A (Revised 5/23/01)
Land Use Disbict SFE SFI SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SFA MFI
Min. Lot Area (square feet) 20,0001 7.000 6.000 ~ 5.000 II 4.500 b 4,000" SP- N/A
15.0001
Min. Lot Width (feet) ~
Measured 100 . 60 55 . 50' 50' SP SP N/A
Knuckle or cul-de-sac 40 35 35 35 35 SP SP N/A
Frontage
Flag lot frontage 20 20 20 20 20 SP SP NIA
Min. Lot Depth (feet)C 120 100 90 90 80 SP SP N/A
Maximum lot coverage 35 45 SO-45 >>50 55 SP SP SP
(percent)
Floor Area .45 .50 .55 .60 .60 SP SP SP
Ratio'
Front Yard Minimum Setback r
To house 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP
To direct entry garage 25 20' 20' 20' 20' SP SP SP
To side entry garage 25 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP
To porch 20 17 17 17 15 SP SP SP
Side Yard Minimum Setbacks (feet) (b
To adjacent residentiaJ lot 15/10' 1015' IO/Si 515 515 SP SP SP
To adjacent street (exterior 20 10 10 10 10 SP SP SP
side yard)
Rear Yard Minimum Setback (feet) 1:11
To houseJ 25' 20 15 15 15 SP SP SP
To garage with minimum 2Sj 15 5 5 5 SP SP SP
3D-foot driveway
Building Height Maximum 28 ft'l 28 ft'l 28 ft 'I 28 ft'l 28 ft'l 28 ft'l 28 ft'l 45 feetl
(fcet/# stories) 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 slories 2 stories 3 stories
P:arking Required (Off. 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 garage 2 assigned spaces. 1.5-1BR
2 gan.ge spaces. spaces I spaces. min. I covered. 2.0-2BR
S~t spaces per Unit)" spaces spaces spaces Guest- 0.33/ 2.5-3BR+
UnitO Guest- 0.33/
Unit"
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel LLC
IJA
May 23 200 I
~-~--,-".__._'-"-"--~--'--'-'-~-"-'---"--'--"--
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 4
Table 2-3A Notes:
a. Within the SFE Districts, including Planning Areas K and L, the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, however,
up to 25% of the lots may be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provided that the overa1t average lot size within Planning
Areas K and L is not less than 20,000 square feet.
b. Minimum lot area applies to the graded pad area of the lot (exclusive of slopes) in the SF3, SF4 and SF5 Districts.
Minimum pad area within the SF2 District shall be 5500 square feel
c. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly with irregularly shaped lots and site specific conditions.
Such variations are subject to approval of a variance, except where the variance requirements can be fulfilled by site plan
review required by other provisinns of these regulations. Minimums such as lot width and depth may not be used in tandem
where they would result in lot area which does not meet the minimum lot area requirement.
d. The minimum lot width in SFE areas may be reduced to 90 feet for lots which are less than 20,000 square feet as allowed by
Note lIa'" above.
c. For lots with minimum widths of 55 feet or Jess, the minimum width standard shall apply to the level pad area (exclusive of
any side slope within the lot) and for purposes of this provision, the minimum width may be measured at the building line at
the front yard setback.
f. Architectural features, such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, niches up to 12 feet in length, balconies, steps, stairways, or bay
windows may project not more than four feet into any required front or rear yard area, and not more than two feet into any
required side yard.
g. May be reduced to 18 feet with use of roll-up garage door, except that in no case shall the distance to the nearest edge of
sidewalk be less than 20 feet.
h. Building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-3, which includes the following provisions:
The minimum level area within any side yard shall be 5 feet to top or toe of slope or base of wall for lots with internal slopes.
The maximum height of a retaining wall in a side yard is 3 feet.
The maximum height of a retaining wall in a rear yard is 5 feet, and where a retaining wall is greater than 3 feet high, a minimum 4-
foot horizontal separation is required between the retaining wall and a freestanding fence or wall.
The rear yard setback shall be based on the level pad area, measured from the top or toe of slopes for lots with internal slopes.
i. Where there are slopes within the side yard of a lot. building setbacks shall be measured per Figure 2-4.
j. In situations where the lot configuration has irregular angles, or otherwise results in an odd- shaped lot or building pad,
these minimums may be reduced subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building.
k. The minimum rear yard setback is increased to 50 feet for all lots in Planning Area L whose property line(s) abut the
SPA boundary of San Miguel Ranch.
I. Building Height may be increased to 35 feet with Site Plan approval.
m. Parking standards for Senior Citizen or "affordable" residential development may be reduced from those specified in
the District in which it will be located. Such a reduction shall be at the discretion of the City Council through the
Conditional Use Permit procedure (CVMC 19.14.080), and subject to a parking study prepared by a registered traffic
engineer to ensure adequate parking will be provided.
n. Guest parking is encouraged to be provided for single family products, in addition to onsite driveway spaces, either on
the street where width allows, or in designated parking bays.
o. Required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall
not be pennitted to be assigned to individual dwelling units.
"P." "The allowable buUdinl!" area for construction of dweIlin2s. or any remodelin2 or additions to dwellin2s for each
lot shall be as determined in table 2~3B below. The maximum buildin2 area for sine:le familv detached and
attached products. e:arae:es.. and other accessory structures shall be the SQuare footae:e listed or that permitted
bv the oercentae:e of lot area. whicbever is less. Homeowner additions sball be allowed onIv where consistent
with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall he permitted on each
residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. All residential development proposals are
subiect to-review for consistencY with the San Mi2uel Ranch Desie:n Guidelines. Residential Desie:n Guidelines
Section 4.5 (Sinele Familv) or Section 4.6 (Multi-Family)."
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 - PC District Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific. San Miguel LLC
14A
May 23, 2001
_._"._----+---_._~._._._...._....._._..._..._,.._"--_._--..-.....---..-------..
Ordinance No.
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 4
Table 2-3B: Maximum BuUdinl! Area
San Floor Area Maximum
Miguel Ratio Building Area
Ranch (F.A.R.) (Sa. Ft)
District
SFE .45 NIA*
SF! .50 4500
SF2 .55** 4300
SF3 .60** 4000
SF4 .60** 3100 (E)***
3500 (G)
SF5 SP SP
SF A SP SP
MF SP SP
Table notes:
*
Maximum allowable buildinl! area will be rel!ulated by coyeral!e and setback rel!ulations in tbe SFE
Land Use District.
** The maximum allowable F.A.R.'s in the SF2, SF3 and SF4 Districts are as follows. Lots numbers are
as shown on Chula Vista Tract 99-04, approved 2/29/00 (Tentative Map PCS- 99-04):
SF2: .60 for lots 1-21,38-40, and 43-5t in Neil!hborhood I.
SF3: .65 for lots 6-8, 11-15, and 37-41 in Neil!hborhood H.
SF4: .65 for lots 109-119 in Neil!hborhood E.
*** In the SF4 District, the Maximum allowable buildinl! area shall be 3100 square feet in Neil!hborhood
E and 3500 square feet in Neil!hborhood G .
SP - Standards to be determined concurrently with Site Plan and Architectural approval.
San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan
Volume 2 -- PC District Regulations
NNP - Trimark Pacific, San Miguel-LLC
14B
May 23 200 1
-- ----_....--,_.~
-_....__.._._.__.~-,_..._..,.._.
~i;
; I:
!
/
/
J
J
I
J
lOCA~ON I J
! J
, .--I
I !
I !
U
i
PROJECT
\
>"
/
'"
~
---c;
S?~f'~
,.V,~,<
\' ",:--
CO:.J~'TY OF SAN DI::GD
'1:1T':'OF~HI.1!:A'ViS1.c./
I
I
I
~i~~-
;:..~~
~::^-<
,~~~~~
.'\
'\
CHUlA VISTA PLANNING AND BUilDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT City of Chula Vista PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Q) APPUCANT: San Miguel Ranch
PROJECT North-of Proctor Valley Rd Request To approve amendments and additions to the
ADDRESS: & West of Rolling HiI!s Ranch San Miguel Ranch planned community district regulations
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: (zoning) to add floor area ratio development standards and
NORTH No S::ale ?CM-01-07 amend buiiding coverage development standards.
h:\hQme\:::::s~r.l'ig\C2i:)CS\:::2t:1is\pcm01 Ora.car 03. i 2.C;1
A Tf AC+t fv1 t= !\j T 2.
~
...
~
"
5 IS ~ ~
~! u
i~~ H~
iiii!in
C ;I:O;li;li ~ is is:o
Z '" B !S!S it i5 i5 ~
w... "'f!'
CJ !'ifs5fsA.:trhcn
W ZOOw
....I
I!! ~
~ "
:a S
~~~~~>->
n---~~
n~n~~
~~~;~~;
~;;~zzzCJ
In '" In iO in iii ~
~u:~~(t~~
(I,IU)U)CI)(I,IU)U)
~r . I' '-.
,-
N
.
,
It
o
.
cO
~;,:
5J.~
~>
LL
~
--....
a:
I-N
ch'iJ
o
"
" "-
"-, '.
~
~~
5!~i!:
i~~
",;,:5
C!J::I~
ilio"
","'Z
:;:"'5
M..E:EuI
f;~81i
~hn
i ~~~i
" ' ~ ~"5::E
,~ Q I&.=i~ ......
i i!i O:lcu
S! ~ ~~~~ ~
~ i f~!!I~ ....
Z ~ !5.~z b/)
~ ~ ~!(~g -,-.4
~ ~ m~~~ J~~f ~~
" ~ hh r {,.)
~ i! iC ~il ~ ~
~ II, C/)~
!
w S
ZV~
..
A-1TI
"^ &-1
z
:s
0..
r-
o
0:
r-
(f)
o
w
(f)
:J
o
Z
::s
M
1;
.
..
N
~
3
ATfACHME~T 4
Description of Residc=nrial Land Use Districts Table
Land Use District Approved Dwelling Land Use SummaJ)' Desaiption
Symbol Planning Area(s) Units
-Name
FE- L: 73
Single Family Estate: L.K Single-Family Detached Homes on 1arge 10ts. Standard
K.: 84 minimum lot size is 20,000 s.f., except that up to 25% of
the IOta] number of 10ts, may be a minimum of 15,000
square feet (s.f.), if an average lot size of 20,000 s.f. is
nWntaincd.
SFI - J Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum 10t size of
162 7,000 ..f.
Single Family One
SF2 - I 107 Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot size of
Single Family Two 6.000 s.( and minimum pad size of 5.500 s.f.
SF3 I F:.46 Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot and
F.H pad size of 5,000 s.f.
Single Family Th~c H: L;}
I E: l.i..;.
SF4. E. G Single-Family Detached Homes with minimum lot and
! i H. ... pad size of 4,500 s.f.
Sing1e FamiJy rOUT I
- , I
SF5 - 1". ~ Singlc-Famiiy Detach~d Homes with minimum Jot and
, , ~ i .-.
i , pad size of 4.000 s.f. anached homes or tov.TIhom=:s.
I Si;-,gie Faroi!;- F:\-:: , I
SFA.
3
:: ~ S ~
Singie Family attached umt.s such as tov.-TJnomes or
condominiums.
SingJe Famiiy
A nached
c
10:5-
Singh~ Fami1y attached units such as townhom~s 2nd
condominiums or high dOlSity single-family d~tach~d
units such as patio hom:s., zero-lot-line. courtyard. or
duster units., or dctached condominiums.
MF-
MuJti-Fami1y
A
1129.
Multi-family housing dwelling units fOT sale OT rent with a
density not to exceed 18 units per gross acre:.
TOTAL
DWELLING UNITS
1~94
.. Devcloprnr:nt in these Land Use Districts requires approval of a Site Plan/Architectural Review application and actuaJ dwelling
unit yield may be: less than the amount snovm.
A"IT At-vi .'-" e- (If I Lf
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: .3
Meeting Date: OS/23/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-O 1-04, to develop nine lots
for single-family homes, at the western extension of EI Loro Street -
Applicant: Dan Irwin.
Developer requests approval for a nine (9)-lot subdivision known as Vista Del Loro, a western
extension ofEI Loro Street. The project site is located in an existing single-family residential (R-I-7)
Zone, with a Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Low /Medium Density Residential
(6 - II dwelling units per acre), and a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium
Residential (6 - II dwelling units per acre).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Resource ConselVation Commission
has determined that the Initial Study was adequate and recommended adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration on April 16, 2001. The public comment period as noticed by the Environmental
Review Coordinator regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ended on May 10, 200 I.
The final adoption of the MND is subject to review at the Planning Commission public hearing, with
final approval at the City Council public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCS-01-04
(attached) recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Vista
Del Loro Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the conditions of approval (including the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program measures).
DISCUSSION:
I. Site Characteristics
The site is an undeveloped two-acre portion of property that was recently consolidated from three
separate vacant parcels or large portions of parcels that are presently vacant. The combined parcels
slope steadily rrom the northwest to the southeast.
The site has been previously filled, and there are no cultural or paleontological resources known to be
present, and the site was previously used to pasture horses and raise hay. Additional fill soil
(approximately 17,000-cubic yards) will be provided to create a level western extension ofEl Loro
Street and to develop the pads for the lots on the south side ofEI Loro Street (lots I through 4).
The extension ofEl Loro Street will complete the development of an area that has only one available
access point to a public right-of-way at the western dead end ofEl Loro Street. The surrounding area
is fully developed and existing backyards will abut the new subdivision. The existing single-family
homes rront Preston Place to the north, Morehouse Place to the south, Fourth Avenue to the west,
and EI Lugar Street and El Loro Street to the east.
."._.._..___+.__..___.______nu.._
Page ~ Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/01
2. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
ZONING:
R-I
R-I
R-I
R-I
R-I
CURRENT LAND USE: .
Vacant Undeveloped Land
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
3. Proposal
The proposal is to develop nine single-family homes on nine lots. The lot sizes range rrom 7,000-sq.
ft. to 1O,000-sq. ft. The building pad area or net usable lot area (where construction can occur
including the required setbacks) range in size rrom 5,232-sq. ft. to 7,992-sq. ft.
The applicable R-I-7 standards applicable require a subdivision to provide a minimum of7,000-sq. ft.
per lot. The standards allow up to 10 percent to be reduced to a minimum of 5,000-sq. ft. and 20
percent to be reduced to a minimum of 6,000-sq. ft., as long as the total average of all lots is a
minimum of7,000-sq. ft.
In this subdivision, the average lot size is 7,81 O-sq. ft., and no lot is less than 7,000-sq. ft. However,
a proposed storm-water drainage area in the southeast comer or the subdivision will moderately
impact the usable lot areas oflots I through 4.
As mentioned above, additional fill soil (approximately 17, OOO-cubic yards) is needed to create a level
western extension ofEI Loro Street and to develop the pads for the lots on the south side ofEI Loro
Street (lots I through 4).
This storm drainage area will be designed to percolate storm water run-off for the entire subdivision
as well as Preston Place. This will be done in order to reduce the quantity of storm water run-off
rrom the development to an amount equal to or less than the present I OO-year rrequency run-off rrom
Preston Place and on-site.
An easement will prohibit the individual property owners oflots I through 4 rrom paving or installing
fixed accessory structures on building pads or slabs within the storm drainage easement to the rear of
their properties. However, the individual property owners oflots I through 4 will be allowed provide
additional landscaping elements and even construct view decks on piers at the top of slope if they so
desire.
The landscaping enhancements that will be installed by the developer in this storm drainage basin and
2: I slope will mirror the currently existing vegetation on the other side of the slope, including trees,
shrubs, and groundcover, as required by the conditions of approval.
The EI Loro Street landscape parkway and sidewalk improvements will be continued into the
proposed subdivision. A revised tentative subdivision plan and final map will show the landscape
_.._~.. .,_. -_._._--~,,_.__.._-
_ "'~~'__H_"_'__ p___ _
Page 4 Item:
Meeting Date: 05/23/01
parkway located between the sidewalk and the curb, with a minimum width of 5-ft. to allow for the
planting of an optimal street tree species. The sidewalks will also be 5-ft. wide to the match the
existing condition. The revised tentative subdivision plan and final map may show the property lines
to be located directly behind sidewalk. The total City right-of-way required is 56-ft. wide, which is a
continuance of the existing 35-ft. wide road bed between faces of 6-inch wide curbs for EI Loro
Street.
