HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/01/08 Item 8
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
..:$-~f:. CITY OF
- - --~ (HULA VISTA
Meeting Date: January 8, 2008, Item No.: 8
ITEM TITLE:
RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista adopting
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program IS-07-031;
ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amending
the zoning maps established by Section 19.18.010 of the Municipal Code,
by rezoning one 3.9 acre parcel located at 267 East Oxford Street from R-
1 (Single Family Residential) to R-I-5-P (Single Family Residential,
Precise Plan), and adopting Precise Plan Standards;
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approving a Precise Plan and a Tentative Map subject to the Conditions
contained herein for the Oxford Street Project, to divide 3.90 acres
located at 267 East Oxford Street into 24 Single-family residential lots.
DIRECTOR OF PLJ~P AND BUILDIN~
CITY MANAGER v~ T
ASSISTANT CITY ANAGER 7;-
4/STHS VOTE: YES NOl
INTRODUCTION
This is a request for a Rezone, Precise Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map to develop 24 single-
family lots on a 3.9-acre site presently occupied by the Concordia Lutheran Church at 267 East
Oxford Street in southwestern Chula Vista (see Locator Map).
BACKGROUND
The applicant is acting on behalf of the property owner, Concordia Lutheran Church. The
church would sell the property and construct a new church facility in the Winding Walk
neighborhood of the Otay Ranch Planned Community.
8-1
Oxford Street Proj eet
Page 2
o 1/08/U8
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
On November 7, 2007, City staff and the applicant hosted a publicly noticed neighborhood
meeting at the Kellogg Elementary School, to accept comments and questions on the project.
Prior to this meeting, the applicant conducted two public meetings to obtain public input and
provide updates on the progress of the project. There were six attendees from the public at the
city-initiated meeting. The concerns related to the project that were expressed at the meeting
included:
. Increased traffic on Melrose Ave, which is in need of repair;
The City Engineer has reviewed the project and determined that the traffic will decrease as a
result of the change from church to residential uses, from 304 to 240 average daily trips. The
project will not create traffic impacts. As part of the City's Pavement Rehabilitation
Program, Melrose Street is on the Citizen Request list of streets to be evaluated for future
street repairs.
. Privacy concerns related to new two-story homes being placed adj acent to existing homes;
The City does not regulate privacy issues that could occur between adjacent properties.
. Potential affects of grading and construction of fences and retaining walls adjacent to the
existing homes;
During the construction phase of the project, the builder will design grading, walls and fences
that will not encroach onto the adjacent properties, and will be required to comply with the
grading ordinance, and detailed wall and fencing plans.
. Timing and Phasing of construction of the project;
The owner clarified that the property may be sold to a builder and anticipated that
construction would not commence until 2009.
. Proj ect drainage after development;
The applicant's Engineer described the proposed site drainage and improvements, including
construction of a storm drain system, a curb and gutter system, a cross-gutter, SwaleGard
curb inlet filters, and a grass-lined swale. Low flows from the site would be intercepted and
diverted by proposed cross-gutters to curb-inlet filters which will screen out larger materials
and discharge water directly into a proposed grass-lined swale located at the southwestern
corner of the project site. The grass-lined swale will convey flow in a westerly direction, and
will be graded at approximately 0.2% slope to permit water to percolate prior discharge to the
public curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at the southwestern corner of the site.
Peak flows from the east side of the site will be conveyed along the proposed public street
and bypass the cross gutter, flowing directly to East Oxford Street. A portion of the peak
8-2
Oxford Street Project
Page 3
01/08/08
flows from the west side of the site will enter the curb inlets filters and be diverted to the
grass-lined swale before discharge to the public curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at
the southwestern comer of the site while the remaining flow will bypass the inlets and flow
out to East Oxford Street.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-07-031 in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial
Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to
by the Applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-07-031
(see Attachment 5, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration).
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council 1) adopt the Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-07-031, and 2) adopt the Ordinance approving
zoning re-classification PCZ-07-08, and 3) adopt the Resolution approving Precise Plan PCM-08-
02 and Tentative Subdivision Map PCS-07-07, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On December 12, 2007, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project. Following
staffs presentation and public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0-1 to recommend
that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezone, Precise Plan, and
Tentative Map applications.
On November 19, 2007, the Resource Conservation Commission determined that Initial Study
IS-07-031 for the Project was adequate, and is recommending that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-07-031.
DISCUSSION
Project Site Characteristics:
The 3.9 -acre project site is located within the urbanized area of Western Chula Vista, (see
Locator Map). The site is approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and
East Oxford Street. Primary access to the site is currently provided directly from East Oxford
Street. The existing site slopes gently uphill to the north from 260 feet to 270 feet. The site has
been partially disturbed with previous uses including a church, pre-school/daycare, and parking
lot on the south side of the lot and play fields on the north side of the lot (see Attachment 2,
8-3
Oxford Street Project
Page 4
01/08/08
Aerial Photo). The existing land uses on each side of the proj ect are single-family residential.
Project Description:
The project proposes demolition of the eXlstmg church, daycare/community building, and
accessory buildings, and redevelopment of the 3.9 ac. site with 24 single-family detached
residential dwelling units (see Attachment 3, Precise Plan Map). The project includes the
following applications:
1. PCZ-07-08, a rezone from the R-l Single Family Residential zone with minimum 7,000
square foot lots, to the R-I-5-P Single Family Residential zone, with minimum 5,000
square foot lots, including a "P" -Precise Plan Modifying District and Precise Plan
development standards;
2. PCM-08-02, a Precise Plan to establish a Precise Plan Map and Text, including
development standards, architectural, and landscape design guidelines;
3. PCS-07-07, a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 3.9 acres into 24 residential lots
and 2 HOA-maintained open space lots, served by a new public residential street. The
residential lots will range in size from 5,006 sq. fl. to 6,249 sq. fl. in size.
