Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1990/05/21negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Gretchen Estates PROJECT LOCATION: 54 and 56 "F" Street Assessor's Parcel No.: 569-171-14 & 15 PROJECT APPLICANT: Don Goss CASE N0: IS-90-43 DATE: April 27, 1990 A. Project Setting The subject property consists of two rectangular shaped parcels of land each approximately .59 acres located on the south side of "F" Street at 54 and 56 "F" Street. There are currently 2 single family residential uses located on the northern portion of the site. The existing residence on the northwest corner of the site is designated as an historical site although it is not subject to the historical site permit process, as provided in the Municipal Code. Adjacent land uses include single family residential to the north, south, east and west of the project. Project Description The project involves subdividing the existing 2 lots into 6 single-family residential lots with 4 new homes to be constructed for a total of 6 single-family units. The lots will range in size from 7,335 sq. ft. to 10 530 sq. ft. Access to the subdivided Qarcels would be provided by a 20t access driveway off "F" Street transectTng the center of the site. The project population is estimated to be approximately 15 people based upon 2.5 people per household.. As part of the project conditions, school development fees will be required. In addition, street widening along "F" Street will be required; pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall he installed to provide for 26 foot half width improvements from centerline to curb. The installation of one street light is also required. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed 6-lot subdivision complies with the existing R-1 residential zone since the project density will be 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project falls within the density allowed by the low-medium density residential (3-6 du/ac) designation of the General Plan. city of Chula vista planning department environmental review section ~~~r, ,..._.:. _~ __~ CITY Of CHUTA VISTA C ~ -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The threshold/standards policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within five minutes in 75% of the cases and seven minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is 1 mile from the nearest fire station and the Fire Department's estimated response time is 3 minutes. The provision of a turnaround for fire apparatus or the installation of fire: sprinkler systems in all new construction is required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 2. Police The threshold/standards policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five minutes i n 75% of the cases and wi thi n seven minutes i n 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there would be adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The threshold/standards policy requires that a Level of Service (LOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is estimated to be 5,080. Upon project completion, the ADT would be expected to be 5,120. The estimated LOS would be "A" both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Street widening on "F" Street is required; pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed to provide for half width improvements of 26 feet from centerline to curb. In addition, one street light will be required to be installed. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The estimated project population is approximately Parks and Recreation Department has determined that not create significant impacts to City park facilities. Appropriate Park Area Development assessed. Therefore, the proposed project is deeme the City's policy. 15 people. The the project will and recreation fees will be ~ compatible with C ~ -3- 5. Drainage The threshold/standards policy requires that water flows and volumes must not exceed City Engineering standards. Drainage from the project site currently flows over the site to the west into "F" Street. The existing drainage improvements are considered by the City Engineering Department to adequately serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 6. Sewer The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project could generate an estimated 90 pounds per day of solid waste and an estimated 1,060 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by an 8-inch sewer line in "F" Street. This line is considered to be adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 7. Water The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed development projects. The Sweetwater Authority has been notified and has not identified any problems with providing adequate water supply to the project. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of the Initial Study conducted on the site, that any significant environmental effects will be created as a result of the proposed project. Although impacts to cultural resources were identified, they have been deemed to be less than significant. Cultural Impacts The existing single family residence located on the site at 54 "F" Street is designated as an historical site by the City's Resource Conservation Commission. This site is listed on the City's list of historical sites which is on file with the Planning Department. The proposed project would not adversely this residence. The historic site will remain, therefore, it is not subject to the historical impact site permit process, as regulated by the P4unicipal Code. F. Pitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Because there is no substantial evidence that the project will create any significant environmental effects, mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary. -4- G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site will not impact any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. Portions of the project site have already been developed as single family residential uses and the remaining project area is in disturbed grasses. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project is consistent with uses designated by the zone and General Plan. The proposed project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, since long-term goals will be achieved through compliance with the City's Threshold Standards and conditions of project approval. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is relatively minor in size and scope, and will not create significant environmental impacts that are cumulative in nature. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not result in any significant increases in hazardous substances, the release of emissions, nor any significant increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed project will not create any substantial adverse effects to human beings. -5- Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Applicant's Agent: 2. Documents Alex Saucedo, Building and Housing Roger Daoust, Engineering Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Robin Keightley, Advance Planning Steve Griffin, Current Planning Lee McEachern, Planning Intern Algert Engineering - Jim Algert Chula Vista General-Plan Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR (P&D Technologies, 1989) Chula Vista Historic Sites List This determination that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study, and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010, l NVIRONP ENT~A~REVI W CE~NATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7506P negative decla~p~tion PROJECT NAME: Park Village Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: 1250 Third Avenue, (APN 619-211-38) PROJECT APPLICANT: L. D. Crandall and D. M. Williams CASE N0: IS-90-44 A. Project Setting DATE: May 1, 1990 The proposed project is a 30-unit apartment complex on a 1.26 acre panhandle-shaped lot located at 1250 Third Avenue. The site is presently flat and there are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. The site is presently developed with 2 single family residences and 2 detached garages. Surrounding uses include apartments to the north, apartments and a vacant lot to the south, multi-family and commercial uses to the east, and a park to the west. B. Project Description The proposed project will consist of the demolition of the two existing single-family dwelling units and garages on the site to build a 30-unit, two-story wood-framed apartment complex. The complex will consist of 18 two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units. Access to the site will be provided from Third Avenue. Sixty-eight on-site parking spaces will be provided including 17 garages. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project area is zoned Administrative and Professional Office with a precise plan (C-O-P) and Central Commercial with a precise plan (C-C-P). The C-0 zone allows residential uses through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In the Apartment Residential (R-3) zone, residential apartment complexes are permitted with a maximum height restriction of 3-1 /2 stories or 45 feet. The proposed project has a maximum height of 3 stories and with conformance to conditions of approval for a conditional use permit, will be compatible with the current zoning, the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the site is High Density Residential which allows 27 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 23.8 units per acre and is therefore compatible with the high-density residential designation. wry _ _ city of Chula vista planning department Ci7v O environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The threshold/standards policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within 5 minutes in 75% of the cases and 7 minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is located 3/8 of a mile from the nearest fire station, and response time is estimated to be 4 minutes. The installation of at least one public and one private fire hydrant will be required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is cohsidered to be compatible with the City's policy. Police The threshold/standards policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within 5 minutes in 75% of the cases and within 7 minutes in 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there is no problem providing adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The threshold/standards policy requires that a level of service (LOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is estimated to be 19,620. Upon project completion, the ADT would be expected to be 19,800. The estimated LOS would be "A". Both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The threshold/standards policy does not apply to land uses of I-805. However, the park acreage in this area is not sufficient to serve the existing population and it is recommended that the applicant provide some open turfed area on the site. Applicant will be required to pay Park Area Development fees. 5. Drainage The Engineering Department is satisfied that this project will not cause storm water flows and volumes to exceed City Engineering standards. The site is not within a floodplain area and existing drainage infrastructure exists along Third Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project meets the threshold standards. -3- 6, .Sewer The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project will generate an estimated 375 pounds per day of solid waste and an estimated 5,963 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by an 8-inch line on Third Avenue. This line is considered adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. Water The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed projects. The Sweetwater Authority was notified of the proposed project and has not identified any constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of this initial study, that the proposed project will result in any significant environmental effects. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a soils report, a drainage study, and a grading plan to assure proper development and drainage. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The site is presently developed and does not include any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of a sensitive plant or animal species. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. -4- The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and meets the applicable threshold standards. Therefore, the project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is occurring on a site which is already developed. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse ,effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is no substantial evidence that the project will cause adverse effects to humans and the project will not result in the release of any hazardous substances, a significant increase in ambient noise levels, or a significant increase in vibrations on emissions. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Steve Griffin, Current Planning Robin Keightley, Advanced Planning Lee McEachern, Planning Intern Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva City of Chula Vista School District: Kate Shurson Applicant's Agent: D. M. Williams 2. Documents State CEQA Guidelines, 1986 Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Title 19, Chula Yista Municipal Code General Plan Update, EIR C -6- 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7660P AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, May 23, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of April 11 and April 25, 1990 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 five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-L-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, the first generally bounded by Hermosa Avenue, Orange Avenue and Zenith Street, the second being residential development immediately west of Hilltop Drive along Jicama Way, Orange Avenue, Tamarindo Way, Festival Court and Holiday Court, and the third being the residential area south of Main Street along Del Monte Avenue, Alvoca Way, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-3, Salt Creek Ranch 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) a. Request to prezone 11.7 acres located southerly of Lynndale Lane, northerly of East 'H' Street, and easterly of the I-805 freeway, to R-E-P -Cameo Development Company (Continued) b. Request to subdivide 11.7 acres known as Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, into 17 single- family detached lots and one open-space lot - Cameo Development Company 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-42: Request to utilize dwelling at 1515 Hilltop Drive as shelter for homeless youth - South Bay Community Services, Inc. Items for Council Action from "Environmental Agenda for the 90s" 1. Council policy to undertake no further east-west streets or widenings for accommodation of more eastward development until planning is completed fox new east-west public transit. '~ 2. A General Plan amendment precluding further approvals of major new projects which would have been illegal prior to the General Plan Revision of 1989 until the issues raised by council referrals on General .Plan issues - provision of public transit, protection of residential neighborhoods from increased traffic, and a Growth Management Element to the General Plan - have been resolved. 3. Directing staff to prepare a long-term plan for the construction of a citywide system of bicycle lanes to make bicycling convenient and safe throughout the city, with a phased plan for implementation through the capital improvements budget. 4. Anew zoning ordinance requiring mixed uses (e.q., neighborhood commercial and residential) within walking distance of each other in new development, and facilitating mixed uses consistent with community character in previously built areas, subject to design review. 5. A new street design ordinance, requiring new streets to be designed to be driven at a safe speed for pedestrians (not just motorists), prohibiting high-speed design on residential streets and near sc:ools and senior centers, and requiring the provision of usable ar.:d safe bicycle lanes. 6. A zoning ordinance requiring new employment centers to be situated within convenient walking distance of public transit services, with provisions for partnerships between developers and the city for the provision of such services where feasible. 7. A Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. This ordinance would require large employers, including the City, to prepare plans for a reduction in "drive alone" commutes during peak hours of over 508 within five years. Measures in transportation demand management plans could include carpooling, transit and bicycle incentives, flex hours and alternative workweeks, hiring from residential areas near the place of employment, or other measures to be determined in each plan. Plans should be monitored for compliance with goals, and goals should be periodically evaluated for their ability to achieve healthier air. 8. Adoption of a city government transportation demand management plan in advance of the effective date of the above ordinance, including the measures listed above. 9. Direct staff to prepare a plan for the construction, through 1 d; ~; the capital improvements process (or with redevelopment funds in appropriate areas). of secure bicycle .parking facilities at city facilities_and commercial centers, giving priority to locations at businesses wishing to provide such improvements in partnership with the city. G4 10. Adoption of an ordinance prohibiting contracts for EIRs which do not require the best possible quantification of impacts in areas mandated by CEQA, and prohibiting payment for unacceptable EIRs. 11. Direct staff to identify projects impacting Chula Vista where environmental and traffic forecasts on which policy makers relied turned out to be seriously wrong, to hire a consultant not connected to any such projects to conduct a study of how they went wrong, and to provide recommendations for correcting the process in the future, as well as on any remedies the city may have. 12. Request a staff report on current air quality maintenance programs for city equipment, with recommendations for improvements if appropriate. 13. Adopt an ordinance containing a preferential procurement policy for clean fuels (within realistic economic parameters) and requiring an annual public report on implementation. 14. Send a letter from the City Council to Mayor O'Connor of San Diego, the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors, and the mayors of the other cities in the county asking them to join in a cooperative effort to explore the feasibility and desirability of creating a public energy distribution utility while opening energy production to the free market. 15. Direct our staff, as intervenors in any proceeding concerning proposals for new SDG&E facilities in Chula Vista, to demand proof of air quality claims, and to oppose any such proposals in the absence of proof that they will improve our air quality and that SDG&E will be held to any assurances it gives by the prospect of meaningful penalties for violations of any agreements. 16. Send a letter to the California Energy Commission outlining our agreement with SDG&E concerning the rezone of their Chula Vista land and putting on the record of any Energy Commission proceeding the invalidity under that agreement of any implication that new industrial uses by SDG&E on our bayfront are consistent with local land use regulations. 17. Consider an Open Space zone alternative for at least part of the SDG&E bayfront property. 