4. Analvsis
The subdivision appears to be a good fit considering the site characteristics. The area has remained
undeveloped for many years. Due to the poor circulation of the neighborhood street system, a cul-de-
sac completion of EI Loro Street is the only option available without affecting the adjacent property
owners whose rear yards face the subdivision on all sides.
The minimum 7,OOO-sq. ft. size of the lots conform to the zoning code. The street fi-ontage for each
lot meets the minimum required for lots facing the street (60-ft.) or on a cul-de-sac (35-ft.). The
setbacks prescribed by the building envelopes shown meet or exceed the requirements for fi-ont (15-
ft.) rear (20-ft.) and side yard (IO/3-ft.) setbacks.
The design of the lots will also conform to the Subdivision Manual. There is only one exception to
the typically prescribed lot design requirements, in that the lot lines for lots I through 4 will be
located at the toe or beyond the top of slope. However, this exception is allowed by the Subdivision
Manual whenever a subdivision boundary is at the toe of the slope, as long as the toe is setback a
sufficient distance to allow for the maintenance of a lower level basin located beyond the toe of slope.
The design and maintenance mechanism for a basin located at the toe of slope within a subdivision
must be in conformance with standards approved by the City Engineer and subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
In this case, the toe of slope is setback sufficiently to comply with the need to complete a IOO-year
fi-equency nm-off storm drainage catch basin. The rear property lines run through the center of the
proposed storm drainage catch basin. The conditions of approval require that an easement will be
obtained on both sides of the subdivision property line, with the need for permission to be granted
fi-om the property owners on Morehouse Place to complete the protection of the 1 OO-year fi-equency
run-off storm drainage catch basin. This should be easily accomplished since the area is already
landscaped and maintained for such a stonn drainage area in the current existing condition.
As stated above, additional fill soil (approximately 17, OOO-cubic yards) will be provided to extend EI
Loro Street and develop the pads for the lots 1 through 4. As a result, it is necessary to create a 2: 1
slope for stann-water drainage in the southeast comer or the subdivision. This will moderately
impact the usable lot areas ofIots I through 4; however, this area is still considered usable lot area in
that the individual property owners will be allowed to use this area as well as provide additional
landscaping elements. The individual property owners will even be able to construct view decks on
piers at the top of slope if they so desire. The only exception or constraint to the further development
of this area is that individual property owners will not be able to pave or install fixed accessory
structures on building pads or slabs within the stann drainage easement to the rear of their properties.
Page 4 Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/01
Finally, the continuation of the EI Loro Street landscape parkway and sidewalk improvements is a
positive response to the existing condition. Currently, there is a 4-1/2-ft. wide parkway between the
curb and a 5-ft. sidewalk that is currently without street trees. The conditions of approval will require
that the ex1ended landscape parkway be widened to 5- ft. to allow for the planting of an optimal tree
species.
CONCLUSION: The Vista Del Loro tentative subdivision, based on the required subdivision
map findings and subject to the conditions of approval noted in the attached draft City Council
Resolution, will be a vast improvement to an undeveloped piece of property that has been languishing
in its currently underutilized state for a number of years.
In addition, the development will provide new large lot opportunities (lot sizes between 7,000 -
10, OOO-sq. ft.), in contrast to what is predominately available in eastern Chula Vista. Moreover, there
are few mass-produced tract home subdivisions located in this area. Therefore, the large-sized single-
family homes will meet a need for such a housing typology within the Montgomery Specific Plan area
(former County of San Diego annexed territory) of western Chula Vista.
In sum, the Vista Del Loro subdivision will provide a needed new single-family housing opportunity
for potential homeowners seeking to live closer to long established shopping areas, schools, parks,
libraries, and job centers.
Attachments:
I. Locator Map
2. Tentative Subdivision Map (with un-revised parkway/right-of-way section)
3. Environmental Documents (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study)
4. Application Documents and Disclosure Statements
5. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, PCS-OI-04
6. Draft City Council Resolution (Subdivision Findings and Conditions of Approval)
C:\Mv DOCUMENTSIPCS-OI-04REPORT.DOC
SOUTH
CHULA VISTA
LIBRARY
ffiffiHHB
~~
~ PROJECT DBL 0 FISH PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPUCANT: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PROJECT EI Loro Street
ADDRESS: Request: Proposed construction of (9) single family detached
- homes on 2.03 acres (minimum 7,000 square foot lots).
= LOCATOR FILE NUMBER:
No Scale PCS - 01-04
C:\myfiles\locators\PCS0104.cdr 11/13/00
MAIL TO:
City of Chul ;ta
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Mari]yn Ponseggi
NOTICE
OF PROPOSED IVllTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(FINDING OF NO SIGNIF1CANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC1)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a recommendation that the
project herein identified wi]] have no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section ]5070 of
State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (findings) is on file in the Chula Vista
Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chu]a Vista, CA 9]910. This document is available for public
review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
This proposed finding does not constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it only determines if the
project could have significant environmental impact. Projects, which could have significant impact, must
have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with
Section] 5064 of State CEQA Guidelines.
If YO!l_ wish to cha]]enge the City's action on this Mitigatej1 Negative Declaration in court, you may be t',\
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised In written correspondence. Any comments on l h
this Mitigated Negative Declaration must be presented in 'II/riting to the Environmenta] Review Coordinator. V.J
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. CA 9]910. prior to 5:00 p.m. on May ]0.2001. "
For further information concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Edalia Olivo-
Gomez (6]9) 69]-5257.
This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL J'>HJMBERS:
6]9.290-]6,18, and 20
PROJECT LOCATION:
At the westerly terminus of El Loro Street, between
Palomar and Quintard Streets
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project consists of a proposed Tentative Map for a nine (9) lot single family residential
subdivision on a 2.03 acre parcel ofIand in the City ofChula Vista. The parcel ofIand was created
by an approved Adjustment Plan (No. 00.10). Approval.ofthe proposed subdivision would divide
the three existing legal lots into nine legal lots. The property is zoned R -I Single Family Residential
and designated LM-Low Medium Residential on the City's General Plan. The required minimum lot
size is 7,000 square feet.
DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY:
City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
INITIAL STUDY NO.:
IS-0]-08
DATE:
04/11/01
H:\HOME\PLA.NNrNG\EDALlA \ISnotices\IS-O l-08.2ProposedMNDnotice.doc
~
'\
~
~
'\
\J
I
~
i
.~
~
'1
f
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
VISTA DEL LORO SUBDlVISION
PROJECT LOCATION:
Tenninus of EI Loro Street, North of Quintard
Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
619-290-16,18, and 20
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Dan Irwin aka Dbl D. Fish
CASE NO.:
1S-0 1-08
DATE:
April I 1,2001
A. Project Setting
The 2.03-acre project site is a rectangular shaped parcel located at the tenninus of EI Loro
Q!reet, north of Quintard Street, between 3'd and 4t~Avenues (Exhibit A -Locator Map). The
site is vacant and partially surrounded by chain link fencing. The site was previously filled
and used to pasture horses and to raise hay. The surrounding area is fully developed with the
following uses:
North
East
West
South
Single-family residential;
Single-family residential;
Single-family residential; and
Single-family residential.
The site is gently sloping and contains non-native plant material. No listed plant or animal
species is known to occupy the site or surrounding area. The site has been previously filled
and no cultural or paleontological resources are known to be present.
B. Project Description
The proposed project is a 9-lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. (Exhibit B
- Tentative Map). The proposed lot sizes range ITom a minimum of 7,000 sq.ft. to a
maximum of 10,969 sq.ft. The average lot size is 7,850 sq. ft. and the proposed density is
4.43 du/gross acre. The current configuration of the site was created through a previously
approved Adjustment Plat (No. 00. I 0). Approval of the proposed subdivision would divide
the three existing legal lots (APN 619-290-16, 18,20) into nine legal lots.
Development ofthe site requires the importation 15,800 cu.yds. of fill material to create level
building pads. Streets, sewer, stonn drainage, water, and other public utIlities would be
provided to each lot. Dwelling units are proposed to be approximately 1,900 sq. ft. and 28-
feet in height.
0411 I/O I
\
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the R-I-7 (Single-family Residential) zoning
designation, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. The proposed project is also
consistent with the LM (Low Medium Residential) General Plan designation (3-6 du/gross
ac.), and the City's environmental plans and policies. The project is located in the
Montgomery Specific Planning Area, which designates the site as Low-Medium Residential
(3-6 duJac). Proposed dwelling units are in compliance with the Municipal Code .andare
, "'. . . \... ..
subject to review and approval bytbe Design Review Committee . '\;-( R ~~ ~
D. Public Comments
On November 27, 2000 a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within
500-foot radius ofthe proposed project site. The public period ended December 7,2000. No
written comments were received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vi~ta (including an attached Environmental
dfecklist fonn) detennined that although the proposed project could have a significant
environmental effect, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation
measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. 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.
1. Air Quality
Constr.uction-Related Impacts
The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during construction-
related activities to result in a short-tenn significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality.
During the construction phase of the project, short-tenn emissions of several types of air
pollutants would occur. Dust would be generated and the combustion of fossil fuels by
construction equipment would create emissions. Fugitive dust would also be created due
to clearing, earth movement, and travel on unpaved surfaces. Although air quality
impacts resulting from construction related emissions are potentially significant, tbey are
considered short-tenn in duration since construction is a relatively short-tenn, one-time
activity.
Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).'.. During
construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation meilSurc;:s outlined
below in Section F. .
""..1.\..1'. 'Po
" -~
2
04/11/0 I
2. Geophysical
Construction-Related Impacts
Short-term erosion of the cut and fill slopes could result in significant, but mitigable,
downstream sedimentation impacts. Although erosion impacts resulting from
construction activity and grading are potentially significant, they are considered short-
term in duration since construction is a relatively short-term, onetime activity. During
construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined
below in Section F.
3. Paleontological Resources
Construction-Related Impacts
The proposed project could result in significant paleontological impacts because an eight-
foot cut slope in the southwest comer of the site would be required to create level
building pads along the southern property boundary (see Section III above). The site is
underlain by fill soils and slopewash to a maximum depth of four feet over sandstone of
the Bay Point formation and "unnamed marine sandstone (terraces)."). The Bay Point
--. Formation and "unnamed marine terrace depoSits" have been found to contain a diverse
and well-preserved assemblage of marine invertebrate fossils and rare vertebrate fossils
and are assigned a high resource sensitivity. During construction of the project, the
project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in Section F.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant leveL The mitigation measures will be
made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Attachment "A").
AIR QUALITY
Construction Related Impacts
I. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spiIJs.' .
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the project shall
be enforced. . . .
3
04/1 I/O I
\.
,
,
4. On dry days, dirt aIL .lebris spilled onto paved surfaces shal. ~ swept up immediately to
reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes
to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydro seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible
and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
7. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic
reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment
shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available
and feasible. .
GEOPHYSICAL
Construction Related Impacts
. -
I ~- Temporary desilting and erosion control devi~s shall be installed as specified on the
Tentative Map. These devices include desilting basins, benns, hay bales, silt fences,
dikes, and shoring. Protective devices will be provided at every stonn drain inlet to
prevent sediment rrom entering the stonn drain system.
2. Additional erosion control measures will be installed as required by the City Engineer
due to uncompleted grading operations or unforeseen circumstances that may arise.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction Related Impacts
I. A qualified a paleontologist will be retained to implement a paleontological monitoring
and recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract. A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with and MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology that is a recognized expert in the identification and recovery of fossil materials.
2. .The qualified paleontologist will attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss
project-grading plans with the project contractor(s). If the qualified paleontologist
detennines that proposed excavation/grading will likely cut into undisturbed portions of
the Tertiary San Diego fonnation, then monitoring will be conducted as outlined below.
3. The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor will be on-site (luring original
cutting of the above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an
individuaLyihohas.experienceincollection and salvage offossil materials, and who is
working under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted
geologic units will be at least half time at the beginning of excavation, and will be either
increased or decreased depending on initial results (per direction by the project
paleontologist).
4
04/11/01
4. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, tbe project paleontologist will
have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in tbe discovery
area to allow recovery in a timely manner (typically on tbe order of I hour to 2 days). All
collected fossil remains will be cleaned, sorted and catalogued, and deposited in an
appropriated scientific institution such as the San Diego Museum of Natural History.
5. A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) summarizing the result, analyses and
conclusions of the above described monitoring/recovery program will be submitted to tbe
City of Chula Vista Planning Department within three montbs of terminating monitoring
activities.
I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in this Section (F) of tbis
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
~J4J~ ?Ac~
06 L L> F/5t-f
,--!_if-<>,
Name, Title
Date
-'
"-
5
04/11/0 I
-., -'~"--".'~"'--'---."'-"'~"""-'---~"--'''---'-''.--..-.-....,.---
\
G. Consultation
L City ofChula Vista:
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi, Planning Division
Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Planning Division
Doug Perry, Fire Marsha1l
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department
Beverly Blessent, Planning Division
Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department
M.J. Donne1ly, Engineering Department
Applicant's Agent:
Dan Irwin
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code, September 1997
--
3. 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 ChuJa Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is
available ITom the ChuJa Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
CA 91910.
~r
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date:
"'I"jol
6
04/1110 I
,-,-,~,-",--,,--,--,~--,--,--,'~-_.'"~-'--"'-"--"-'~,-'~._"-' .-..-..
IJ:7
~
-
=
No Scale
PROJECT DBL 0 FISH
APPUCANl:
PROJECT EI Loro Street
ADDRESS:
LOCATOR
FILE NUMBER:
IS-01-OB
C:\myfiles\locators\IS010B.cdr 11/13/00
SOUTH
CHULA VISTA
LIBRARY
EHHffiHE
~[!3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
INITIAL STUDY
Request Proposed construction of (9) single family detached
homes on 2.03 acres (minimum 7.000 square foot lots).
~~--<
.'
. I ~ a I !
~'Il! Ii i
".1; Iii Ii
ill = III" ~ ~~~
:, ~:I i 1.1 ~ II,!
( ~hlill_11II1
~ :! =: ~!I! II -a= II II ..
~~--
~~&' W
,
\
.
II
~
i
j
~
I
.
~, i
.!i'~ I I
: I.. . J
rw I '
! !~
, i II li:g"
i i
1111 .
" ~ PSI
" lillill
:) II
'!-'- II
t ,aZ.1
E-+ : i .. oJ
r, i H .
- '-' .~.. a ~
~ :' f1
E-+ +{ '_. e
~~ .~I
............4 I f
;> I
I
~ ~ 'k~~--_~ J ~
....... _ m
.....~ ) ~
U E-+ ' ;;
1m. I >.%~
p-. ......... f:
~;>
:::g
.
o
Z
~
;>
.......
E-+
~
E-+
Z
~
E-+
"3 .
II II
II ; I
.. I
1'1
. ff I-
!\',\~-,
1'1
.
~
~
.ot..._;:!!I!~
~)
~.
I
,0; G" -.,,, ~ n H ! B B .
"'>I:i
t:~
g U!BH!H
EI 0
"
n 0
.- 9 ~ _ .. . _ _ _ ..
~
~
~
~
---~---------
:' ;;:-=:c ;<:'/~
i ~
,..
~!l'I 'D!
- _._--~---
i-r--
.
~ .0>," _
t
.
I
"
;.:.: '"' '\
:: -;:: ~ "'"
-iU___ ~
~
-'"
t, Z :;,
~, ~- t5 ,~
, ,;. ~ :.:
:.3 L:. ~.--.,
_.
.--/..-"",/
~
_._" ......__"_....._. 0' ___. . __._____.____'m..
Case No.IS-01-08
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Dan Irwin aka Dbl D Fish
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 7449 Girard Ave.
San Diego, CA 92037
(619) 840-7716
4. Name of Proposal: Vista De Loro Subdivision
5. Date of Checklist: April 11, 2001
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments: The proposed 9-lot subdivision is consistent with the R-I (Single-family Residential) zoning
designation, LM (Low Medium Residential) General Plan designation, and the City's environmental plans
and policies. The project is also consistent witb tbe Montgomery Specific Plan, which designates tbe site
as Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac).