Compliance with Development Rel!ulations:
Site
General Plan
Low-Medium
Residential (3-6
dwelling units/acre)
North
Low-Medium
Residential (3-6
dwelling units/acre)
Low-Medium
Residential (3-6
dwelling units/acre)
Low-Medium
Residential (3-6
dwelling units/acre)
Low-Medium
Residential (3-6
dwelling units/acre)
South
East
West
ANALYSIS:
CV Municipal Code Zoning
R-l (Single-Family
Residential)
Existing Land Use
Concordia Lutheran Church and
Daycare
R-l (Single-Family
Residential)
Existing Single-Family Residential
R-l (Single-Family
Residential)
Existing Single-Family Residential
R-l (Single-Family
Residential)
Existing Single-Family Residential
R-l (Single-Family
Residential)
Existing Single-Family Residential
In recommending approval of the requested Rezone, Precise Plan, and Tentative Subdivision
Map, staff relies on the rationale discussed below:
8-4
Oxford Street Project
Page 5
o 1/08/u8
Rezone
The site and surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of single-family residential
development that has been zoned R-l (single-family residential) for more than 20 years. The
General Plan designation for the project site and surrounding area is Low-Medium Residential,
which permits single-family development at a range of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The General
Plan includes policy LUT 4.2 that states that existing, stable single-family residential areas
should be protected through zoning or other regulations that discourage higher-density
residential uses or other incompatible activities. To maintain compliance with the General Plan,
the applicant has requested a rezone from the R-1-7 Single-Family Residential zone, to the R-l-
5-P (Single-Family Residential zone, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, with a Precise Plan
Modifying District). The project proposes 24 detached single-family homes on a 3.9-acre site,
which yields a gross density of 5.88 dwelling units per acre (including the site and adjacent land
area measured to centerline of East Oxford Street). Rezoning to a minimum 5,000 square foot lot
size is necessary to permit the proj ect to achieve the density permitted by the General Plan.
Compliance with the General Plan is not considered solely on the basis of development of
individual lots, but from an overall "neighborhood density" perspective. To establish that the
project is within the range of anticipated densities that would comply with General Plan, a 302-
acre neighborhood planning area bounded by Hilltop Drive on the west, 1-805 on the east, Naples
Street on the north, and Palomar Street on the south was analyzed. This area includes 1,179
existing dwelling units, non-residential and vacant lands, and 73.9 acres of land dedicated for
streets and public right-of way. The actual gross residential density of this area was determined
to be 3.9 dwelling units per acre. The maximum theoretical residential dwelling unit capacity, at
3-6 dwelling units per acre and 302 gross acres, is 1,809 dwelling units. When compared with
the existing 1,179 dwelling units, there is available residential capacity of 630 dwelling units at
the neighborhood level. Thus, approval of the 24 unit project will not cause the density of the
neighborhood area to exceed the maximum gross density of 6 du/acre established by the Low-
Medium Residential General Plan designation.
Rezoning to a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size will benefit the neighborhood because it will
result in construction of new, entry-level single-family housing product type that will range in
size from 1,982 to 2, 676 square feet, that will be similar in size and scale as the existing older
homes in the neighborhood. In contrast, development of the project with homes on lot sizes of
7,000 square foot minimum in today's market could result in an increase in home sizes from 500
to 900 square feet, which in staffs opinion would not be as compatible with the size or value of
existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Also, it would result in a reduction of lot yield
of 6 lots, which would reduce the fiscal revenues to the City generated by the project, which are
needed to provide maintenance and services to the neighborhood. Construction of new, entry-
level single-family housing will enhance the property values of existing homes in the
neighborhood.
Development of the site in compliance with the R-I-5-P zone will be consistent with the Low-
Medium Residential designation and objectives of the General Plan. However, to enable the
project to be designed to be compatible with the surrounding development on larger lots, staff
has required a P-Modifying District with the rezone, which requires approval of a Precise Plan.
8-5
Oxford Street Project
Page 6
01/08/08
Precise Plan
The Precise Plan includes a Precise Plan Map and Text, including the Precise Plan development
standards, architectural, and landscape design guidelines (see Precise Plan Resolution, Exhibit
B). The Precise Plan Text will serve as the land use plan for the project. The Precise Plan Map
shows residential building footprints and other site improvements. Minor amendments to the
Precise Plan Map can be approved by the Zoning Administrator, as long as those amendments
are consistent with the approved Precise Plan Development Standards.
Adoption of the Precise Plan will help ensure that the future design will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The proposed R-I-5-P zone requires a Precise Plan that enables the
modification of the development standards of the typical R-I-5 zone. The Precise Plan will
establish a 20 ft. rear yard building setbacks (see table below), which is more restrictive than the
15 ft. required by the R-I-5 zone, to encourage rear yards to be consistent with the R-I-7 zone
for the surrounding area, and to provide the residents with additional rear yard area for private
recreation. The Precise Plan will also establish architectural, landscaping and fencing guidelines.
The proposed precise plan guidelines will act as the modified R-I-5-P zoning standards for the
project area, and are listed in the following table:
PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft. minimum
Lot Width 50 ft. minimum, except 35 ft. for cul-de-sac lots
Building Coverage 40% maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% Maximum
(including garage)
Front Yard Building Setback:
(all setbacks measured from property line except
where noted)
. To Building (living area) 15 ft.
. To Porch 10 ft.
Width of porch shall not exceed 1/3 width of
house
. To Garage 22 ft. from closest edge of sidewalk to face of
garage
Rear Yard Building Setback: 20 ft, with the following exceptions:
Up to 1/3 of the width of the first story of any
house may encroach 5 ft. into the required 20 ft.
rear yard setback, as long as the second
story meets the main 20 ft. setback. The
exception shall not apply to more than two
adjacent houses.