18. Adopt an indoor smoking law patterned after San Diego County's. 2 s t mya2c ,, 19. Direct staff to report on the possible establishment of a fund, similar to that proposed at the federal level by the Environmental Defense Fund, to subsidize the removal of lead from older Chula Vista homes. This report should include an analysis of need, and, if the need is shown, of possible funding sources, e.q., a ballot measure tab tax lead products. 20. Direct staff to Fl`repare a policy, with input from the Environmental. Health Coalition and appropriate others, to eliminate the use of polluting chemicals by the city and prescribing alternatives. 21. Adopt a city policy to identify and prohibit the purchase of any unnecessary products the production, use, or disposal of which is harmful to the earth's ozone layer, and assure that all staff with purchasing authority receive a copy. 22. Adopt an ordinance requiring work on automobile air conditioners to be performed with equipment to prevent the escape of ozone-depleting chemicals into the environment, with the effective date delayed until a similar ordinance is adopted in all jurisdictions in the county. 23. Add support for the Bates ozone layer protection bill to the city's legislative program. 24. Add support for Assemblyman Peace's A.B. 1332 to phase out chlorofluorocarbons from automobile air conditioning by 1995 to the city's legislative program. 25. Hold off on further .tentative map approvals for major projects relying on the 1989 General Plan revision until that revision.- including a Growth Management Element with implementation measures - is complete. 26. Adopt an ordinance requiring new developments to be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission, with that commission's recommendation being put before the City Council at the time of any council action, and prohibiting council approval prior to such input. 27. Adopt an ordinance for the creation of open space and parks acquisition assessment districts. 28. Adopt an Open Space zone. 29. Adopt an ordinance requiring redevelopment plans to be considered by the Planning Commission and the Resource Conservation Commission prior to City Council action. 30. Adopt a Sensitive Lands Ordinance for the protection of slopes, canyons, riparian habitats and other environmentally 3 ~> ~~ . sensitive lands. 31. Adopt a policy requiring certification, prior to approval, of projects'- compliance with .the General Plan Growth Management Element, the "Threshold" standards, and Proposition V, with the understanding that projects not in compliance with the latter are required by law to gain a`unanimous council vote to win approval. i 32._: Adopt an ordinance requiring all development agreements to contain provisions halting development where the "threshold" standards are not met. 33. .Adopt an ordinance amending the "threshold" standards to measure compliance by impacts on cost and quality, as well as quantity, of city services, and by impacts on public safety. 34. Adopt an ordinance requiring new developments to show they will pay their own way in staffing needs as well as capital improvements. 35. Send a letter from the City Council to the Growth Management Oversight Committee, the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Resource Conservation Commission emphasizing the council's intent to give these bodies the widest possible latitude to develop policy recommendations for the council. 36. Adopt a Tree Preservation Ordinance. 37. Direct staff to consider a future Arbor Day program similar to that being implemented this year in Escondido. 38. Direct staff to prepare an RFP for a study (to be done jointly with neighboring jurisdictions if they wish) to identify future job demands and training needs in our locale and to recommend education, training and economic development measures, with assistance from a city Economic Development Commission. 39. Direct staff to work with the Environmental Health Coalition to develop a model Toxic Waste Reduction Ordinance. 40. Send letters from the city to legislators and local judges reiterating our desire for greater protection - tougher sentencing - of methamphetamine manufacturers. 41. Send appropriate letters in sentencing proceedings involving methamphetamine manufacturing in Chula Vista, reminding judges of the seriousness of this activity and the need for protecting the public. 42. Establish a program for collecting all recyclable materials (glass, aluminum, paper) generated at City Hail. ,, i 43. Establish a timetable for citywide curbside recycling. 44. Adopt a program similar to Irvine's to restrict the sale and use of unnecessary products harming the environment through ozone depletion and nonrecyclability. 45. Direct our staff to `establish neighborhood recycling centers and negotiate appropriate pickup services. 46. Adopt an ordinance requiring new development to provide recycling facilities. 47. Adopt a Toxics Disclosure Ordinance. 48. Empower the Resource Conservation Commission to review generation and uses of toxic waste in Chula Vista, and make recommendations for reductions. 49. Direct our staff to provide us with an interim updated report on alternatives to continued participation in or payment for the Metro sewer system, including alternative treatment technologies. 50. Direct our staff to implement enhanced streetsweeping prior to forecast storms. 51. Establish a Conservation Finance Authority to provide low- and no- interest loans to homeowners and businesses for capital improvements conserving energy and water. 52. Adopt an ordinance requiring retrofit of residential buildings at time of sale with simple, cost-effective conservation technology (insulation and low-flow fixtures), using funding from the Conservation Finance Authority and Development Impact Fees assessed on developments consuming energy and water resources. 53. Adopt an ordinance requiring new developments to use drought- tolerant landscaping, and to include CC&Rs requiring drought- tolerant landscaping. 54. Direct our staff to prepare a plan for expanded use of reclaimed water in city facilities. 55. Establish neighborhood planning groups to provide input on development and planning proposals affecting the community. 56. Direct the Resource Conservation Commission to provide or arrange for quarterly articles on local environmental issues in our city newsletter, and to work with the city's public information coordinator to develop better communication with the public on environmental and planning issues. 5 57. Direct staff, through our FY 1990-91 budget, to either hire a staff person at the Deputy City Manager level with a solid environmentalist background, or to retain a private environmental expert to work directly with city policy makers on all policy issues having environmental implications. C4 4~ 6