~
:.c,
I.
LAND USE AND PLANNING.
proposal:
Would the
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)?
Potentially
Signific:ult
Impact
Potentially
SipifiUDt
Un....
Mitigated
No
Impact
Lou tUn
S'J.gnif"lCIIIt
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The site is a rectangular:shaped parcel encompassing 2,03, acres., The ,site is ~a.cant an4 a pOl-pOn ofthe
site was previously used as a horse pastui-e and for growing hay; however, the site has not been used for
commercial agriculture., The surrounding area js)i.tlly develope~~tb resi_de~tialuses:; Theproposed .
subdivision would not change tbe physical arrangement oftbe community. . ....,..
Mitigation: No mitigation is required. .
-".,"{."
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
I
. ".)"-..
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4ill/O I
Potentially
Pot~DtiaUy Significant Las than
Significant UnI", Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 t;I
housing?
Comments: The project is an infill development surrounded by existing residential development and does
not involve an extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. No existing housing
units would be displaced. Development of 9 single-family units is consistent with the General Plan and
would not exceed the regional or local population projections.
Mitigation: No mitigation is required
llI. 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?
0 0 0 t;I
0 0 t;I 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o
o
o
t;I
Comments:A"Soils Investigation" completed for the property reports that the site is underlain by fill
soils and 'i;lopewash to a'maximum depth of four feet over sandstone of the Bay Point fonnation and
Unnamed Marine SandStorie: '.An 'expansion test of the soils indicates that the' soils have a low potential
for expansion. Groundwater is' anticipated at a depth greater than 100 feet, and the site has a low potential
for liquefaction. The Engineering Department, as a standard requirement of grading permit approval,
requires !bat a geotechnical/soils study be prepared and that !be report's recommendations be incoiporated
into !be final grading plan.
The site slopes downward from west to east; elevations on the site range from 110 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL) at the western property boundary to 94 feet AMSL at !be southeast comer of the property.
To create level building pads along the southern property boundary requires an eight-foot cut slope in the
southwest comer of the site and an II-foot fill slope in the southeast comer of the site. To create these
building pads (Lots 4-9), 15,800 cu.yds. of fin material would be imported.
2 4/1 1/0 I
Potenti:lUy
Significant
1m"""
Potentially
SigWfica!lt
V.....
Mitipted
No
1m"""
Lesstban
Signiflant
Itnp:.ict
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to be implemented during and after construction to
prevent erosion and sedimentation in the downstream stonn drain system. All grading operations will be
perfonned in compliance with the City ofChula Vista Grading Ordinance (Ordinance 1797, as amended).
Short-tenn erosion of the cut and fill slopes could result in significant, but mitigable, downstream
sedimentation impacts. Altbough erosion impacts resulting from construction activity and grading are
potentially significant, they are considered short-tenn in duration since construction is a relatively short-
tenn, onetime activity. During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation
measures outlined below in Section XIX.
Potentiallong-tenn erosion impacts would be avoided than significant level through the planting and
irrigation of slopes as required by the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797, as
amended by Ordinance 1877. Landscaping will be installed as shown on tbe Conceptual Landscape.Plan
as approved by the City Landscape Architect. Finish grading and planting will be accomplished prior to
October 1, or immediately upon completion of any slopes graded between October 1 and April I.
The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone; the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is approximately 21
mil~s to the north, and the La Nacion earthquake faull- is approximately three miles to the east.
Compliance with the Unifonn Building Code requirements:would avoid potentially significant geologic
impacts. No significant geophysical effects would result from construction of the subdivision.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
leve1.
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?
t) . Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
· th~ough' direct additions. or withdrawals, or
throu,ghinterception 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
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
p
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4/1 1/01
Pot~Dliau,.
SignitkaDt
1m.."
~teJIti.any
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Lao.ol.han
Significant
1m.."
No
Impact
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Comments: A "Preliminary Drainage Study" (DGB Survey & Mapping, 2/13/01) prepared for the
proposed project reports that under existing conditions the runoff from the site during a 50-year storm is
11.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). EJdsting surface run-off from the site includes drainage from areas to
north, west and east. The run-off is concentrated at the southeast corner of the site and drains to a 21-inch
storm drain across lot 29 of Map No. 5542, and then discharges through a curb outlet into El Lugar Street.
The proposed development would increase the runoff from the site to 13.4-cfs (an increase of 1.7 cfs).
Existing runoff from the north, east and west would be collected at a curb inlet at the end of Preston Place
and a brow ditch that would connect to an 18-inch storm drain in EI Loro Street. On-site runoff would be
collected in curb inlets connected to the El Loro Street storm drain.. Runoff would be conveyed by the
storm drain to a retention basin located in the southeast corner of the site.
The retention basin will be formed between the existing slope of the lots at the end of Morehouse Place
and the slope at the rear of the proposed building pads. An earthen dam with 2: I slopes is proposed to
create the retention basin. The maximum height of the dam would be eight feet. The westerly face of the
dam would be covered with rock slope protection, and the side slopes of the basin would be planted with
an ipproved ground cover for erosion protection. The rete~i'on basin, with a capacity of9,700 cubic feet,
would retain all runoff from the site. A six-inch pipe installed at the base of the proposed dam would
drain the basin at the rate of 1.44 cfs. Drainage from the basin would be conveyed by the existing
drainage channel to the 21-inch storm drain in EI Lugar Street. A Type "F" catch basin and 18-inch storm
drain would be installed at the top of the dam to drain the basin, should it ever fill completely.
The proposed storm drain system and retention basin plan has been preliminarily reviewed by the City
Engineering Department and found to comply with City requirements. Conditions of approval will be
provided by the Engineering Department to insure the final design and construction meet Engineering and
Public Works Operations requirements. The City's Operations crew will maintain the retention basin. An
access road from El Loro is included in the design of the subdivision. No impacts are anticipated to result
from the construction of the retention basin and storm drain system.
Drainage from the site would not significantly impact surface water in water bodies in the area. The
project site is not located within a mapped floodplain, and floodwater would not be altered by the
proposed development. Future residents would not be exposed to flooding or tidal waves. Given the 100-
foot depth to groundwater, groundwater quality would not be significantly impacted by the proposed
development. The project would not substantially reduce the availability of public water supplies nor
would the project utilize groundwater. No impacts are anticipated to result from development of the site.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit and a Storm Water
Pollution Plan (SWPP) are not required by Chula Vista Municipal Code (Section 14.20) because the
project will result in soils disturbance of less than five acres. However, the code requires the
imp~c:mentation of Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of storm .drain facili~ies during and
after construction. Development of the site. with .a 9-unit i-esid~tial .development would result in a
negligible increase in surface water run-off. A star"Jard Engineering Department condition of approval
.. (> -. - . ",' -- - ; - ,- (. ~.; - " " ,
requires drainage improvements to be included on the first subinittal of grading/improvement plans that
identifies the method to be used to convey on-site surface water.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
o
181
o
o
4
4/11/01
'--~---'----"-"'----'-"-----'-----"-'
Potentially
poteatia1ly Significant '-"'than
SignifiC2Dt U""" SigDirIC2Dt No
lmp"ct Mitigated lmp"ct lmp"ct
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 ~
c) A]ter air movement, moisrure, or temperarure, or 0 0 0 ~
cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 ~
e) Create a substantia] increase in stationary or non- 0 0 ~ 0
stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: The proposed project would generate sufficient emissions and dust during cons1ruction-
related activities to result in a short-term significant, but mitigable, impact to air quality. During
cons1ruction, dust generated by grading and the combustion of fossil fuels by cons1ruction equipment
would create emissions. Fugitive dust would also be created due to clearing, earth movement, and travel
on unpaved surfaces. Although air quality impacts resulting rrom cons1ruction related emissions are
potentially significant, they are considered short-term in d.ftation since cons1ruction is a relatively short-
terin, onetime activity. Dust control during grading operations would be regulated in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). During cons1ruction of the
project, the project wilJ be subject to mitigation measures outlined below in Section XIX.
The proposed 9-unit subdivision is consistent with the City's Genera] Plan and Regional Air Quality
forecasts and would hot substantially affect regional air quality. The project would generate an additional
90 average daily trips. The project would not alter air movements, humidity, or climatic temperature. The
use and occupancy of the site as single-family residential development would not create objectionable
odors or expose sensitive receptors to polJutants.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
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) Hazatds 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
5
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
181
o
., .-0
181
o
o
o
181
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
4111/01
PotentiaUy
Sipificant
impact
PotentiaUy
SignifK:2Dt
Un!...
Mitigated
'-"'<haD
Sia;nifia.nt
Impact
No
Impact
Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The importation of 15,800 cu.yds. of fill material will require approximately 1,250 truck trips
assuming each truck carries 12 cu.yds. of material. Twenty-five truck trips per day for a 50-day work
period is estimated to be required to complete the grading operation. The identified source of material is
the Olympic Parkway construction project. CitY approved truck routes (Orange Ave., I-80S, Main St, and
Fourth Ave.) would be used to haul the material to the site. From Fourth Avenue, the trucks would enter
and exit the site by crossing an adjacent parcel ofland (APN 619-290-16). Trucks will be covered to
prevent spillage and earth materials will be wetted to minimize dust during transport. No significant
impacts would result fi-om transporting fill material to the site.
Traffic generated by the proposed 9-unit residential project would have a minimal effect on traffic patterns
and volumes on the adjacent streets. The City Engineering Division estimated that an additional 90 trips
per day (ADT) would result fi-om the residential project (the trip generation rate per unit is 10 trips per
day). The additional 90 ADT would not change the LOS on Quintard Street or Third Avenue. The
existing and projected traffic volume on these streets woul~.not exceed the City's Level of Service (LOS)
de&lgn volume of LOS C. The Engineering Division hifs' concluded that the project would provide
satisfactory traffic service for future buildout General Plan conditions because Quintard Street and Third
Avenue would operate at LOS C or above.
The City Engineering Department review of the site plan concluded that the proposed on-site circulation is
adequate. The project would be required to install a curb, gutter and sidewalk along the extension ofEl
Loro Street per City engineering standards. Eighteen on-site enclosed parking spaces (two per unit) are
required. No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists would be created by the proposed single-
family project. No significant traffic related impacts would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 0 0 181
or species that are candidates for listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 181
c) Locally designated namral communities (e.g.,' 0 0 0 181
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 I!I
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 !J 181
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 I!I
efforts?
Comments: The 2.03-acre site is located in an urbanized area and has been disturbed by previous
equestrian activities. Non-native weedy plants are scattered across the site. No listed plant or animal
species are present. No significant biological impacts would result
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
6
..\/11/0 I
__...._,.,___.._~_._._~m_'_.___..
Potentially
POIl:'ntiallJ Significant ""'.....
Significant Unl~ Signifk.ant No
Impact Mitigall:'d Im,..ct Im,..ct
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 ~
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 ~
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ~
protection, will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: The proposed project does not conflict with the recently adopted C02 Reduction Plan: The
C02 Reduction Plan encourages infiIl housing. The infill project will provide nine housing opportunities
for' large families. The current use of the land only provides for a maximum of three housing
opportunities. The project proponent will provide curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the El Loro Street
frontage that will aid pedestrian circulation in the project area. The project is also located near
commercial uses on 3" Avenue that could potentially resttlt in less reliance on the automobile.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with Energy Requirements of the Uniform Building Code
and therefore, should not result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner. The project is not located in an area designated for mineral resource protection as defined in the
City's General Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
o
o
o
~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 II!I
Comments: The site was formerly used as a horse pasture and for raising hay and there are no known
potential health hazards in the vicinity of the project site. Hazardous materials would not be used in the
residential development and the project would not interfere with emergency response plans. The General
Plan Public Safety Element designates Orange A venue as an Evacuation Route. No significant hazard
impacts would result from construction and occupancy of the residential project
Mitigation, No mitigation measures are required.
7
4/] 1/01
--.- .---.,...----..--.---- --
Potentially
Potentially SignirlCant Less tban
SignifkaDt Un"" Signif"acant Nn
1m""" Mitigated Impact Impact
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 t;:I 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 t;:I 0
Comments: Noise impacts. would occur during the construction period; however, these noise are
considered to be less than significant due to their short-term nature and the intennittent periods of noise
generation. Grading operations would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Construction noise is exempt from the provisions of the City noise ordinance (see Municipa] Code section
] 9.68.060). Consequently, noise associated with the grading operation would be regulated by conditions
included in the approved grading pennit.
The 9-unit residential project and associated traffic would not result in a measurable increase in noise.
There are no noise generators in the vicinity of the project No significant ]ong-tenn impacts would result
from occupancy of the project
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
xr;- PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal havt?un
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 t;:I
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ~
c) Schools? 0 0 t;:I 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 ~
e) Other governmentai services? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: The City Fire Marshall reported that the project would not result in an impact to fire services.
Police Department recommendations concerning "defensib]e space" design are required to be incorporated
into the project design. Schoo] fees would be paid at the building pennit stage in accord with provisions
of state law and schoo] district ordinances. The Chu]a Vista E]ementary Schoo] District recommends
annexation of the project site to the District's Community Facilities District (CFD) No. ]0 in lieu of
schoo] fees. The Sweetwater Union High Schoo] District also recommends annexation of the project site
to the District's Community Facilities District However, under State Law the payment of schoo] fees
reduces impacts to schoo] facilities to a level below significance. No new or altered public facilities or
other governmental services would be required for the project
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XII. lbresho]ds. Will the proposal adversely impact the
City's Threshold Standards?
. As' described below,- the proposed project does not significantly impact any of the seven
Thresho]d Standards.
o
o
-0
~
a) Fire/EMS
o
o
o
~
The Thresho]d 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 will be met, since
8
4/1110 I
PoteDtiaDy
PoteDWUy SipUrKaDt Less lhaJI
Sipif>>eant UnJess Sipif"K:aDt No
Impact Mitigalt'd Impact Impact
the nearest fire station is one-half mile away and would be associated with a two -minute
response time.
Comments: The firelEMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Police
o
o
o
iii
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.
Comments: The police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Traffic
o
o
o
iii
.'
~
I. City-wide: Maintain LOS" C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed
on all signalized anerial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can
occur for no more than any two hours of the day.
2. West ofl-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above may
continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen.
Comments: The project would generate 90 average daily trips (ADT). The Engineering Division reports
that the City LOS C standard would be met on Quintard Street and Third Avenue.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) ParksIRecreation
o
o
o
iii
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/1 ,000 population east of 1-805.
The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The proposed project is located west ofI-805, therefore, the Parks and Recreation Threshold
Standard does not apply.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Drainage
o
o
o
iii
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not eJlceed
City, ,Engineering Standards. .' Individ~al projects-will provide necesSary'
improvements consistent witb the Drainage Master Plan(s) andCity E!lgineering "
. Standards. . . .
Comments: The Engineering Division has reviewed the preliminary storm drain system and retention
basin plan and found that it complies with city requirements. The Engineering Department will review
final grading and improvement plans to insure that adequate drainage improvements are provided (see
Section IV above).
9
4/11/01
Potentially
Significant
1m"."
Potentially
SignUJCant
U.....
Mitigated
""'.....
S....gnificaDt
1m"."
No
1m"."
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Sewer
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
Comments: The City Engineering Division has determined that sewer facilities are adeqiIate to serve the
proj ecl.
Mitig'ation: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Water
o
o
o
181
--
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. ,bpplicants may also be required to participate
in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
Comments: The Sweetwater Authority has determined that a water main will need to be extended to the
site from EI Loro Street or Fourth Avenue. This off-site extension would be within an existing roadway
and developed area and would not result in significant impacts.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
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? 0 0 0 ~
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ~
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 ~
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 181
e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 181
f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 181
,-- _.,..
Comments:, The Sweetwate~ Authority (SW A) reports that watb- service.!s available tlithe site from a
main located in EI Loro Street or Fourth Avenue., Fire flow requirements haveb~en determined to be
adequate by the Fire Depiirtment and SW A. ' Th~ proposed residential p~oj~~i :;"'ould iiot require the
installation of new systems or cause alteration to existing facilities. As noted in' SectiOIis IV and XII
above, storm water and sewer facilities are adequate to serve the site. Underground electrical and
telephone services would be extended to the site from the nearest available power supply. The extension
of services would not require new systems to be installed, or alterations of existing utilities.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
10
4/11/01
. ..._,....-.~._.-._...