Interior Side Yard Building Setback 5 ft.
Exterior Side Yard Building Setback 10ft.
8-6
Oxford Street Project
Page 7
o 1/08/U8
Building Height: 28 ft. 12 stories
(Measured to mean height level between eave
and ridge - per CYMC 19.04.038)
Fencing: Decorative stucco, split-face block walls, or
wood fencing is required. Maximum height is 6
feet from adjacent grade level.
Garage Minimum 400 square foot, 2-car garage with
minimum dimension of 20 feet.
Notes:
a. Minor modifications to Precise Plan map are permitted pursuant to approval of a Site
Plan and Architectural Review by the Zoning Administrator, per CYMC 19.14.420.
Amendments to the Precise Plan Map shall comply with the Precise Plan Development
Standards. All other Precise Plan amendments shall comply with Precise Plan
Modification requirements per CYMC 19.14.577.
b. Uses and Development standards not addressed in this Precise Plan shall comply with
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, CYMC Title 19.
c. Accessory Uses and Structures shall comply with requirements of CYMC 19.24.030,
with the following exceptions:
(1) The first 300 square feet of any attached or detached open structure, such as a
patio cover or gazebo, which are open on 2 or more sides, are exempt from the Floor
Area Ratio requirements.
(2) The first 100 square feet of detached enclosed buildings such as a pool, storage, or
garden building is exempt for the floor are ratio requirement.
(3) A 5-foot rear and side yard setback is required for any accessory structure in the
required rear or side yard area_
The proposed precise plan standards will have a pOSItive impact on the surrounding
neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to design a Proj ect that is
compatible with the existing single-family residential development. The Project will include 15-
foot front yard and 10 foot exterior side yard building setback standards, which are the same as
the R-I-7 Zone. A minimum rear yard setback of20 feet is required, which exceeds the R-I-5
requirement and matches the R-I-7 zone. Through the use of three different floor plans at
varying setbacks, the front and rear elevations of the homes will be staggered, which will vary
the alignment of homes to add visual interest. Front yards of some homes may include porches,
and rear yards of some homes may include a 5 ft. encroachment into the rear yard setback for a
one-story element, which will add interest and variety to the elevations. The applicant is
proposing single-story plans on 10 of the 24 lots, which will complement the surrounding area.
The surrounding neighborhood also contains a mixture of single-story and two-story
development. The Precise Plan will include architectural guidelines that will encourage variety in
architectural styles, colors, materials, rooflines, and window treatments. Such standards will
allow construction of a single-family development that is more compatible with the surrounding
R-I-7 zone type of development than the typical R-I-5 development.
8-7
Oxford Street Project
Page 8
o 1/08/U8
Tentative Map
Subdivision Design/Lot Size
The narrow, rectangular shape of the property lends itself to a typical subdivision design with
lots fronting on a single, centrally located street, connecting to East Oxford Street on the south.
All lots meet the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size, 50-foot minimum lot width, and 35-foot
cul-de-sac lot width required by the Precise Plan development standards and R-I zoning
standards. The project will include an HOA open space lot at the end of the cul-de-sac, and
another landscaped HOA lot to support the grass-lined drainage swale at the southwestern comer
of the lot. The lots will be designed to comply with the Subdivision Manual lot design criteria.
The proposed density of the project is 5.88 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the
density requirements of the RLM General Plan and R-I-P-5 zoning.
The project proposes waiver of the Subdivision Manual standard that lot lines be located at the
top of the slope, so that the south lot line of Lot One can be located at the bottom of the slope.
This is necessary to meet minimum lot width and area requirements for the lot, and to minimize
the amount of grading and use of retaining walls. A freestanding decorative wall will be placed
within the HOA lot at the top of the slope. The area between the wall and the street right-of way
will be placed in an easement and the landscaping and waU will be maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. The City Engineer recommends approval of this waiver on the
grounds that it would be a superior design and that the public safety will not be adversely
impacted.
Grading
The site slopes uphill gently to the north, and is part of a gently sloping ridgeline that slopes
uphill to the east. This area has been completely developed with single-family homes. The
conceptual grading plan proposes a total of 2,370 cubic yards of grading, with balanced cut and
fill. Manufactured slopes are limited to a few portions of the site, such as Lots I and 2, and along
the westerly edge of the site. Slope heights will be minor with the maximum height of 5 ft. and
grade of 2:1 between Lot 24 and the grass-lined swale. Because slope heights are minor, the
maximum retaining wall height will be 3 ft. Retaining walls will be limited to the rear of Lots 7-
12 and side lot lines of Lots 3, 4, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Conditions of approval have been included
requiring a wall and fencing plan and conceptual landscape plan to address any aesthetic
concerns that may arise regarding the design of walls and fencing and planting of the street trees
and slopes. Any visible retaining walls, such as those along the rear of Lots 7-12, will be
required by conditions of approval to be constructed of decorative materials.
Proj ect Access
Vehicular access to the site is provided by East Oxford Street, a public street with an existing
improved width of 40 feet with a 60 ft. right of way. The proposed on-site public street will be
improved to 36 feet with a right-of-way of 56 feet. The proposed public street will create a 4-way
intersection with East Oxford Street and Monterrey Street to the south. Conditions of approval
8-8
Oxford Street Project
Page 9
o 1/0S/0S
require that the proposed on-site public street will be improved to full residential street standards
with curb, gutter and sidewalk, and other public utilities in conjunction with Final Map approval.
Pedestrian access on-site will be provided by non-contiguous sidewalks along the street frontage,
connecting to existing sidewalks on East Oxford Street to the surrounding area. Transit service to
the site will be provided by Chula Vista Transit. There is an existing bus stop located 1 block
westerly of the site at the intersection of Melrose and East Oxford Street.
Public Utilities
In conjunction with the review of the Project, the applicant has prepared technical reports
analyzing the condition of public utilities such as sewer and water facilities, drainage, and water
quality/storm water runoff systems. Drainage and water quality is discussed in the Background
section above. The findings of these reports are surmnarized in the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration (see Attachment 5).
The sewer technical report found that construction of additional public sewer improvements is
needed to serve the Project, and that the Project would not impact existing sewer facilities. The
existing sewer facility system includes S-inch sewer lines along East Oxford Street and one
sewer lateral to serve the existing church. There are currently no sewer mains serving the
northerly part of the site. Therefore a new 8-inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public
street, connecting the sewer main in East Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. The
applicant will be required to submit a final sewer report and plan showing compliance with the
City's Sewer Design Criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Sweetwater Authority Water District provides water service to the Project area. They will
provide service to the Project, contingent upon approval of internal improvement plans. The
proposed improvements will include a new water main extension within the proposed public
road that connects to the existing Authority water main in East Oxford Street, and terminates in
the proposed cul-de-sac. This would include new separate laterals and meters for each parcel.
Adequate storage facilities exist to serve the project.
Schools
The Project site is located in the attendance area of Palomar Elementary School at 300 East
Palomar Street, within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The
Project is also within the attendance area of Castle Park Junior High School located at 160
Quintard Street, and Castle Park High School at 1395 Hilltop Drive, within the Sweetwater
Union High School District.
Staff contacted each school district, to determine if the additional dwelling units proposed by the
Project would cause these schools to be adversely impacted. Both School Districts provided
updated student generation rates for new development. Palomar Elementary is presently below
its capacity, and both Castle Park Junior High and Castle Park High Schools were both above
their capacity. Applying these rates resulted in generation of approximately S elementary school
students, 3 junior high school students, and 6 high school students, as described below:
8-9
Oxford Street Project
Page 10
01/08/08
School (Grade) Dwelling Generation Rate Students Generated
Units
Palomar Elementary School 24 X .35 - 8
(K-6) .
Castle Park Jr. High School 24 X .1216 = 3
(7-8)
Castle Park High School 24 X .2291 - 6
(9-12)
TOTAL 17
Both school districts responded that they would be able to accommodate the additional students
generated by the Project, and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval
of the Project.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
resolutions and ordinance approving attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-07 -031, Rezone PCZ-07 -08, Precise Plan PCM -08-02,
and Tentative Map PCS-07-07, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in
the attached Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinance.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is subject to this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
A "Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Oxford Street Project" report dated November 12, 2007 was
prepared by CIC Research for the applicant. The report estimates the fiscal impact of the project
on the operation and maintenance budget of the City's General Fund. The report concluded that
there would be a positive surplus of$11,530 to the City General Fund, and no fiscal impacts as a
result of the development of the Project. Also, the cost of processing the applications will be
covered by the deposit accounts paid for by the applicant.
8-10
Oxford Street Project
Page 10
01/08/08
School (Grade) Dwelling Generation Rate Students Generated
Units
Palomar Elementary School 24 X .35 = 8
(K-6)
Castle Park Jr. High School 24 X .1216 - 3
(7-8)
Castle Park High School 24 X .2291 - 6
(9-12)
TOTAL 17
Both school districts responded that they would be able to accommodate the additional students
generated by the Project, and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval
of the Project.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
resolutions and ordinance approving attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-07 -031, Rezone PCZ-07-08, Precise Plan PCM-08-02,
and Tentative Map PCS-07-07, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in
the attached Draft City Council Resolutions and Ordinance.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries ofthe property, which is subject to this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
A "Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Oxford Street Project" report dated November 12, 2007 was
prepared by CIC Research for the applicant. The report estimates the fiscal impact of the project
on the operation and maintenance budget of the City's General Fund. The report concluded that
there would be a positive surplus of $11 ,530 to the City General Fund, and no fiscal impacts as a
result of the development of the Project. Also, the cost of processing the applications will be
covered by the deposit accounts paid for by the applicant.
Attachments
I Locator Map
2 Aerial Photo
3 Precise Plan Map
4 Tentative Map
5 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 Ownership Disclosure Form
Prepared by: Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department
J: planning\casefiles\07 -08IPCZlpublichearinglPCZ 07 -08-CAS-12-l9-07
8-11
Kellcaa
:Ierne:lto-v
Sch:xll
~\J
R-l
Singe
falTily
Residential
~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJEc:T PROJEc:T DESCRIPTION:
C) APP\.JCANT: Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC. ZONE CHANGE
PROJECT 267 E. Oxford Street. Request 24 SFD development on a 3.9 acre lot Zone change
ADORESS: proposed from R-1 to R-1.5-P. Located at 267 E. Oxford St
SCALE: FILE NUlABER:
NORTH No Scale PCZ-07-088-1 Related cases: 1~7.oo1, PCS-<l7-ll7 & G?Ml74\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
,n.-tl fir U..{ \VI. r:. VJ T '2
i,itroi/lIction
>,-,_.,_._-.,.._--,,_..._.,.".~--_.---~.._----_._.__._--~"~-----'-,-'_.'-"--'-
'Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph
,-_.~"'-
Pag~p."'f'30
December I g, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
/
,;----
/
/
"" 40
,
,
/ , ,
, I
/ ,
, ,
,
,
NOCTURNE COURT ,
:
,
, , , ,
G}.f{}U:V/8TAa.4JWEjvS -- ~~~~j "
!J;.fT NO. 2 I
M NO. 6824 : , ,
APM620\4'0-t9rWwI28 , I
, ,
, " ,
' , : ,
' , , m
' , , " ,
" ' , " , ,
' ,
" , ,
' , , ,
.~ ,~ ,
"
"
"
'"
I - ~;.,.-
,
,
,
,
ill": jgIJ I /fJ7
, ,
6EAYjE'W ESfAUS (INIT NO. 3
I WlP No. 4JJI/J
APtt 889-392-01 pmU 10
, ,
, ,
.,
.,
'"
w,
~'I,..~
MELROSE A VENUE
PIlEPAREl)IJ't:
.~"'"
~~~
-..--
-..-.-
Project Description
N~c /.f.Af~AJT
peM 08.01
...