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
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 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) Produce an additional amount of spill light? :i.
Potentially
Significant
1m"."
PotentiaUy
Signifkant
Unless
Mitigated
No
Impact
Less thaD
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
181
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
Comments: No adverse aesthetics impacts are anticipated because the site would not obstruct a scenic
vista or view and the project site does not front on a scenic route. Implementation of City Code standards
would minimize light and glare produced by the design of the project. No adverse impacts have been
identified. The project requires review and approval by the City's Design Review Committee.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change that 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 -. 0
EIR as an area of high potential for archeological
resources?
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
o
'0
~
Comments: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan does 'not identify the project
site or surrounding vicinity as an area of potential cultural resources. There are no known cultural
resources in the project area and no significant impacts would result.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the
11
o
o
~
o
4/11/01
Potentially
Significl.nl
1m"."
Potentially
SignificaDt
U.....
Mitigated
Las than
Significant
1m"."
No
Impact
proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction
of paleontological resources?
Comments: The proposed project could result in significant paleontological impacts because an eight-foot
cut slope in the southwest comer of the site would be required to create level building pads along the
southern property boundary (see Section ill above). The site is underlain by fill soils and slopewash to a
maximum depth of four feet over sandstone of the Bay Point formation and "unnamed marine sandstone
(terraces):'). The Bay Point Formation and "unnamed marine terrace deposits" have been found to
contain a diverse and well-preserved assemblage of marine invertebrate fossils and rare vertebrate fossils
and are assigned a high resource sensitivity ("Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego, (Demeni,
Thomas A., and Walsh, Stephen L., Department of Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum,
1993). During construction of the project, the project will be subject to mitigation measures outlined
below in Section XIX.
Mitigation: Mitigation measures listed in Section XIX would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: -
--
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 ~
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 ~
c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 ~
plans or programs?
Comments: The 9-unit residential project is expected to have 27 residents. Park land requirements for
this population would be 0.08-acre. Park fees would be paid as required by City Ordinance. The project
is consistent with the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. No significant recreational
impacts would result from the project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF1CANCE:
See Negative Declaration for IT/Ilndatory findings of
significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should
be completed.
a) DD7s 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, t()!, eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
. plant or,anirnal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods or California history or
prehistory?
o
o
o
~
Comments: The vacant site is located in an urbanized area and was previously used as a horse pasture and
for hay raising. No sensitive plant or animal resources or historical/archaeological resources are present.
12
4/11/01
Potentially
SignirlC2..Dt
1m"."
Potentially
SignirKant
U.....
Mitigated
"'" than
Si!;J1ifk:mt
1m"."
No
1m"."
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
o
o
o
~
Comments: Constructing a single-family residential project on the site would not affect long-term
environmental goals of the City ofChula Vista in that the project site is not identified for preservation in
the City's recently adopted Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and the project is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
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 willi
the effects of past projects, other curre"nt
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
o
o
o
~
--
Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urbanized area and development of the site would not
result in cumulative environmental effects.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
o
~
Comments: No adverse effects on human beings are anticipated ITom developing the site as a residential
project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be
i~pl~inented during the design, construction and operation of the project: " ,
..
AIR QUALITY
,,'
Construction Related Impacts
.
" '. "
,
I. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust control agents
during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering o'r dust control agents
shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
13
4/11/01
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed umit on unpaved surfaces in connection with .ne project shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce re-
suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites
shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by
the City to reduce dust generation.
7. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions
control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic reduction for gasoline-
powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber
diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
GEOPHYSICAL
-
--
Construction Related Impacts
I. Temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed as specified on the Tentative Map.
These devices include desilting basins, berms, hay bales, silt fences, dikes, and shoring. Protective
devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain
system.
2. Additional erosion control measures will be installed as required by the City Engineer due to
uncompleted grading operations or unforeseen circumstances that may arise.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction Related Impacts
1. A qualified a paleontologist will be retained to implement a paleontological monitoring and recovery
program as a condition of the project construction contract. A qualified paleontologist is defmed as an
individual with and MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is a recognized expert in the
identification and recovery of fossil materials.
2. The qualified paleontologist will attend the project pre-construction meeting todiscuss project,grading
plans with the project contractor(sk If the. qualified paleontologist d~terrnines that proposed
excavation/grading will likely cut into undisturbed portions of the Bay Point formation, then monitoring
will be conducted as outlined below.
3. The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor will be on-site during !>riginal c'-!ttingofthe
. ,'!,_ ",_' ..'- i
above noted geologic units. A paleontological monitor is defmed as an individual who has experience in
collection and salv.age of fossil materials, and who is working under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist. Monitoring of the noted geologic units will be at least half time at the beginning of
excavation, and will be either increased or decreased depending on initial results (per direction by the
project paleontologist).
4, In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist will have the authority
14
4/11/01
to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery area to allow recovery in a timely
manner (typically on the order of 1 hour to 2 days). All collected fossil remains will be cleaned, sorted
and catalogued, and deposited in an appropriated scientific institution such as the San Diego Museum of
Natural History.
5. A report (with a map showing fossil site locations) summarizing the result, analyses and conclusions of
the above described monitoring/recovery program will be submitted to the City ofChula Vista Planning
Department within three months of terminating monitoring activities.
--
-
"-.
15
4/]1/0 1
-"._._~_...."_.._..--.._....
-',' ,." _.._.._,_.-.,,-".~.~.._..- --,-_.".-
------_._--,-
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) andlor Operator(s) stipulate that they have each
read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the
County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance
without approval and that Applicant(s) andlor Operato,r(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
....
B~~
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of
[Property Owner's Name]
.DB L D ;--/">'1-( 1':>/1--.// C L B I K.. <=.-:J I..-J
Signature of Authorized Representative of
[property Owner's Name]
/'IZES:
Date 4-/=~=(
Prmted 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.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
. Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
o Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
. Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
. Paleontology D Mandatory Findings of Significance
]6
4/11/01
-,-"~ '-'.,,------.,-..- -'--'-----'-----
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, .
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 0
least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An 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 signfficant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 0
(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.
~S' ~
19nature
Date
if/II/c)/
Marilyn R.F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
17
4111/01
-, ,---+...-....----.
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Vista Del Lora Subdivision, IS-OI-08
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the City of Chula Vista in conjunction with
the proposed Vista Del Loro Subdivision project (IS-OI-08). The proposed project has been
evaluated in an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CitylState CEQA guidelines. The
legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented
and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-OI-08.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of
mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
~- 1. Air Quality.
"'-
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator.
Evidence in written form confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in
MNDIIS-OI-08 shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator.
The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the
mitigation measures have been accomplished.
Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, lists the mitigation measures listed in
Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the
applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifYing that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
(H:\home\pJanning\edalia\IS-Ol-08 MMRP text.doc)
<I
-
t:
(J)
E
~
o
<0
-
-
<(
t:
o
1/1
:~
"0
.c
:J
rn
e
o
...I
(J)
o
<0
-
.!!!
>
co
o
.
..-
o
.
CJ)
O~:
~'
'f.,?~;.,__l
. :.~g? ~~~:
'~:
-"0
',~'
ro..
~.
Z.
<~~.
~.
i::::.
;:; ~.
'""'~
='~
~ ~.
E-< Z
~
,0
;;~'
" 0
E-<'
.."""".
..,Z.
..0
.~-
~'!{~'f,:e,~
~t~t
at~? ~
~W~
f,~~;~~ ~
.2
..
~
:ij
..;''':
'.:.
_..'
~. .
,".'
c
~
e
E
o
U
V'F:.~
..:':"'-
-~~{'.
:if
-i~',
. ..,~
~
~;~\
~'"- .'
~i\
~t
""
~
-;;
=-
e
o
u
*~
QJJ
~~;
:.5 :.~}
1Ji;"
~~
~1
J~.
~... \, ....
q' :;
,~
E:
<
.~
"-
~
<
;;
~
E:
<
~
;g
..~
c _
o .
~..
~
'"
a
~
^
E:
<
;~f-
,~')~
,~
--'
- ~
o 0
~u
~ -
0.2
~..
c "
":1:
.: .~
'- "
. ;0.
~,:;
"Q;~=
c'O
QU
x
x
x
x
" ~
t.~
;.u
..:::;
,.:
~ c
o 0
"::1-=
o ~
.co:
'i:"i:
:E~
..,.; 0 V'> e.J '"0
.L .0 ~
"',"'. ~ 00:: -2.8 ;; ~ ;:;
.ok'" ~.:: 0 C"O -;; "5 ..s "E
I,;~JIH ! i fIrl
".,C-' t -;.g ~ g. ~] ~.~ e ~
.' .~;""E:o c() c.. ~.s c.5 5;0
.8=''0"''0-4.1 Q.cofF<.?;- C;
"O<oo:f!.D t:ut:a,..;:g'5
~ :!i . . 'E .~ C; . ~ ~ ~ . c ~
...~~.g~~~O_~~E] ~
~ <q:.U;"'O C : 'j5. - .2 .c.. ~ ~ ~ "E
~o'~'~'E.t:...E...::"'Oo~ (U
~.~ ~]::~~~~ t: ~ E ~ ~
'''''~i"':<i.OO....~c::"'O.....~'O'.z,g~.c ~
~.t;~~~.eC~g.a.~b:.c:;; ~
>~>.;~"'"O ~<O"'O...ucuu..c 0
"s~,: I- ::s u = '- t:: ::s -= CIS ~ ;;. ... ...:
;:. i't;;""OuI.'l:lE.-~o- "'u...
~~g2~~u~g~~;~~~~~
i~'" u ~ !:! '.[!! t:i c:c ~.~ "0_ E -0 '" ~ ]-
r~~"3c...85.g~--g Q.!:: "'E~!::?I: U
,);;I:,.. >.., CI)- <,=.- .., 0 ~-- :::: .S! "t'.9
;~~~ ~ ~ _~ ~ .~ 7.: ~ -=e '7: ..., g. ~ U"O "'--ci
. ~--o--.., -"t'-~~c~P
:~:fl ::I ~ ':; .::: ;;; -t ~ 6 ~ "'=' 0..'::; ",.- '" U
1o-!=-=.=:::>':::I-oNt: u~t:t:f::.~
~_<og8~~~<86~E8~o~
c .;
.2z
- .
. -
.:.0;;
-':: ~
- "
00-
00
N
~
7
, c c
-~ .
~ .;:!
"- "- "-
c. ~ "-
< < -<:
x
x X
15
""
~
"
>
o
"
.
~
"B in .~ 0 8
0..::; _ >.~ t:
o~ ..2'"C;:<;ugv
~ g '" C3 ~ u.J::
U-o oU--gEc~
-0.... b ",C<I.@_
::;:; -og~~~E~
-g~ ~ :;:.:;.D b.~'~
~u ;C; Sue; oS 2 ~
0'- <'<I,c-- 0.. v
~ ~ E.~ c: '" ~ .s ~
c:;:' -5 E-S! fi"E';::;:.=
~ .c .- II) u. E c....--
. ~ ~ 2 c...9- ~ ~
"2~ -..8.....--;::1"'<::'0
"00;::: ",;::10--
"" "EE53"1I)~~
~.= Q.~ V"Q ~.9.S!
2~ .:; ",-0 ~_,......,~ .
"'O<'<IO">'S::u-c-_v
E-g v ~ ~~.gB~;e
I.) C<I .2 -g:.6 9-- c.~ 3 ~
.D.., -UC<lU..,;::I::::"'"
::;;:i3 ~ '2 to] E g-..., -g
~ .~ v; -- 00 0 .9- ... ~ 1'1
~& gU'E!5-~B~
~'" U@:::I...U:3c:~
C<I <'3 . ~s~..g g.5.g~
~ ~.9 .g.~ ~ g'f; ~ ~ ~
~ .5 e ~ ~ ~ 'E .s ~ g. c
v; 0" ~ <'3 E :::I :::I i: :3 -0 B
"5~~==8~"E8;.p:;;~
;;
-0;
~.
~ ~
~"
-',.....
....',.""
0'0
~',U
,-:
~,.~
'5"~ x
:5u
" ~
_ c
Q,;,'O
;,U
::;
',f-'
"
;; E.5
:.: ~ bE
I.)u...;.:_-o
~ .~:o ~ E
<IS "0", OL> 0
{i ~ ~ ~ v;
... OL> t: _ II)
8~~"'-5
.:;: .=~ ~
..g g.":..~.r:
o:E~e~
~ ~,g ~ to)
0';;;: ;>.'" E
~ ,u 13 ..,..0 0
'..;: !t B c.t:~ 'C;..::
".I;,;;/f~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:rt;"1 , , v-S.D U'-
~, -g s:: ui->~
.~~.., 0 t: 11)'"
-',1 '0--"0-
;,,_ ~ ~ u ~ II) fi
~:t;;)!j .- t::.o > >
."""""i::'u tIQ'~ e
<Cl'JI. n u.S II) Q..
':'~' -c e-:=. -0 0
'~'( "t'~.~tt::
~,. f!"'O -c . B
'O.~. O~~ ~.5
.J 0..;:; :S.t:. t:
~, E v;U o'f;
L", ~ .5 .== ~ ~
c
.
,~
0-
"-
<
X
~
'"
,7
00
c
~ ~.U
"2 to'C
-~.
..~
-;; u ~
.S Q. t::
~E(U
u -
.~ 5 ~
~ $I g
:; uS
~.g E
" " .
E " 0
- g.~
2 -&II::;
gJ]~
~-~ ~
.9 U"'2
~ . ~
~ -S b
niEi:
e.c-oo
~ ~.~ ~
~~ [g-
N
<(
u
~
c::
.
-
t:
<1>
E
.r:
u
'"
-
-
<(
..'.
';,<,..
.~~~f
'0.~1?;
...'..::
~..
0,0
':.Y
~
x
~ c
c.$!
~.
c u
-'"
E .-
.- ~
... .
...
~:'~
"t:,'c
c c
~~ V
'.j
c ~
~,' c X
:="-'0
>;:\..1
M
x
x
x
:;
i-<
~ C
o .!:
.,,-
c ~
'::c:
wi:
:; c
...
t:
.2
1/1
:~
"C
.c
::3
en
o
...
o
...J
<1>
C
'"
-
VI
:>
ex)
o
.
....
o
.
en
>'t
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ .i~~~
_c ~ ~ s=~~ ~-~~~CoO;c
~.__.~ ;.~= ~=~- ~~~o~fig~~_oE
/I) ... 01) -0 ::J ~ = '" ::!: I: g ..c 1::: .o'~ 0 Go) 13
u~o c o...e.~_r.:T:'J.~-3 ~f:=;:~"';:I:.9-S.~~
~~~o~ ~E~'~~'a-o~ BR~o~-o~ ~E~
Uu~.a~-c- .o~'-c]Oc~~~ ",E~buB~S",~-
-~- !~N~.~'~2~ ~B~~~.~~~g"'~
e'~o.B.g ~ ~ g;l to) ti.E.g:E1 e.9 > o~ o..~ _.;;;;,g.-=::
0.;.0 t: >- ~ U .60 u "'0 : J~ ~ ~ c CIS a 8 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~..= = ~
~a]j~~~>g~'"OOI)NO ~]~~~o..E~g.i~
, eII'- ,I.':; U 0.8 ~ co u"'O ~ tIO,....:.,.t;i.c u 0:: ca i3 8 E E
fii~~-~i:~~~~~~~~i-s~~c~~'"Oe~ .
:::"0'1i,i.5.:; u.;;.!!~5~ Cu 0 Cu ...0 _ u.= ~.c_ o;~ os:; tIOo ~.:;
CI_,15.5: co.ct:.0 - ....... ......c - ... ....._
- c '" ~ 'o'.s co' 5 -== ~ e- B ~ -'u ~"o. E.5 ~ E ~ a. 8 ""5:
~ :: ~.- ~ <<II ca 00'-'';: bO'-"2 "C c:: ~ >:~ e u ..!!: II] >. ~ -;::
'" ell o_~~~~"'Owcc::ucoc"'Oo~=>_-"'OO -u~o
DOco"'~~"'~u~uBo~~~~~'~u~~~~u~B ~~>.2~
~~U;~u~~6~5~~~_~5.~~~&~E~g~~~g~8c!