'"
g:
OJ
MONTEREY AVE
,
,
,
,
~,
d' .
"': ::.
, ~'"
J :;t~
I I.....
! E!~~
------'-1----'--im~lt
I ~\ ;i!
, ~ '
, ,
,
l I
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
~
PRECISE SITe PlAN
EORD
olCINI..,.....OOfomta
,
..............--":.-.----
2
I
~ I
.
.
2
.~~.
Figure 3 - Precise Plan
Page7ofJO
OctoberS,20D7
3
q-
~
I
<Xl
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
~~,,,--"
--
--,,----
"'-'/" 40
--------
,,--,,--
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~~~ \
--,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
~
, CD
= CID ,
= CD CD CD CD CD ICD -.
----~---------- Pozn.. ,"VII-O
-. -. -. ...."".. CD -. CD 1'>3<.1 I....m.,
,..,,1.1 ,.....1 ,
" ,
,..--- ,
- ,
- -- ----
------~----------
~ ' ; s l
~",i~ 88 (PUBUC STREET 'A'
:IS'''' ..-u ; " ,.
tl:~~~ ';.-- -
-i~~m-nnn ---
::;,: l::l 87 --
~ CiD @" CiD = = = =
, = = C!D _.. ...1M.' C!D - _.. @ ,.,1M.' ,..XZ,J -.
.....r.. -. -". "'111.1
,m. _..
---------------
"
~1I.o.
~
~l._..
NOCTURNE COURT
///:
, ,
CH1JLA IVJSTA GARDE,lS
4NfT No.2 I
1.14" NO. 6824 :
APNt 820}470-1O TlmU126
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
I ....-4!,.. l
, ,
, ,
'---
Project Description
Arr~A-{cJJ( Lf
PCS 07.{)7
...
~
~
OJ
MONTEREY AVE
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, "'
f ~! ~
, ~I..~
: ~'"
I I"'~
: ~:d~
I j:':1::r:~
--------i-------~~lt-
: ~:.t:
! ~ ~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
Lt)
~
I
CO
,
,
,
{
I
,
:
,
,
,
,
"
\\\
,
,
,
,
\
TENTATIVE MAP
.~.
"
"-.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
4
OXFORD
"'
5
"
...~.
CltyolChd.Vl8lA.CaIfgmI.
-.......---
Figure 4 - Tentative Map
"
-=r-
---"";ji--:'- =-~=
-~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
200 1
,
,
,
,
,
'"
_~ff.
- ~~
,
:
,
,
/1;1"1 198:
, ,
-., SEA vjt'w :~~~B4~T Nr;:.J.
APlt S89-3fJZ-Of tJmu 10
" ,
, ,
-,,-
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ~, .,
'" ~6 ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~,
MELROSE AVENUE
pl\EPAPBlB'f:
II~IF3
-..-...
Page8of30
OctoberS, 2007
A7rk I-fv11EI1JT 5
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Oxford Street! Concordia Lutheran Church Residential
PROJECT LOCATION: 267 East Oxford Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: APN #639-392-14-00
PROJECT APPLICANT: Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92014
(858) 481-8500
CASE NO.: 1S-07-031
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: October 19. 2007
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: November 19. 2007
Richard Zumwalt. A.lC.P.. Associate Planner
PREP ARER:
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
November 20. 2007
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are denoted by underline.
A. Proiect Setting
The 3.9 -acre project site is located at 267 East Oxford Street, within the urbanized area of West em
Chula Vista, (Exhibit 1- Locator Map). The site is approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of
Melrose Avenue and East Oxford Street. Primary access to the site is currently provided directly off
of East Oxford Street. The entire project site has been partially disturbed with previous uses including
a church, pre-school/daycare, and parking lot on the south side of the lot and play fields on the north
side of the lot. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes demolition of the existing Concordia Lutheran Church, daycare/community
building, and accessory buildings, and redevelopment of the 3.9 ac. site with 24 single-family
detached residential dwelling units, (Exhibit 2 - Site Plan). The site is designated Residential Low-
Medium (3-6dwelling units per acre) on the City of Chula Vista General Plan and is zoned R-I-7
Single Family Residential. The project proposes a rezone from R-I-7 to R-I-5-P (Min. lot size of
5,000.sq. ft. with a Precise Plan Modifying District); a Precise Plan; and Tentative Subdivision Map
proposing 24 residential lots ranging from 5,006 sq. ft. to 6,249 sq. ft. in size, with 2 garage parking
spaces per home, a public street and HOA-maintained open space lots.
1
8-16
Proposed on-site improvements include drainage facilities, sewer system facilities, fire hydrants,
retaining walls, fencing, improved paved areas, open space and landscape treatments. The project is
identified as developable area within the City of ChuIa Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
Subarea Plan, however, it is not located within the City's designated conservation area.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project site is within the General Plan RLM (Low-Medium Residential Density/3-6
dwelling units per acre) and RI (Single-Family Residential) Zone. The project proposes a rezone
from R-I to R-I-5-P (Min. lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. with a Precise Plan Modifying District). The
proposed project has been found to be consistent with the applicable site development regulations and
the General Plan.
D. Public Comments
On September 12, 2007, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended September 24, 2007. One e-mail
response was received during this period regarding how project grading will affect the adjacent
properties and how the design of the future homes would affect the neighbor's privacy. These issues
will be addressed in the Planning staff report regarding the project.
On October 19. 2007. the Notice of Availabilitv of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners within a 500-
foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on November 19. 2007. No
written comments were received as a result of this notice.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental
impacts however; mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts
to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with Section 15070 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Air Oualitv
Short-Tenn Demolition and Construction Activities
The project proposes demolition of the existing Concordia Lutheran Church, daycare/community
building and accessory buildings. The proposed proj ect will result in a short-term air quality impact
created from construction activities. The grading of the site for future single-family residential
development and worker and equipment vehicle trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes,
equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction and demolition activities.
Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-term in
duration.
In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold criteria
contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air
Quality Analysis were used.
A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance
for each pollutant was analyzed. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model. The
addition of emissions to .an air basin is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure I contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term
construction and rough grading and emissions related air quality impacts to below a level of
significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
2
8-17
Combined Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts
In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively
considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air quality. The
proposed project, a small residential infill development, once completed will not result in significant
long-term air quality impacts. The project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan Update.
The minimal project generated traffic volume of 240 trips would not result in significant long-term
local or regional air quality impacts. Through project design, emission-controlled construction
vehicles and efficiency building products and vehicles as mitigated, no area source or long term
operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure I contained in Section F would mitigate construction and
grading related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a
part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Biological Resources
A Biological Resource Analysis was prepared by Dudek, dated August 31, 2007, to assess the
potential biological resource impacts of the project. A biological reconnaissance survey of the project
site was conducted on March 30, 2007 to identify existing vegetation on the site. The biological
resource analysis is summarized below.
Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) Permit
The project site is located within in the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan boundary under the
City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The site is located in an area designated as a Development Area, but is
not located within a strategic preserve or conservation area. The project is subject to the requirements
of the Habitat Loss Incident Take (HUT) Ordinance. In accordance with the HLIT Ordinance, those
projects that are greater than one acre, contain sensitive biological resources, and are located outside
the "Covered Projects," must demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance and obtain Take authority
from the City of Chula Vista for impacts to Covered Species. The following is a summary of the
[mdings contained within the biological resource report as required by the City's HUT Ordinance,
Section 17.35.
Existing Conditions/ Plant Species
The 3.9-acre project site consists entirely of 1.8 acres of developed land on the south side of the site
with the existing church and accessory buildings, parking lot, and ornamental plantings, and 2.1 acres
of disturbed lands including the playfield and non-native grasses and vegetation on the north side of
the site. Developed land includes two mature Indian Laurel Figs and one Brazilian Pepper Tree, six,
I-ft. diameter eucalyptus trees, and turf-grass under-story. The non-native grasses and vegetation in
the disturbed lands result from establishment of a Bermuda-grass playfield which is mowed but
otherwise is no longer maintained and irrigated, resulting in a mixed growth of grasses and broad-
leaved weeds. Native vegetation cover is less than one percent of the vegetative cover onsite,
occurring on the perimeter of the site adjacent to fencing where the plants are not mowed. No
endemic or special status plants exist on the property.
Wildlife/Sensitive Species/Sensitive Habitats
The .biological report stated that wildlife species such as birds and butterflies occupied the site,
although no mammal, amphibian or reptile species were detected during the survey.
Ten bird species and two butterfly species were detected on site. Most bird species observed were
common, disturbance-adapted species. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi), which is a covered species
3
8-18
under the City of Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan and a State species of special concern, was
observed during the site survey. Existing large Indian Laurel Fig and Brazilian Pepper trees occurring
on-site may provide suitable habitat for raptors, and a nest was observed in the Brazilian Pepper tree
on site. Due to the territorial !behavioral characteristics of the Coopers Hawk, it was assumed that
nest was used by them. No special status/wildlife species were reported within one mile of the
project site. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed in
the study area and are not expected to occur, due to the low quality of habitat onsite. Potential impacts
of the project on these resources and sensitive species, and mitigation measures are further discussed
in Project Impact section below.
Project Impact
The existing lot supports 2 large ornamental Indian Laurel Fig trees and I large Brazilian Pepper tree.
The proposed removal of these trees during development could impact potential habitat for the
Cooper's Hawk and other migratory bird species if the vegetation clearance occurs between January
15 thru August 15 during breeding season. If vegetation clearance occurs between August 16 and
January 14, development of the site would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. If
removal of habitat or construction activities must occur during the breeding season, pre-construction
surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptors. The proposed
project may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources and nesting raptors, and therefore,
mitigation measures are required. The project will be required to implement the mitigation measures
specified in Section F, and therefore no impacts to Cooper's Hawk or other migratory birds are
anticipated. The project will not be required to obtain a HUT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Further mitigation measures include implementation of construction BMPs, and clearing, grubbing or
grading permits. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated
Negative Declaration would reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a level below
significance.
Geology and Soils
To assess the potential geologicallsoils impacts of the project, a Geotechnical Investigation evaluation
was prepared by Geocon, Inc. dated April 18, 2007. No groundwater was encountered on the site and
no groundwater related problems, either during or after construction, ar.e anticipated. No significant
geological or soil impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project as conditioned. The
potential for soil liquefaction is considered to be low. The project site is not located in an active
Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault approximately 6 miles
away.
The site was graded previously with the development of the existing church. Proposed fill grading will
occur over the entirety of the 3.9-acre site. Grading is balanced, including 3,400 cubic yards per acre to be
excavated and filled, with a maximum cut and fill slope ratio of2:1. In the event ofa major earthquake, the
area could be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking. However, the site is considered comparable to
others in the general vicinity. The site is also underlain with artificial fill and San Diego Formation and is
not suitable for support of structures. The project will require issuance of a grading permit to require
excavation of undocumented fill, re-grading and re-compaction of the site, and review by the consultant of
project grading and foundation plans prior to submittal to regulatory agencies for approval, to minimize the
potential for damage to future structures as a result of unstable soils, ground-shaking, or subsidence.