B-<;::c'~ucouo> o'-o,-"'OtII)(,)~(,)~o .......:::::t"c~~!itf} ':~~-t:
c _0 ~.(,)B--,~ogS~.2c ~~~~u-o~"'Ouu ~~~B
o.2,o:;.t;; -u c~-;;;.~ ~ (,) 9_5 ~-;:;o~ 5::""OoO'~-:!-"fl >.B"'O.; ~ ~ cS.c
u; t:::~.g S.-'" g '':'-r.CIS 0 u C CIO- 0 0""" CIS .... .... ... ~;I yO.., .... -I: '" Q
~':..t-'u ."0 U 0 0 --,.Q 0 -I:: 0 C ~.-=. 0 ~ CIS _ J:::J t:: U"O ell U :.9:.::- c
CI.:.. -S..: f;a a !..~ u ~ 5:::: ~ 0 c -~ ~ . ~ "'0 U -5_S '" --::a ~ ~ :~.c __"
.",..\ ~ _g, """'0' .~ ..20 co ~ -0 Co -i & ~ g u"O o~ 0': ~-s ...'. S S :; 0 ,~........ -; ~..!! ~
~ ..., _ u c .... U"'O .... - c.. c CIO..... ~ >. C u 0 :::: ~ '" C E ~__
,~_ !:! ..2'c S c.~ : -g g c: u ~ ~.~ :1 ~ ~..e c; f:!,.Q ~ ~'U.= -<13 C 1:: -N "0 G c;j
~~-S.oS 0 0;;; u u g.-e'I:"Q'''O,< ",'!!: o..c g S u Cou c.:-. ~_!2 o-t: u....._=
~',t, c; c..: C ~ I:: 5-.5 u Is.. ~.g c...~ . ~ -~ =0 ~ 0;:.;:: ~ tiu :5 ~ ~B z ~ E ~ 0 E
<75-a~a&iu~o~....~cu~~OB~~~~"".~~O~S;-E~bB
~:<"[8a..=~ ~ 8 &-5;; ~ ~ g 5~ E 2.~.~:5.5 c..o ~~ ~.;g -< ~~u'o
c .;
cZ
'" c
. ~
~;;
-= .
- ~
c_
c
N
~
~
~
..'_...._,~'...,---
~'-JOTICt: 0:;:: INiil!:,L STU:JY
NOTICE !S HEREBY GIVEN that the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is conducting
an Initial Study to determine if the project identified and described below will have a significant impact on the
environment. If the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report will
be prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of !."1e project. If the project will not have a significant
environmental impact or if mitigation measures have been included in the project, which will avoid any significant
impacts, a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
This determination does not constitute approval or rejection of the project.
This Initial Study application, project description and other material are on file and available for public review at
the Chula Vista Planning & Building Department, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. CA
91910.
Any comments on this Initial Study must be presented in writing to the Environmental Review Coordinator. 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, nrior to 5'00 n m on Decp.mber 7 2000
If you have any questions or comments on this Initial Study. please call Edafi;:l Olivo-Gomp.7 F.nvironmp.nt~1
Prniects Manaaer in the Planning Department at (619) 691-5257.
Project Description:
Project Location:
Project Applicant:
A proposed Tentative Map for a nine (9) lot single family residential subdivision
on a 2.03,:!:-acre parcel of land in the City of Chula Vista. The parcel of land was
created by an approved boundary adjustment and lot consolidation of five parcels
(APN 619-290~16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). The property is zoned R1 Single family
Residential and designated LM-Low Medium Residential on the City's General
Plan. The required minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet.
At the westerly terminus of EI Loro Street, between Palomar and Quintard
Streets.
Dou~le "0" Fish
~r ~/O/Na1
Marilyn .F. ponseggi -
Environmental Review Coordinator
Date: November 27,2000
Case Number: IS~01-08
<
"
I I
Ulllilll :11
~~
"
"
(h:\home\planning\EdaliaIJSNOllCE/lS-OI -08NOI
",OTIFICACIO' DE ESTUDIO INICI."l
SE LE NOTIF!C:\ que e! Coordinador de Estudios Ambientales de la Ciudad de (hula Vista conducira un
estudio inicia! para determinar si e! proyecto identificado y descrito posteriormente tendra un impacto
ambiental significante. Sj se determina que el proyecto tendra un impado ambiental significante, un Reporte
de Impacto Ambiental sera preparado para evaluar las consequencias ambientales del proyecto. Si el
proyedo no tiene un impacto ambiental significante, 0 si medidas de mitigaci6n han side incluidas en el
proyedo, que evitaran cualquier impacto significante, una Declaracion Negativa sera preparada.
Esta determinacion no constituye aprobaci6n 0 rechazo del proyecto.
la solicitud, descripci6n del proyecto, y otros documentos est;;n archivados y a disposici6n del publico en
el Departamento de Planificaci6n, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Cualquier comentario sabre este Estudio Inidal debera ser presentado par escrito al Coordinador de Estudios
Ambientales, P.O. Box lOB7, Chula Vista, CA 91910 antes de las 5:00 p.m.el 7 de Dedembre' 2000. Si
tiene preguntas 0 comentarios sabre este Estudio Inicial, par favor dirigase con Edalia Olivo-Gomez en la
Secci6n de Reviso Ambiental del Departamento de Planificaci6n al numero (619) 691-5257.
Descripci6n del Proyecto:
Un propuesto Mapa Provisional para una subdivision que contiene 9 lotes
para residencies singulares en 2.03 acres vacantes. La propiedad se
encuentra en la zona R 1 Residencia! Singular yes designado como "LM-
Low Medium Residential" en el Plan General de la Ciudad. La
dimension minima dellote es de 7,000 pies cuadrados.
localidad:
AI termino oeste de EI Lora Street, entre Palomar y Quintard Streets
Aplicante:
Doubie "D" Fish
Numero de Caso:
-
IS-01-08
Fecha: 27 de Noviembre, 2000
~o~~.
arily R.F. Ponseggi
Coordinadora de Reviso Ambiental
II I I
\.!lllli.l.;/IIIII
II I II I I
, ,
~
W.L-~ L .
~ ~ P"-
V-j. ;;:: ~
~ --
/tJ~ .ilcP - FY- i~
Ie -'rocrrogJZ
"'--i -i 3::Jro~ 0
--L ~ ~ 2: "0 .:S."'B- ::;" 5" :::!
CD (J) en OJ ,-a ..., 0 _. ()
-i-()_ a. ~g~::1:gm
p ~~. ~ !:fi 3 m 3 --:-._
-~ ~ Q)ct)@~~~
'" - 3 Z %. 0.. ,... ,c,:!:
::;:; sa 5" m ~ 6" =t;~ m
en c: Q) (Q _" ....... ::::0
me. := 9t3ro::rom
-0'< g <"-g Q5.OJ c..1JJ
m Q) a. CD (") c--g CD -<
::J:g 0 O~~.Q.roG)
::J= CD CDOmm-.._
-" (") cn Q. -... (") 3 <
::J Co) Q):::O'.............. -om
(Q..... :J ..., J ::J
~o' g. ~~.CD~m=
OJ.? (') 5'g~'<~::r
c:-o g ::Ioo<::r-~
=--'0 UC_. :E~=i'Q)~_
0.__" ~ _. 0 0 < ::r
S"C'O C =:J::Im-CCD
co$l m g33mom
Oa. mCDcn--:J
co CD Q) -gm;:tcC'~:S.
-COO :g (tItJ)Q)::1_"'"
IDQ -oC-_"_.o
::1.-- a Q)""O~a.:J
3-g. < -,monm3
- Q) CD en ::J Q) ::J (t)
mo - a.::rcn;l=:J
:J::J 0 . Q) CD ~_
rO)..., <.g~~~
-0 ::J CO CD CD CD ::u
ca. ro- C"::JoQ)m
":".g.:::r Sl ~fJ;;~~
o' :J CJ) ::1~- ~..
(fJ~::J -'o-g.::
- 0 :J_::rcnO
:23 - 9._CD"O
--m s: 5.~5E6:Q
g CD CD CD -' m
en::::!. a."O~'c..e:
Q)""'O """"::s
00- a 5'.Q.gtT~
CO) CD -('O"3~0
=..., ::T_ 0""
Q..CD ~ CD:",-~=:O
:::5"0 ""0___
<C:J a=r~~.g
N2 '(5"CD::J=ro
~: ~-g Q,l~Q
"::J :;:.Q. :S.;ji.:2"
00. ::rCD..., 0
cm (:r~gQ)-
50 Oi :::r:;: 3 !!!.O
-= :;: =CDCO E
"'< m =::J::J_
",2: -::Jars'"
:::I CD Q)~_(")<
C_ < _0)_
(1)0 Q'~3~~
- ~ 0.. <:" '"
g-g. DJ(D~~r(n
c:CT" ~Q)-"'Co
mo' ~.~.~~g
<..., coco-u . a.
-.m ::J2.ogc
(1')< 5~~ Sl
oriS' og:E:TS'
.. :E ~:J=CDCO
OD) ___
:r>~
o
'"
<II
CD
Z
c
3
0-
CD
;;
en
b
~
b
CD
o
'"
~
Z
o
<
CD
3
cr
!g
ms:
::J",
<::J.
.3-oZ
::J::J
3
"'.
::J:n
ar-o
-0
:;IJ::J
CD <II
< CD
-'CO
"'co
:;: -,
o
o
o
~
0..
5'
'"
0-
~
'"
.....
'"
o
o
o
'tJ
~
o
CD
"
~
'tJ
~
o
(D.
"
-
:r>
"
;;!.
o.
..
::J
<'!"
r
o
"
..
-
o.
?
o
o
c
cr
CD
~~
~
'" -
ro:::r
wCD
q
."
<n'
:::r
~
.Jtv~
tf1;{ SJ ~
'tJ
"
o
(D'
"
-
c
(II
<II
"
"
ii'
"..
o
::J
:;:
ro
<II
co
~
.z
..........(0):>
J2JJ)>a;::::J-o
IDm-Uro[l)-,
? 0.: Z CD N.g
----1CDa>o.bo
----:J-","C-VJCh
~ ~ <1'-< It ~
......-NQ)Q)
mQ)tO:::::Io-i
D:JDwCDCD
E-o.~"'O ;1
...." 0)-0""0 Q)
CD a.. ...... Q) :::
a.m....oa<
3 ~- -..I < m CD
_.co ~ - ~ _ ~
:J :J...... 0 ~
-- Q) - r::r -... [l)
3 CD sn 0 -"'0
co.:...""c:~_
3 ::J - 0
r-.CDa..c...."
g:: :s: Q) Q) 5' 0)
(l')r-:J-<__::::J
-'oc...Q):Ts-
~::EN.E:(DCD
-- DCo..........
(J):S:-Ch-CD
-..1m - -3.:2"~
- 0.. -i 0-
g2'=t"~ _~
03CD~0<ll
""OQ]:T-'
JJ :XJ ..., :J ~t5
CCDOO-m_
Q) (I') ""0 _ CD
-,-CDO<_
CD a.:::1-.- _. Q)
_CD,< 0 ~3
CD:J_.OCIJ_.
CD::'(I'):J--<:
:-~N~-I..."
o g =:J"'CD
::JCDg.CD~
s: 0. ~-g g-
m:;og....,,;:!.
~ "-
o s.~9t
.z~~s.~
cn(Cmorc-
G)m-O:J9:
CD or OJ 0. 5.
:J30:E~_
~_.~Q)Q
Q) -"(J) (I) oJ
-'<
co
3
5'
c
<II
o
-
!!!
r
o
~
o
~
~
CD
~
cr
'"
~
CD
ro
::J
-0
'"
o
3
'"
~
'"
::J
0..
o
c
5'
ar
~
0..
:;;
'<
'0
c
:::r,
'"
<
CD
Q)
::J
'<
..Q
C
ro
!B.
o'
::J
'" <II
::J 0
::J ~
::i" ()
COo
03
ro 3
"CD
Q) ::J
::1-~
3 <II
ro 0
%.::J
"'~
~:::r
Q) (ij'
~-
to ~.
'Q;~
'"
~U>
, -
"'c
"'0..
"''<
.....-
'"
CD
'"
<II,
'"
6'S'
c'<
::1-"
:::ro
:r>3
< 3
'" CD
::J ::J
C _
CD <II
00
:::r::J
c -
-:::r
'" -.
<II
<-
-'::J
<II _,
fi)=
- 9<-
Ou>
:r>_
",5-
~'<
'"
~3
Oc
- !B.
n
~
:S.
~
~~~
Z
o
-i
o
m
o
"
S'
Z
=i
);
r
~
C
o
-<
:;:
~
""
S'
co
6"
:T
~ CD
m
::J
<
,,-
o
::J
3
ro
::J
~
:;IJ
'"
<
~
o
o
o
~
0..
5"
'"
6"
-~
'"
.....
OJ
INITIAL STUDY
For Office Use 0nI~
Case No. IS- fJj-
'DpsL AmnL~"" '>-'
R=ipt No.
Date Rec'd. .'<7/. 7/;;)
Accepted by
ProjcctN(). FA-), 4.,
Dpst;N?,DO.. 7-)7
CIPNoc", ,,', '.'
Ri:13i.Cd CascNo. '.. '
J.f'1!;';~!<<or",
APPLICATION CANNOT ~_ ACCEPTED UNLESS SITE
PLA!'-I IS FOLDED TO FIT ll'-'TO AN 8-1/2 X I I FOLDER
Ciry of Chula Vista
Applicarion Form
A. BACKGROUND
I, Project Title VI.!. /4 D E L t.. 012- C)
2. Project Locarion (Street address or description) (-/ E ~ T E.--v6
tc. c.or<:o '51: A?r,!ox 2 ACr<:E S
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. ~ I '7 .. -< 7' 0 - / &. - /?.. -< C)
3. Brief Project Description ? $t'oV"C3C.E FA..-vtl( Y /fo~ E~
_ A
-'""T.
F/.s 17
Name of Applicant [) t:5 L /;, '-'-,
Address 71,1 (j '7 r;-rf2.?1.<D ~VC
City L.4 Jo C ( -4 ("
5.
Name of Preparer/Agent
Address ; rt ~ i;:.
Fax#,r$"""Pi.'S'7 9\1~honetf7 .Pv= 77/(,.
State C -{ Zip 9..2D3 7
L>!:5L
fl50
to ~O:N
..f'/-?o ".... 2 Fax#
Phone
City State Zip
Relarion to Applicant >' ,4 ~ C
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents reqtrired by the Environmental
Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
Rezone/Prezone
Grading Permit
'3. Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
_ Design Review Application
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
If project is a General Plan Amendment and/or rezone, please indicate the change in designarion from
to
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator).
_ Grading Plan
_ Parcel Map
_ Precise Plan
_ Specific Plan
_ Traffic Impact Repon
Hazardous Waste Assessment
Arch. Elevations
_ Landscape Plans
_ Tentative Subd. Map
_ Improvement Plans
_ Soils Repon
_ Geotechnical Report
_ Hydrological Study
_ Biological Study
_ Archaeological Study
_ Noise Assessment
_ Other Agency Permit
Other
v,.K.:F;\J-IO~LNG\STORfDJ02J_A.93 ffic:f. 10::1).931 (Rc:f. 1()'..2.931
Page 1
-----~ ".'-"-.'~..'--'-'-'-""-'.
7. Indicate other applications for penruts or approvals that are being submitted at this time.
a. Penruts or approvals required.
General Plan Amendment
_ Rezone/Prezone
L Grading Permit
1- Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan & Arch. Review
_ Special Use Permit
Design Review Application
K Tentative SuM Map
_ Redevelopment Agency OPA
_ Redevelopment Agency DDA
_ Public Project
Annexation
_ Specific Plan
Conditional Use Permit
Variance .
_ Coastal Development
Other Permit
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1.
a.
Land Area: square footage or acreage .2.. -4 c Ai E.s:. .
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
b. Does the project involve the construction of new buildiItgs. or will existing structure be
utilized? rV <=~.J - 9 0 ~ T04 c. H E-/3 HO <77 ~J:.