4
8-19
According to the City's Engineering Division, the project will require a grading permit. The
preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of the grading
permit as a standard engineering requirement. In order to prevent silt discharge during construction,
the developer will be required to comply with best management practices in accordance with RWQCB
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001. The appropriate erosion control measures
would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading plans and would be monitored
and implemented during construction by the Public Works Department. Therefore, the potential for
the discharge of silt into City storm drainage systems would be less than significant. Implementation
of the mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential geological/soils
impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In order to assess potential hazardslhazardous material impacts, dated April 2007, Dudek prepared the
"Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Concordia Lutheran Church and School" Report for the
project. The project proposal includes the demolition of the existing church, accessory buildings and
parking lot. The report found that the potential exists for impacts to result from the demolition of
structures that may contain lead and asbestos. Therefore, prior to any demolition activities, a licensed
and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor will perform asbestos and lead-based paint
abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
No evidence of additional hazards or hazardous materials or undocumented fill was observed on the
site. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate
potential hazards/hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are
included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hydrology and Water Quality
In order to assess potential hydrology and water quality impacts, a "Tentative Map Drainage Study
for Oxford Street", dated October 3, 2007, and amended October 17, 2007 and the "Tentative Map
Water Quality Technical Report for Oxford Street" dated October 3,2007, prepared by Hunsaker &
Associates, were submitted for the project and is summarized below:
Existing Conditions
The existing site is bordered on the north, west and east by existing single-family development.
Drainage from the existing development, including the buildings and playfield, flows southerly
toward East Oxford Street south of the site. The flows are then conveyed via existing curb, gutter and
sidewalk in a westerly direction towards the intersection of Melrose and East Oxford Street.
Proposed
The project proposes construction of a storm drain system, including a curb and gutter system, a
cross-gutter, SwaleGard curb inlet filters, and a grass-lined swale. Low flows form the site would be
intercepted and diverted by proposed cross-gutters to curb-inlet filters which will screen out larger
materials and discharge water directly into a proposed grass-lined swale located at the southwestern
corner of the project site. The grass-lined swale will convey flow in a westerly direction, and will be
graded at approximately 0.2% slope to permit water to percolate prior discharge to the public
curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at the southwestern corner of the site.
Peak flows from the east side of the site will be conveyed along the proposed public street and bypass
the cross gutter, flowing directly to East Oxford Street. A portion of the peak flows from the west
side of the site will enter the curb inlets filters and be diverted to the grass-lined swale before
5
8-20
discharge to the public curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at the southwestern comer of the site
while the remaining will bypass the inlets and flow out to East Oxford Street.
According to the Engineering Department, the proposed improvements appear adequate to handle the
project storm water runoff generated from the site. The existing flows to East Oxford Street were
analyzed under the 2, 10, 50 and lOa-year flood event. Additional Best Management Practices
(BMPs) included as part of the project design consist of a storm drain inlet protection system (curb
inlet filters), grass-lined swale, and permeable pavement in the driveways. No adverse impacts to the
City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result ofthe proposed project.
As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of
the project grading plans. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, compliance with required NPDES
regulations and construction BMPs such as de-silt basins and silt fences will reduce water quality
impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in
Section F below would mitigate potential hydrology and water quality impacts to a level of less than
significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Noise
In order to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed project, a noise study was prepared by
Dudek, entitled "Concordia Lutheran Church - Residential Project, City of Chula Vista Exterior
Noise Study", dated April 17, 2007, .and addendum dated August 31, 2007 for the project. The study
anticipated that on-site workers and adjacent residential population may be exposed to construction
noise associated with short-term construction activities. However, the project will be required to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, due to the minimal construction activities
associated with the project, impacts to surrounding residential properties related to construction noise
levels are not expected to be significant. The proposed residential project is not located within the
Health Risk Assessment Area (HRAA), within 500 feet of any adjacent freeway or highway. The
project is not anticipated to potentially violate the noise limits of the City's noise control ordinance.
Residences on lots 1 and 24 will be directly exposed to auto traffic on East Oxford Street, and are
likely to be affected by exterior CNEL noise levels of approx. of 61 decibels. Typical residential
construction may lower the interior noise level approx. 20 dB with windows closed. Installation of
mechanical ventilation and/or air conditioning in the homes on lots I and 24 in accordance with the
Ca. Building Code is necessary to ensure that windows can be closed to achieve compliance with the
45 dB interior standard. In addition, submittal of a subsequent noise study after installation of the
rooftop and HVAC equipment for review. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in
Section F below would mitigate potential noise impacts to a level of less than significance. These
measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Oualitv
I. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and
building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless
approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
6
8-21
o Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
o Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust.
o Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust.
o Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if
available.
o Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site
prior to public road entry.
o Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads.
o Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
o Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on
unpaved surfaces has occurred.
o Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public
roads.
o Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling.
o Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
o During rough grading, use of cooled exhaust gas re-circulation in conjunction with the
following:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment operations daily. The reduction in
emissions would be directly proportional to the reduction in aggregate operating hours
and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings (emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction in aggregate horsepower)
o Requirement of one or a combination of the following measures for reduction of emissions:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment operations daily. The reduction in
emissions would be directly proportional to the reduction in aggregate operating hours
and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings (emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction in aggregate horsepower)
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds I Cooper's Hawk
2. To ensure no direct and indirect impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds occur during
construction (including clearing and grubbing), construction activities adjacent to nesting habit
should occur outside of the combined breeding season of January 15 to August 15 for these
species. If removal of habitat and/or construction activities adjacent to nest habitat must occur
during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey must be performed by a City-approved
biologist to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on and within 300 feet of the
construction area and nesting raptors within 500 feet of the construction area. The pre-
construction survey must be concluded within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction,
the results of which must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities. If nesting birds and/or raptors are detected by the City-approved biologist,
a bio-monitor must be present on-site during construction to minimize construction impacts and
ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed until all young have fledged.