2. - - Complete this section if project is residential or mixed use.
a. Type of development:-4 Single Family _ Two Family _ Multi Family
Townhouse Condominium
b. Total number of structures 9
c. Maximum height of strucrures I' "'" c=pc
d. Number of Units: I bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom ~
4 bedroom
Total Units
e. Gross density (DU/total acres) d' '? <:> 0'" ? 4 L.
f. Net densiry (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
g. Estimated project population _? C,. ,~
h. Estimated sale or rental price range .2. f; c::>= C)
1. Square footage of structure I 'i c '" 4
J. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or strucrures rER:. CoO c:
k. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 'L
1. Percent of site in road and paved surface I q. ~ "/.
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial or mixed use.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. F100r area Height of structures(s)
c . Type of construction used in the structure
'WPC:F:\J-JOME\Pl..ANI'.'1NG\STOREIN021_A..93 (Ref. JO:!:O.93) (Ref. lO:!2..93)
Pag~ 2
d~ Describe ...djor access points to the structurcs and t.,,: orientation to adjoining propenies
and streets c:: L L. = ,2 0 .s: r.
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 2
f. Estimated number of employe::s per shift
Number of slrifts Total
g. Estimarcd number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
h.
1-
J.
k.
1.
~
Estimated number of deliveries per day
Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
Hours of op~ration
Type of exterior lighting
~ .
4. If proj~cr is other than residential. commercial or industrial complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of faciliti~s provided
c. Square feet of enclosed snucrures
d. Height of snucturc(s) - maximum
e. Ultimare occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
h. Additional projecr characteristics
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
I. Will the project be required to obtain a permit through the Air Pollution Connul District (APCD)?
/C/o
\\-'PC~:\J-lOME\PL\mnNG\STOREIN021_A.93 (Rd. J020.93) (Rd. H,...,..2..93)
Page 3
2. Is any type of gruumg or ~xcavation of th~ property anticipaI~do Y t::.- S
If yes. complet~ th~ follo1Amg:
a. Excluding trench~s to be backtilled. how many cubic yards of ~arth will be ~xca\'aIed:
3t"?/t.
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? /~c~a
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? T= TA <. - / /f. C
d. What will be the: Maximum depth of cut P'
A verage d~pth of cut ..0
Maximum d~pth of fill ~5
A verage depth of fill ..:5
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are pan of the proposed project and the type of
energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.)
GAS: /fEA TEl.!, .> roVE '-,,- LoJ,+T~#R..hF-+TE.-<2. Flo<ZE?C /?/2Y~
ELECT-
D u E-../
-"'""7'C 420
.A? i?'-r-</5
(..--".4>.4" E=/z
--
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is pan of the project (sq. ft. or acres)
~I / A
I
5. If the project will result in any employment oppommities describe the nature and type of these
jobs. (~f!'i Y1 S -I-v" Ll c..+-i 0 h
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within
the project site? ,'If} tJJ
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? q S-
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of
access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following:
new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 0\ I ( ~ r( <> T G' .c> 0 (1./
~ "
ex /..!, I/~"" Uy 2.) ->E<...>G/{ c:z... C-,A rG"PI
C--f> 'V- ELecT €<.. C.o/cU
/Y1"'~' ')//'AI..-'4r;-.:
/
=--
L{ - Ave
To
~
L-O{(.O
\VPC:F:\HOME\P1..A."lNING\SfORIDJO:!J_A.93 (Ref. IOW.93) (Ref. 10:!2.93)
Page 4
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENviRONMENTAL SE1TING
1. Geolo~
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? f--J f)
(If yes. please attach)
Has a soils report on the project site been made? i N P V b e-"C.., S
(If yes, please attach)
2.
--
Hvdrolol!Y
Arc any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site?
(If yes, explain in detail.)
a. Is there any swface evidence of a shallow ground water table?
NO
b.
Arc there any Walercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site?
('-JO
-.
c.
Does runoff from the project site drain -directly in to or toward a domestic water supply,
lake. reservoir or bay? 0 0
Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? '-./ '"C- S
I
d.
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Sc~ c
S-t-Ovm JlrOlih 0.-..-' ,Pc.=r- FX./5t?--<'>6 To C.or--Z7
3. Noise
a. Are there any noise sources in the project vicinity which may impact the project site?
No
4. Biolol!Y
a.
b.
c.
d.
b. Will noise from the project impact any sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, single-
family residences)? t--1 0
Does the site involve any Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation? N ()
Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? ~ -e c;
If yes, has a biological survey been conducted on the prop~rty?
Yes No -/ (Please attach a copy.)
Describe all trees and vegetation on the site. Indicale location. height, diameter, and
species of trees. and which (if any) will be removed by the project. ?Ja N fZ
F" )(/5 r
wPC:.F;\HOME\P1...A.I\'NING'STOR.EJNO~I_A.93 (Rc:f. 1020.93) (Rd. 10:1.93)
Page 5
5. Past U sc of thc Land
a. Arc thcre any known historical or archeological resources located on or near the project
site? I'J 0
b.
Arc there any known paleontological reso=?
No
c.
Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site?
~O .
d.
What was the land previously used for?
O\~ vi G lA /t-ttI ~
6. Current Land Use
a.
Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. tV () \"L.G
--
~
b.
Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent propeny.
North ye.S; cU.\1-6i
South ..- G s-; ,(t\"l -\--n \
East "f';, j (.) L n kl
West v-f)) i W. n -f-rt,/
7. Social
a.. Are there any residents on site? NO If so, how many?
b. Are there any current employment opponunities on site? t-J ()
If so, how many and what type?
8. Please provide any other irtformation which may assist in the evaluation of the proposed project.
~cA()~d
Page 6
V.'PC:F:\HOMBPLANNING\STORIDJ021-A.93 {Rei. 10~.93) (Rd. 10:::2..93)
. .._-'------.~--- .. '.' - ',-".- ,.-....".-,.-.--".---. ..,.
..-----,----.'.-.-.
E. CERTIFICA TJON
I. as owner/owner in escrow*
0& c:. /..:> 1-/5/-1
t:>A...-v II?- <:-/ (--</
Print name
or
I. consultant or agent*
Print name
--
".
HEREBY AFFIRM. that to the best of my belief. the statements and information herein contained are in all
respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting has been
included in this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for
attachments thereto.
~
0-
~J~
Owner/Owner in Escrow Signature
or
Consultant or Agent Signature
c. - 5=- ..eo="'"
Date
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
,P/c: C .5/
\\I'PC:F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORIDJ021-A.93 (Rd. I02D.93) (Rd. ]021..93)
Pag< 7
L"TIIAL STUDY PROCESSING AGREEME1\T
Name of Applicant: D /S C &>
Address: 7'-/ f/ j: C / a ,-(. R /.> -1 v C
City: l. A < c:> L L A
Name of Authorized Represenwive (if signatory):
Address: .> -F- 0< c.-
City
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount i /0 0 0 ~
,c/Jff
Stale r.4
P d -<./ / /2 c-./ /"<'/
Phone f... / '7 ';:>,-/0 ? 7/-(,
Zip 9-"< oJ ?
Stale
Phone
Zip
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista. a chartered municipal corporation ("City")
and the forenamed applicant for an Initial Study C" Applicant"), effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above,
is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas. the Applicant has applied to the City for an Initial Study of the type aforereferenced ("Initial
Study") which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting the Applicant to develop a parcel
of property; and.
Whereas. the City will incur expenses in order to process said InitiaJ Study through the various deparunems
an<!, iJefore the various boards and commissions of the City (';PI:ocessing Services"); and.
Whereas. the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur in connection
with providing the Processing Services;
Now. therefore, the ponies do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutuaJ promises herein contained. as
follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
The Applicant shall pay all of the City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Service related to
applicant's Initial Study. including all of the City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. 'This duty of
the Applicant shall be referred to herein as the "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
A. Applicant's Deposit Duty
As paniaI performance of the Applicant's Duty to Pay. the Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit").
1. The City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services
against the Applicant's Deposit If. after the conclusion of processing the Applicant's
Initial Study. any ponion of the Deposit remains. the City shall rewrn said balance to the
Applicant without interest thereon. If. during the processing of the Applicant's Initial
Study. the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted. or is imminently likely to become
exhausted in the opinion of the City. upon notice of same by the City, the Applicant shall
forthwith provide such additional deposit as the City shall calculate as =nably
necessary to continue to provide Processing Services. The duty of the Applicant to
initi:illy deposit and to supplement said deposit as herein required shall be known as the
"Applicant's Deposit Duty".
II. City's Duty
The City shall. upon the condition that the Applicant is not in breach of the Applicant's Duty to Payor the
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to the Applicant's Initial
Study application.
'WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\I021.A.93 (R.l::f. 1020.93) (Ref. 10""...2.93)
Page 8
"- ---- ----,-"---,-,._~ ,.,-',,-........,._.__.-'-'-' -."..--.--...........-----.-
A. The City shall h:lve no liability hereunder to the Applicant for the failure 10 process the Applicant's
Initial Study application. or for failure to process the Applicant's lniLiaJ Study within the time
frame requested by the Applicant or estim:l1ed by the City.
B. By execution of this agreement. the Applicant shall have no right to direct or otherwise influence
the conduct of the Initial Study fer which the applicant has applied. The City shall use its
discretion in evaluating the Applicant's Initial Study applica1ion without regard to the Applicant's
promise to pay for the Processing Services. or the executioo of the Agreement.
m. Remedies
A.. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity.
the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Initial Study which is the
subject matter of this Agreement, as well as the Initial Study which may be the subject matter of
any other Permit which Applicant has before the City.
B.
Civil Collection
--
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have all law or equity.
the City has the right to collect all sums whj;;h are or may become due hereunder by civil action.
and upon instituting litigation to collect samc: the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees had costs.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or pennitted to be given pursuant ID this Agreement
must be in writing. All notices. demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to
have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail.
addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or =rified. with return =ipt requested. at
the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the panies represented.
B. Governing LawfVenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of
California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state courts located in San Diego County. State of California. and if applicable. the City
of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this agreement, and perfonnance
hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
C. Multiple Signatories
If there are multiple signalDries to this agreement on behalf of Applicant. each of such signatories
shall be jointly and severally liable for the perfonnance of Applicant's duties herein set forth.
D. Signatory Authority
The signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that it is the duly designated agent
for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and
Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event it has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by
the Applicant. -
Page 9
wPC:F:'HO~"''1NG\STORErN021-A_93 (Rd. 1020.93) ffi.r;f. 10"..2...93)
'.-~'---_.'-'.__.-'._-
E. Hold Harmless
Applicant shall defend. indemnify and hold harmless the City. its elected and appointed officers
and employees. from and against all claims for damages. liability. cost and expense (including
without limitation anomeys' fees) arising out of processing Applicant's Initial Study. except only
for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the City, incurred by
the City. its officers. agents. or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same
proceed to judgement or not Fw1her, the Applicant. at its own expense, shall, upon wrinen
request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the city. its officers. agents.
or employees. Applicant's indemnifcation of the City shaIl be limited by any prior or subsequent
declaration by the Applicant
F.
Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
--
No suit or 3Ibitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement. against the City unless a claim
has fust been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
, Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended. the provisions of which are
incorporated by the reference as if fully set forth herein, and suci! policies and procedures used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by the City. the Applicant shall meet and
confer in good faith with the City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the tenDs of this
Agreement _
<c.
Now. therefore. the parties hereto. having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement.
do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fow1h A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
By: ~J'-<~
Dated:
I;;;~r
Applicant (or authorized representative)
By: /),g L
C>
F/~/-I
By: P~E.s:
w-~~
Dated: iF -/S- - c2 "'" ""'E>
Vw'PC;F:\HOME\f'LA}\'N!NG\STOREIN021-A..93 (Rd. 1020.93) (Rd. 1022..93)
Page 10
TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEME."'T
Stalemont of disclosur<: of ccnain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters whicb
will rcquir<: discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Plamring Commission. and all other official bodies.
The folJowing information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons have a financial interest in the contr3Ct, i.e., comractor, subcqntractor,
material supplier.
t;) A~
/ ~ '--J /,-.../
2.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pannership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10 % of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in
the partnership.
{:>4...J
!-- /"'-
J r? <......J /..........
C>c.-'IVGI-\
f>~E'.f,..
OJL
.D
j:"/>H
3.
If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of any
person s~rving as diT~ctor of the non-profit organization or as ttUStee or beneficiary or UUSt~ of the trust.
-
4. Have you had more than 5250 worth of husiness transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards.
Commissions, Comminees and Council within the past twelve months?
/,' ("';J
. .
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or indcpendont
COiltractOrs who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this maDcr.
~..Jc:7~ C
6. Have you andJor your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 10 a Council
member in the current or pre=!ing election period? Yes [ ] No [ .q If yes, state which Council
member(s): .
Person is defined as: -Any individual. firm. co-pannership.joint VCDDl~. association.,. socw club, fratcmaJ orpnizaIion. corporation. est:I.r:.
trust. re.c:ivcr, syDdica.tt. chis and any other county. city and county. city. municipality. district or other political subdivision., or any other group
or combination acting as a unit. .
(NOTE: AII3Cb additional pages as Decessary)
Date:
r; - 1- ~,,=>
C1.,.~~L__~
Signarure of contractor/applicant
01/V /A? /.//....-' fJlZf'5.
Print or type name of contraCtor/applicant
.o./? Co 0
,c/.V!
WPC:F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\102I.A.91Rd. J020.93)(Rcf. 102.2.93)
Pago II
~{~
~
--~---~
- - -
01Y OF
CHULA VISTA
I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
Development Processing
Application Form - Type B
Page One
TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED
I:
o General Plan Amendment
o General Development Plan
o Amendment
o SPNSpecific Plan
o Amendment
o Redevelopment
o Amendment
o Zone Change
~Tentative Subdivision
Map
o Annexation
(staff use only) Case No.: fft.5 -IJ(-()4
Filing Date: <if / I?J~~j f ri r
Assigned Planfler: . . ,f . ,/l/)
Receipt No.: '" "
Project Acct: (!"'A - ;;'41 '
Deposit Acct: D~/7 /) 7
Related Cases: -"'oi-nlV{
o ZA C:ii{ Public Hearing
o other:
Applicant Nome
O@L (/
IApplicant Ac:!dress
7c.. '-/7 (i'/tC/t/(D 4l/C
Applicants Interest in Property
?6-..0wn 0 Lease ;::] In Escrow ;::] Option to purchase
I
, Engineer/Agent
Iproject Name
!/IS'Ir1 PEL L.oR..O
General Description of Proposed Project
(Please use Appendix A to provide a full description and justification for the project)
9 ,Nt:c./ S 1.4/ c;-( 6" F.+-7/L;>- 1-/=,-,,, c::::S. "'...........
APPLICANT INFORMATION
I Phone No.
DA/\/ / R. (U/-<'v(G ! 9) ,fly c:>
Ii
I
Nsff - f/12.c:s.
?//~
L
Q.. 5u<</E;Y
9;J-03
If applicant is not owner. owners authorization I
is required to process request. See signature .
on Page Two. I
, Phone No. I
! y-':; .
: ~~-L~_ I
- CA . C' ~ I /
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION (for all types)
I Proposed Land Users): (I.e. Commercial or Resiaentiai)
I t:.-.5 L? E/\/T,-{ L
7=== .s:.<< +-
,:;. Co i:>
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION (for all types)
ddress
..5-1
Redevelopment Area (it applicable)
\
>\
;f-
i
i
11/99
if applicable
V-1 C/f/V I
FORM B. (pAGE 1 OF 2)
~ { fc...
~
--"","--~
- - -
OTY OF GillLA VISTA
Planning & Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
(619)691-5101
Development Processing
Application Form - Type B
Page Two
01Y OF
CHUlA VISTA
(staff use ontv)
Case No.:
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
General Development Plan Name
/> r;.
Total Acres
c:J
~
ProDosed Land Uses
Commercial:
Parks:
Community Purpose:
Public/Quasi:
Residentiol
Single Family Detached:
Single Family Attached:
Duplexes:
Apartments:
Condominiums:
Totals:
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Range
to 9
to
to
to
to
to (
Industrial:
Schools:
Circulation:
Open Space:
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
I
I
I
Proposed Land Use Designation
R- I
I Please state why the General Plan should be changed
Units 2
Units
:iUnits
Units
Units
Units
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
.2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Ii
II
I Prezoning
II
ANNEXATION
I LAFCO Ret. No.
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Subdivision Nome I CV Tract No.
VI ~ T.4 PEL Lo~ 0 I NC:=Ce/
Minimum Lot Size NO. OT unns Average Lot Size
7<900 9 7~oD
I ZONE CHANGE I
o Rezoning 0 Prezoning 0 Setback Proposed Zoning
LJ.8t... .0 FI SII
Print Applicont or Agent Name
0;<. ->
f r t: .
?_1-2ocJO
Date
ure
))8 L D F/51-!
Print Owner Name
Owner Signature
(Required if Applicant is not ONner)
f -I - .A == 2J
Date
11/99
---,-".._-_........-._-_.~..,--,...._"-~-,_._.._-,----,~--_.---",-"---'- --~--.-
Appendix A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: 1/ / 5 Tr? PeL L 0 I? 0
APPLICANT NAME: D B L 1/ Fr s: /7'
Please describe fully the proposed project, any and all construction that may be
accomplished as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself,
the property, the neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope andlor operation of the proposed project.
You may include any background information and supporting statements regarding the
reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
For all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as
listed in listed in the Application Procedural Guide.
Description & Justification.
c; .5 (...v' G L E F/'f--n ( L 7' 0 1: 7/1 eN ED hE o~? E.s- C:-7 C /'f
;;,,-.
C/L-" /1- ??/2. <<? X, /'c:>c= >' <\? (:-r L = T 5,
S /~-</ 1-'-# ~E>
OESI.:e;/L/
c C---'/<:/i: L=..--v T(. Y
1/"; c:c ?I'i: orf..,=/<!.;- Y /..5.
A
r//.? C
H /'f Z,4 --2 0
/^,
,
/ r-S
_-, -. /~ L D.r-'C'".t-
U..-c.../ ~ c.::. v!..~
,.. -.4 IC
Y / ,
THe Z,o,-../ C /.A/b
I.>
1<-1
A ---/ ,:>
T/-r E /-"/2 o'?E~;->
($ --Z 4c,<.ES_
Appendix B
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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.
(;> u L 0 F/.s: H /==('6 OCY/V r ,(:
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.
/.? 4-/V' I E L g / r<: Co-J I...-<J
Ie:::> = '1= 0(<2./-<./ <:7<
P!:f;L D F/s-r-r
--
"'-
3. If any person> identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
4, Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No-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.
Ob./5_ 5ur2t./':'7~l'<-rrl/V0
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 --X- If yes, state which
Councilmember(s):
Date:
y-/-
(NOTE: A TTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES ~SSARY)
--<DOc;) ~ ~
Signature of contractor/applicant
DL3L n Frsfi
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* Person is defined as: "Any individual. firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. frea/erna/ organization, corpora/ion,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county. city Gnd country, city municipality. district, or other political subdivision, or any
other group or combination acting as Q unit. "
APPENDIX C
(I of 3)
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING AGREEMENT
Permit Applicant:
Applicant's Address:
Type of Permit:
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount:
This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal
corporation ("City") and the forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"), effective as of
the Agreement Date set forth above, is made with reference to the following facts:
Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit")
which the City has required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of
property; and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various
departments and before the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and,
Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reim1:mrse the City for all expenses it will incur in
connection with providing the Processing Services;
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree, in exchange for the mutual promises herein contained,
as follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to
Applicant's Permit, including all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of
Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's Duty to Pay."
1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty.
As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount
aforereferenced ("Deposit").
1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing
Services against Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's
Permit, any portion of the Deposit remains, City shall return said balance to Applicant
without interest thereon. If, during the processing of Applicant's Permit, the amount of
the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently likely to become exhausted in the
opinion of the e City, upon notice of same by City, Applicant shall forthwith provide
such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to continue
Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said
deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty",
2. City's Duty.
City shall, upon the condition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor
Applicant's Deposit Duty, use good faith to provide processing services in relation to Applicant's
Permit application.
2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's
Permit application, or for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by
Applicant or estimated by City.
APPENDIX C
(20f3)
2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no righ.t to the Permit for which
Applicant has applied. City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit
Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the Processing Services, or
the execution of the Agreement.
3. Remedies.
3.1. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject
matter of this Agreement, as well as the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit
which Applicant has before the City.
3.2. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity,
the City has the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civil action, and
upon instituting litigation to collect same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.
4.
Miscellaneous.
'"-
4.1 Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States
mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested at
the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented.
4.2 Governing LawNenue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of
Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder,
shall be the City of Chula Vista.
4.3. Multiple Signatories.
If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such
signatories shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set
forth.
4.4. Signatory Authority.
This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly
designated agent for the Applicant and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this
Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay
and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been authorized to execute this Agreement by
Applicant.
APPENDIX C
(30f3)
4,5 Hold Harmless.
Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed
officers and employees, from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or
administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of City's actions in processing or issuing
Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not limited to the giving
of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights,
except only for those claims, suits, actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole
willful conduct of the City, its officers, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant.
Applicant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorney's fees and liability
incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the
same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant, at its own expense, shall, upon written request
by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees.
Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any
such actin, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this
condition.
4,6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out"of this agreement against the City unless a
claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the
City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are
incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by
the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in
good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this
agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the
date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated:
?II S --j~
I I
~
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
By:
Dated: ,J'-/.>-~.2 00<0:)
By:
~LD F/.s=/'f'
I'~l;>. (0. ~~
~ Prudential
-
Prudential Caliturnia Realty
578 Tnird Avenue. Suite 305. Chula Vista CA 9191 0
Bus5i9~22-7700 Fa~,619422-623~
8/11/00
ijfe<<:lEDWlEfnj
lJl} AUG 17 2(XX) !W
To The City Of Chula Vista, Planning Department
On Behalf Of Daniel Irwin, DBA Obi 0 Fish, Inc.
PLANNING
This Is To Certify And Verify And Testify That The Following Individuals As
Owners & Sellers Of Said Parcels Listed Hereafter Provide To The City Of Chula
Vista Full Cooperation To The Developer & Buyer In The Following Processing
Of Boundary Lines & Lot Revisions To Accommodate The New Subdivision At
The End Of EI Loro, Chula Vista, CA.
Parcels Affected Per Lots#16, 18,20
APN's/619-290-16-00/619-290-18-00/619-290-20-00
Requestfully Submitted.....
(~:yt'-ru> ~;: ij/~.l-i-
C/'0: / j
owner/Seller"-!q:;.... I ,~/VvU...<----<' ~
L/~">-1!>/w c!. '77;{;;./ LL~ ~
"
"~r. / " '/
Owner/Seller .j,~~ -,--oi:.~ '"< ~ "" 7:;;;- /.0' d, .:::::
/ / ."
Witnessed/Seller's Realtor ~ (~, D _0<.-
J-/7-CO
IlDated '9-) -? -OCi
/lDated %"=- / -7 -,-'-, ,
/lDated ~ /'1 /~('
I I
On Behalf Of Buyer/Developer
1~4J-
Jim Teak, II
Realtor
t.
(i) An independently 0'NT1ed arod operate!j member of The Pruden1ial Real Estate Affiliates,lnc.
.
Fidelity National Title Company
386 E, oM- SIt""I, Suite 212. Chulll Vista. CA 91910
1619) 409-7240. FAX 1619) 409-9140
ADDITION AND/OR AMENDMENT TO ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
To:
Date:
Escrow No:
Property Address:
Fidelity National Title Company
August 2, 2000
701342-CM
Undeveloped land known as 1341 and 1345 4th Avenue, Chura Vista, CA
91911
The instructions in this escrow are hereby modified, amended andlor supplemented m the following
particulars only:
1. CHANGE IN TOTAL CONSIDERATION: All parties are aware that the sales price in this
transaction is now $260,000.00. Escrow Holder is to adjust the Transfer Tax on the executed
Grant Deed. Escrow Holder is instructed to amend the commission accordingly.
2. FUNDS RELEASED PRIOR TO CLOSE: Buyer has requested to allow escrow to pay Buyer
through this escrow the sum of $2,500.00, and no more, from this escrow for fees incurred
outside of escrow for development. Buyer will still have the original liability of the $5,000.00
deposit. Buyer understands that the $2,500.00 draw from Buyer's deposit is to be paid back
into escrow. If for any reason escrow does not close and all the contingencies have been
removed, the $5.000.00 deposit is considered liquidated damages and is to be paid to the Seller
when Escrow Holder is in receipt of mutually agreed signed cancellation instructions from Buyer
and Seller.
Buyer and Seller understand thaLFidelity National Title Company makes no warratlty or
representation of any kind, express- or implied as to the ownership of or title to the property
described in this escrow, nor to any encumbrances or liens thereon, nor as to the condition
and/or the ultimate outcome of this escrow nor in any manner or form as an inducement to
make the above payment.
Furthermore, Buyer and Seller fully realize that no instruments have been filed in Buyer's favor,
have been recorded, nor policy of title insurance issued tD protect his interest in said property,
Seller nevertheless desires to accommodate Buyer and release funds as requested above.
Therefore, from funds herewith on deposit in this escrow, you are hereby authorized and
instructed to pay said funds as requested abDve upon receipt of this instructiDn executed by
all parties hereto.
Fidelity National Title Company is nDt to be held liable or responsible for any loss or damage
which Buyer may sustain by reason of making the above payment, nor for failure of any of the
conditions of this escrow, nor for the recovery of said money for any reason whatsoever.
Funds released pursuant tD the above instructions shall represent a part of the tDtal
consideration.
3. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT: Buyer to execute a bDundary adjustment for the subject properties
in this transaction prior to the close of escrow or shortly thereafter; realizing that with all parties
cooperating, including municipalit;es, that time is of the essence.
All other terms and conditions remain the same.
ObI. 0 Rsh, a California CorporatiDn, a Calitornia corporation
Bf].. /~ ~
Daniel B. Irwin ' ---
PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN
By:
atsushita, Trustee Yos
Paul R. Wes and Christine I. West, Trustees of the Paul
.Family Trust dated February 1, 2000
~
Escro'.... r~o;
701342-0.1
; i.l~H~ 1.
BY~Af;j?r,;;4' J,.. .r
/:i(jf:' West, Trustee
By ~.). dd ~
Christine I. West, Trustee J
~
'--II I Ui ,--nULh VIQLA
ENGINEERING DEPT./PLANNING DEPT.
ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO. 00-10
SCAl...E: 1 N .. 1X) FT.
~
,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEING A PORTION OF LOT 24, QUARTER
SECTION 142, CHULA VISTA, IN THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CAUFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 505. -1-
~ c, i 'C
0
Z cO ,
:;;-.:::- J/ ------
2;.~
:") PRESTON
~
~::.... PLACE
.=<
.- ----.;;:
......:..,
'"
'-
t;")
t::D'?-\)
O"/.'
''''''-,
~
~i ,,-';..-
,~
"~
\'Cf'
,
'-
J
VICINITY MAP
NO SCA!...E
~D ~ ~ E ~ \8 E ,in!
I ::I!I
lJ! OCT 1 9 2000 i l!:U
PLANNING
OWNER (APN 619-290-16) SHIGEKAZU & YOSHIE MATSUSHITA
ADDRESS 934 5TH AVENUE, CHULA VlSiA 91911
PHONE NO. 5'$-422-10)9
L/,..J,[':'7jr~4
SIGNATURE ,fi~'_ ~..f-~_ / p' ~ ~ /..L-
....-.... - '"-
OWNER (foPN 6'9-,.0-::17, IB, 19 ~ 20) PAU. R. ~ C>tRIST1NE l I\5T
ADDRESS 13<5 411< A;mJE. CHlJI}, VISTA 91911
PHONE NO. 619422-'039
SIGNATURE'~il.D(7 i ,I ",y~:..... .!l- Ixl:~ I
>,., ' .
APPROVALS:
PLANNING AND BUILDING D,PARTMENT:
BY:
DATE:
<
"--
, ;;;,~
'. .-."
:::2;
~,~
'I . (66')
KJffE
"7
'"
(66')
"'
"
"
'- "
< 0
-Z-,:8
?i....? 1
,"
~
~
2
I~",,' :::~-/
..... :E:::U L
/S~~
EL LUGAR STREET
~ t; I'
3 '" LESCHDRN UNrT N!), 2
..J ~ I MAP NO, 5542
~ ,- ~ I ~ I (')
N'B"6'45"w 'I 265.42'1
~
% I
~NI
~:1J 'PARCEL g
Q:~1 iN:S
8~1~ ~I~ C"-
~ I:J co ::J,o 0 ~:.,.
0:: C "1.':11'"} ~ o.
.....~i~ 6 ~I ~ g ~ c;~
(0 O"I~ ~ ~I:J ~ ~ I'"}
'I :fil~ ~ ~I ~ :: :::I
o I"')'(L ;; c.. CI: .... c..:
~ ~ ........1 c.:> 0\ ::e z ~
:J J, i~ 5:. 21 ell. c..
>- ~ v; V) c:: <( .....:
c:: 0 IX < xi VI
...... !.OJ ...... ~ :3
g, a: i) \, I ~ /1
?f<: ~~'i. .'.
. . i'! ,
~ ;.....~-o _r~_~_
:....J -.:- I!
Z . \./ '_ 99.3~' ..:--;
~ :,: \ N23"13 55"W
N1B"16'~~166.59' ~,
82.50 .' ~ 84-.09
-.
"-
1...0)
-, '--
~
~~ \ g, i
ER-302
o
:")
~"
~t>j
5,~~
--:-- -::. ~
::0
/'
I
...-1
i
I
i
=
~
"1
J
I
<I in
: 0 a:
0>
~~ ~
""0>
(.).- fJ
~tO P
0'1~~ co
2 . ~:r
N i<'U:::~
24t 1#
~ ~~~ N ?
...J I _ to-
~Q:) I.')
~t; ci
_ NZ
<z ,..,
, a.
-<
in
..,
N
t/~A?
-;:
EJaS1IHO lNiD "'"
PR!J'OS8) L\NO "'"
EXISIIfG ZtM<<;
PRa'OS!D 2DIfi:
GROSS _
PII'<:a 'E'
'SfR
'SFR
RI
RI
22,BtJ1S.f.
PAACEJ. .c.
"SFR
"SFR
RI
RI
31,349 Sf.
/
:"
I
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
BY:
DATE:
..
f-
I
50S
!
~,
~:;I
~~I
RI
RI
88,505 S.F.
MAP PREPARED BY: DGB SURVEY & MAPPING
DONALD G. BAKER
ADDRESS: 23 1/2 NAPLES STREET, CHULA VISTA, CA
PHONE NO.: (619) 422-7269
R.E. OR LS. NO.: LS 6665
H -,_..__-.,.-,__
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-01-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VISTA DEL LORO
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, PCS 01-04, A 2.03-ACRE NINE LOT SUBDIVISION
FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY
TERMINUS OF EL LORO STREET.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department on August 17, 2000 by Dan Irwin a.ka, Double D Fish (developer); and
WHEREAS, said developer requests permission to subdivide a 2.03 acre parcel into nine lots for single-family
dwelling units, located at the westerly terminus of EI Loro Street, between Palomar and Quintard Streets, Third and
Fourth Avenue, located within a single-family residential (R-I-7) Zone, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area with a
Land Use Designation of LowlMedium Density Residential (6 - II dwelling units per acre), and within the General Plan
Land Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (6 - II dwelling units per acre), consisting of APN 619-290-16,18
and 20; and
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that the initial study was adequate and
recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as to the effects of the proposal on the environment in
compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision map and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 300-ft, of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10
days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 23, 2001 6:00 p,m, in the
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at the public
hearing with respect to subject application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend
that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-OI-04 in
accordance \\~th the tentative subdivision map findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached
City Council Resolution,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
23" day of May, 2001, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Robert Thomas, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J: IPLANNINGIHAROLDIPC-RESO-PCS-Ol-04.DOC
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS OF
THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR VISTA DEL LORO, A
2.03-ACRE NINE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS
OF EL LORO STREET, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land commonly known as "Vista Del Loro" Tentative
Subdivision Map (PCS-01-04), Chula Vista Tract No. _' which is the subject matter of
this resolution, and is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and for the purpose of general description herein
consists of 2.03 acres located at the westerly terminus of EI Loro Street, between
Palomar and Quintard Streets, Third and Fourth Avenue, located within a single-family
residential (R-1-7) Zone, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area with a Land Use
Designation of LowlMedium Density Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre), and
within the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Residential (6 - 11
dwelling units per acre), consisting of APN 619-290-16,18 and 20 ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2000, Dan Irwin a.k.a. Double D Fish ("Developer");
filed a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning Department of the City of
Chula Vista and requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-01-04)
known as "Vista Del Loro," Chula Vista Tract No. _' in order to subdivide the project
site into nine (9) single-family residential lots ("Project"); and
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission has determined that the
Initial Study prepared by the Environmental Review Coordinator was adequate and
recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on April 16, 2001, in
compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the same Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 23, 2001.
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the
said project on May 23, 2001 and voted X-X-X-X to recommend that the City Council
approve the Project based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below in
accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-01-04; and
E. City Council Record on Application
-'-"-~"".'-"_.'-'-'~'---'._-
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held at the time and
place as advertised on June _' 2001 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue
before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; to receive the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to the Project, and said
hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the project introduced before the Planning
Commission at their public hearing on this project held on May 23, 2001 and the minutes
and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council does hereby find that the environmental determination of the
Environmental Review Coordinator, the Resource Conservation Commission, and the
Planning Commission 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.
IV. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The City does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as conditions for this approval all
applicable mitigation measures, as set forth in the Environmental Document IS-01-08.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that "Vista Del Loro" Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-01-04), Chula Vista
Tract No. _' as conditioned herein is in conformance with the various elements of the
City's General Plan based on the following:
1. Land Use
The General Plan Land Use Designation is Low Medium Residential (6 - 11 dwelling
units per acre). The Montgomery Specific Plan Land Use Designation is LowlMedium
Density Residential (6 - 11 dwelling units per acre). The proposed 9-lot subdivision is
within the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling units. Therefore, as
conditioned, the Project is in substantial compliance with the City's General Plan, and
the Montgomery Specific Plan.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be
constructed or paid for by the developer in accordance with the Conditions of Approval.
The public streets within the Project will be designed in accordance with the City design
. .'_._._,._~----_. .'. -,..-,....--....--.-.......-
Resolution No.
Page 3
standards andlor requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections
with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
The housing provided within the Project will be market-rate housing. The Project will
provide additional single-family home ownership opportunities in an established western
Chula Vista neighborhood, within the Montgomery Specific Plan area.
4. Conservation
The Project site is known to have significant environmental impacts, which are
addressed by the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program
is incorporated into the conditions of approval.
5, Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The Project will be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to
approval of a final map. The individual lots possess large rear yard areas, in addition to
an open space storm drainage percolation landscape enhancement easement over
portions of lots 1 through 4.
6. Seismic Safety
The Project is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the
General Plan for this site. The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred
geologic fault
7. Safety
The Project is within the General Plan standard for response time of both Police and Fire
services. The emergency services agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for
conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the proposal meets the
City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
The Project will be required to meet the residential standards of the General Plan's
Noise Element and Municipal Code. The dwelling units will be required to meet the
Uniform Building Code standards with regard to acceptable interior noise levels.
9. Scenic Highway
The Project does not abut a scenic route or gateway
10. Bicycle Routes
The public street within and adjoining the Project does not included a designated bike
route.
11. Public Buildings
Resolution No.
Page 4
No public buildings are planned or proposed for the Project.
B, Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council
certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the
region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents
of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allows for the optimum siting of lots
for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities and that the development of
the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum
utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to
all standards established by the City for such projects.
E, The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created
by the proposed development
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the City Council does hereby approve the
Project subject to the general and specific conditions set forth below:
VI. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the foregoing Project is hereby conditioned as follows:
Environmental:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable dust
control agents during dust-generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional
watering or dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and
spills.
3. A 20-miles per hour (MPH) speed limit on unpaved surfaces in connection with the
project shall be enforced.
4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately
to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach
routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry
weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydro-seeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible
and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
Resolution No.
Page 5
7, Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustionlfuel injection systems for
emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. Catalytic
reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used. Also, construction equipment
shall be equipped with pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper
maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available
and feasible.
8. Temporary de-silting and erosion control devices shall be installed as specified on the
Tentative Subdivision Map. These devices include de-silting basins, berms, hay bales,
silt fences, dikes, and shoring. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain
inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system.
9. Additional erosion control measures will be installed as required by the City Engineer
due to uncompleted grading operations or unforeseen circumstances that may arise.
10, A qualified paleontologist will be retained to implement a paleontological monitoring and
recovery program as a condition of the project construction contract A qualified
paleontologist is defined as an individual with a Masters of Science (MS) or Doctorate of
Science (PhD) in Paleontology or Geology that is a recognized expert in the
identification and recovery of fossil materials.
11. The qualified paleontologist will attend the project pre-construction meeting to discuss
project-grading plans with the project contractors. If the qualified paleontologist
determines that proposed excavation/grading will likely cut into undisturbed portions of
the Bay Point formation, then monitoring will be conducted as outlined in conditions 12
through 14,
12. The project paleontologist or a paleontological monitor will be on site during original
cutting of the above noted geological units. A paleontological monitor is defined as an
individual who has experience in collection and salvage of fossil materials, and who is
working under the direction of a qualified paleontologist Monitoring of the noted
geologic units will be at least half-time at the beginning of excavation, and will be either
increased or decreased depending on the initial results per the direction by the project
paleontologist
13. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist will
have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities in the discovery
area to allow recovery in a timely manner, typically in the order of one hour to two days.
All collected fossil remains will be cleaned, sorted, catalogued, and deposited in an
appropriate scientific institution such as the San Diego Museum of Natural History.
14. A report with map showing the fossil site locations summarizing the results, analysis,
and conclusions of the above described monitoring/recovery program will be submitted
to the City of Chula Vista Planning Department, Environmental Division with three
months of terminating the monitoring activities.
Enqineerinq:
15. Design and construct all street improvements in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Obtain City Engineer approval of the
Resolution No.
Page 6
detailed improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer licensed in the State
of California detailing horizontal and vertical alignment of said streets. Design transition
to meet existing improvements in EI Loro Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt-concrete pavement, base,
concrete curb, gutter sidewalk, pedestrian ramps, street signs, street name signs,
striping, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, and fire hydrants.
16. Show the installation of two 100-watt HPSV Street Lights on concrete standards
between lots 5 and 6 and between lots 1 and 2 on the final map. The Engineering
Division shall determine the exact location.
17. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes per City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual
and Grading Ordinance unless otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
18. Guarantee prior to approval of the final map the construction of public-street
improvements deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision in
accordance with City standards.
19. Provide written verification to the City Engineer from Sweetwater Authority water district
that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term water storage
facilities.
20. Provide a minimum 12-ft, wide concrete-base paved or other approved road surface
access and vehicular turn-around to all public detention basin drainage facilities at the
southeast corner of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The graded
access within a 15-ft. wide easement is required for the public storm drain facility
between EI Loro Street and Preston Place.
21. Install fire hydrants as determined by the City Fire Marshal. Said hydrant locations shall
be shown on the improvement plans,
22. Remove and replace the existing 21-inch CMP storm drain-pipe at EI Lugar Street with
an 18-inch RCP storm drain pipe, or install an HDPE pipe liner into the existing pipe to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
23. Submit grading plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by
the City Engineer. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2-ft. 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.
24. Submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of the grading plans prepared
by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer.
25. Show the location of cut and fill lines based on existing topography as part of the grading
plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
26. Submit a table listing for each of the proposed lots, and indicated whether the house
structures for each of the proposed lots will be situated atop soils that are fill, cut, or a
transition between fill and cut (bisected by fill and cut soils) as a requirement prior to the
approval of the final map.
Resolution No.
Page 7
27. Provide notation on the grading plans acknowledging that the on-site storm run-off
conveyance system along the rear property lines of parcels 5 through 9 will be a private
storm water conveyance system.
28. Submit a detailed geo-technical report prepared, signed and stamped by a registered
civil engineer and a certified engineering geologist prior to approval of the grading plans
and issuance of grading permit.
29. Submit a precise drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit or any other development
permits. The design of the drainage facilities shall consider existing on-site and oft-site
drainage patterns. The drainage study shall show how downstream properties and
storm drainage facilities are impacted. The City Engineer shall approve the extent of the
study.
30. Submit a detailed hydraulic study including inlet sizing and dry lane calculation prior to
approval of grading and improvement plans.
31, A maintenance mechanism and funding for the storm drainage systems, including the
limits of public and private drainage facilities, needs to be addressed and shown as part
of the grading and improvement plans.
32, Provide a straight alignment for the sewer main and an additional manhole along EI Loro
Street, as part of the grading and improvement plans.
33. The proposed storm-water drainage area in the southeast corner or the subdivision
(along the rear portions of lots 1 through 4) shall be designed to percolate storm water
run-off through the implementation of landscaping enhancements as conditioned below,
in order to reduce the quantity of storm water run-off from the development to an amount
equal to or less than the present 1 DO-year frequency run-off and demonstrate the
adequacy of existing facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
34. Comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development
process, including but not limited to rough grading, construction of street and
landscaping improvements, and the construction of dwelling units.
35. Dedicate for public use all streets shown on the tentative subdivision map with the metes
and bounds of the tentative subdivision map boundary.
36. Dedicate the access road and storm drainage catch basin 'as part of a public drainage
facility easement outside of the proposed public-right-of-way with a minimum width of
15-ft. or as determined by the City Engineer to the City.
37. Dedicate a minimum 5-ft. wide landscape parkway between the curb gutter and sidewalk
for street tree planting and maintenance easement along all public streets within the
subdivision.
38. Grant of a utility and storm drainage easement is required through the easterly portion of
lot 8 from Preston Place to the extension of EI Loro Street within the subdivision, and a
storm drainage easement is required from the top of the rear yard slope line andlor rear
,.'......_.._'"'n...~".
Resolution No.
Page 8
property line to the toe of rear property line andlor rear yard slope line for lots 1 through
4 for purposes of maintaining a public drainage area via the implementation of
percolation landscaping enhancements on private property. The individual property
owners shall maintain the easement over the storm drainage area. The individual
property owners shall be allowed to construct view decks on piers at the top of slope or
provide additional landscaping elements; however, the easement will prohibit individual
property owners from paving or installing fixed accessory structures on building pads or
slabs within the storm drainage easement.
39. Grant of utility and storm drainage easement is required through the westerly portion of
lot 4 on Preston Place, and a storm drainage easement shall also cover the portions of
lots 7 through 10 on Morehouse Place that are non-participatory in the subdivision and
implementation of percolation landscaping enhancement, but are necessary to the
maintenance of the public drainage area on private off-site property. The developer
shall notify the City at least 60-days prior to consideration of the final map by the City if
the off-site right-of-way for the dedicated access road and storm drainage catch basin, or
grant of storm drainage easements cannot be obtained as required by the conditions of
approval.
40, After notification of the City, the developer shall pay the full cost of acquiring off-site
right-of-way or easements required. A deposit of the estimated cost of acquiring said
right-of-way or easements shall be provided to the City, and the City Engineer shall
approve the estimated amount. All easements andlor right-of-way documents and plats
shall be prepared with appraisals completed as necessary to commence proceedings.
These requirements shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the final map.
41. If requested by the developer, the City may use its powers to acquire right-of-way,
easements, or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the tentative
subdivision map. The developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect, incurred in
said acquisition.
42. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers,
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including
approval by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval by its agents,
officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of
the State Subdivision Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivide of any
claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in
the defense.
43. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increase flow of
drainage resulting from this project.
44. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies are permitted equal
opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the
subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television
companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of
the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations,
ordinances, and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television
companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of
Chula Vista.
Resolution No.
Page 9
45. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (NAD '83).
46. Submit copies of the final map and improvement plan in a digital format such as (DFX)
graphic file prior to approval of the final map. Provide a CAD copy of the final map
based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the information in
accordance with the City guidelines for digital submittal in duplicate on a 3-1/2-inch HD
floppy disk prior to the approval of the final map.
47. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
Planninq:
48. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
49, The final map shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and shall incorporate all the
conditions of approval and be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and Building.
50. Prior to any use of the project site or issuance of any building permits, all conditions of
approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
51. A conceptual landscape plan shall be provided that reflects the existing planting located
in the southeast portion of the subdivision and located in the rear portions of the
adjacent properties along Morehouse Place and within the proposed storm drainage
easement. A complete set of landscape plans indicating the species, size, and type of
planting for the storm drainage easement for purpose of providing the percolation
landscape enhancement, shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect per
Landscape Manual and shall be submitted for review along with the grading plan
submittal and approved by the Landscape Planner.
52. A conceptual landscape plan for the landscape parkway street tree planting shall be
prepared by a registered Landscape Architect per Landscape Manual and shall be
submitted for review with the grading plan submittal and approved by the Landscape
Planner.
53. A fencing plan shall be provided showing 6-ft. screening (solid wood) fencing behind the
front yard setbacks between lots along the side and rear yard property lines, except for
lots 1 through 4, where the rear yard fencing will be located at the top or slope and will
consist of 4-ft. high coated (green or black) chain-link fencing with gated access to the
2: 1 slope storm drainage area to maintain the percolation landscape enhancement. No
fencing shall be installed within the slope or basin area. The fencing plan shall be
reviewed with the grading plan submittal and approved by the Landscape Planner.
54. A water management plan shall be submitted, including irrigation plans for the
percolation landscape enhancement to be included in the slope and basin area. The
water management plan shall be reviewed with the grading plan submittal and approved
by the Landscape Planner.
~- -_.,,--------.-.---- - -_._---~,--
Resolution No.
Page 10
55, The developer must submit a letter from the Fire Department to the Sweetwater
Authority water district stating the fire flow requirements. The Fire Department has
indicated that a fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch with
water flow duration of 2-hours is required. Based on this requirement, the Sweetwater
Authority will determine if there is a need for new water systems or substantial alteration
to the existing water system, which will need to be addressed prior to issuing a building
permit.
56, The Sweetwater Union High School District is requesting that the developer annex the
project into the Community Facility District No. 10 to mitigate project impacts to the
district. The developer will come to an agreement with the school district prior to the
issuance of building permits,
57. The Chula Vista Elementary School District is requesting that the developer annex the
project into their new generic Community Facility District No. 10 to mitigate project
impacts to the district. The developer will come to an agreement with the school district
prior to the issuance of building permits.
58. Ensure with all utilities that the location of all existing utility facilities will be protected in
place prior to commencement of grading. All utilities shall be underground within the
subdivision.
59, All Park and Recreation pad fees shall be paid at the issuance of the final map pursuant
to Chapter 17,10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
60. All building plans must comply with 1998 Energy requirements, 1998 Uniform Building
Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and 1998 National Electrical
Code.
61. Approval of this tentative subdivision map shall not waive compliance with all sections of
Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect
at the time of bUilding permit issuance,
62. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed
after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate govemmental 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 of a substantial revenue source, which the
Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
63. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives,
from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this conditional 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.
Applicant/operator shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a
copy of this conditional use permit where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's
Resolution No.
Page 11
compliance with this provision is an express condition of this conditional use permit and
this provision shall be binding on any and all of Applicant's/operator's successors and
assigns.
VII. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by signing the lines
provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and applicant have
each read, understood, and agreed to the conditions contained herein. Upon execution,
this document shall be recorded with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, at
the sole expense of the property owner and/or applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of
this recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owners/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding application for
building permits andlor a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as document No. _'
Signature of Property Owner
Date
VIII. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all
future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation
to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation.
Developer or a successor in interest gains no vested rights by the City's approval of this
Resolution.
IX, INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent
upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated;
and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions, or conditions are
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable,
this resolution and the permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no
further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning & Building
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
J :IPLANNINGIHAROLDlRESOLUTIONSICC-RESO-PCS-01-04.DOC