7
8-22
Indirect Impacts
3. Prior to issuance of any land development pemrits, including clearing and grubbing or grading pemrits, the
project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. BMPs shall be noted on grading and improvement plans and implemented during clearing
and site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator in
order to avoid short-term indirect impacts to any biological resources in the project vicinity.
Geologv and Soils
4. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and
City Building Official that all the recommendations in the GeoTechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon,
dated April 18, 2007, have been satisfied.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rille 361.145 - Standard
for Demolition and Renovation.
Hvdrologv and Water Quality
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading pemrit, a fmal drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the
preparation of the fmal grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does
not exceed the pre-development flows as indicated in the "Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford
Street, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated October 3, 2007", and amended October 17,2007, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer shall verifY that the fmal grading plans
comply with the provisions of RWQCB NPDES Municipal Pemrit, Order No. R9-2007-0001 with respect
to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post
construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan
shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading pemrit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed.
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm
drain system These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
Interior - Vehicle Noise Mitigation
8. The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots I, 24) would need to remain closed to achieve a
45 CNEL interior noise level. The design of these homes must include a means of mechanical ventilation
and/or air-conditioning. The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with the latest addition of the
California and Uniform Building Code and to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
9. Prior to approval of building pemrits, the applicant shall subrnit a subsequent noise study for the homes on
Lots I and 24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator demonstrating that the final
roof-mounted HV AC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with the City's noise control ordinance
at the property boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during uighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours or
ambient noise levels, whichever is greater.
Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation
10. To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shall be required:
8
8-23
3. Prior to issuance of any land development pennits, including clearing and grubbing or grading pennits, the
project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. BMPs shall be noted on grading and improvement plans and implemented during clearing
and site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator in
order to avoid short-term indirect impacts to any biological resources in the project vicinity.
Geologv and Soils
4. Prior to the issuance of construction pennits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and
City Building Official that all the recommendations in the GeoTechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon,
dated April 18, 2007, have been satisfied.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
5. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard
for Demolition and Renovation.
Hvdrologv and Water Oualitv
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, a fmal drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the
preparation of the fmal grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does
not exceed the pre-development flows as indicated in the "Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford
Street, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated October 3, 2007", and amended October 17,2007, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer shall verify that the final grading plans
comply with the provisions of RWQCB NPDES Municipal Pennit, Order No. R9-2007-0001 with respect
to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post
construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be. prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan
shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed.
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm
drain system These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
Interior - Vehicle Noise Mitigation
8. The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots I, 24) would need to remain closed to achieve a
45 CNEL interior noise level. The design of these homes must include a means of mechanical ventilation
and/or air-conditioning. The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with the latest addition of the
California and Uniform Building Code and to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
9. Prior to approval of building pennits, the applicant shall subrnit a subsequent noise study for the homes on
Lots 1 and 24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator demonstrating that the fmal
roof-mounted HV AC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with the City's noise control ordinance
at the property boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours or
ambient noise levels, whichever is greater.
Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation
10. To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shall be required:
8
8-24
A. All construction equipment shall be equipped with improved noise muffling, and have the
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine covers,
and engine vibration isolators in good working condition.
E. If possible, hydraulic equipment instead of pneumatic impact tools and electric powered
equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment shall be used for all exterior construction
work.
e. All equipment shall be turned off if not in use.
D. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related
grading, demolition or construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of
10:0 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
G. Agreement to Implement Mitigation Measures
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator 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 Applicant's and Operator's desire that the
Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
..w;rt, \ACi:-- p~~
:;{ f,,(>.o~ StI'-...... or.N{ U-L.
p,pf\.JV\ 0, ftN $ - Pij: W)iJl....-"F-tiM\ o-rN:< /.U.--
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
orized rep tative)
(0 !\'f.r ';1..00"7--
Date
to il'i ( .z.uo9-
Date
Signature of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
H. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Steve Power, Planning and Building Department
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Department
Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department
Ben Guerrero, Planning and Building Department
Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department
9
8-25
Glen Laube, Planning and Building Department
Lynnette Tessitore- Lopez, Planning and Building Department
Tom Adler, Engineering Department
Mario Ingrasci, Engineering Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department
Jim Newton, Engineering Department
Hasib Baha, Engineering Department
Richard Hopkins, Public Works Operations
Steven Gonzales, Public Works Operations
David McRoberts, Public Works Operations
Khosro Aminpour, Public Works Operations
Muna Cuthbert, Public Works Operations
Kelly Briers, Fire Department
Others:
Rafael Munoz, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Hector Martinez, Sweetwater Authority
Laurie Edwards, Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Union High School District
David Gottfredson, RECON
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 2005 (as amended).
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code.
City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Biological Resource Analysis prepared by Dudek, dated August 31, 2007 and addendum.
Geotechnical Investigation for Oxford Street, Chula Vista, Ca.
dated April 18, 2007, and addendum dated October 8, 2007, by Geocon, Inc.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Concordia Lutheran Church and School, 267 East
Oxford Street, Chula Vista, Ca. prepared by Dudek, April 2007, and addendum dated August 31,
2007.
Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford Street, dated October 3, 2007 and amended October
17, 2007 prepared by Hunsaker & Associates
Tentative Map Water Quality Technical Report for Oxford Street, dated October 2, 2007 and
amended October 2007 prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
Air Quality URBEMIS Model, dated October 2007
Concordia Lutheran Church - Residential Project, City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Study",
prepared by Dudek, dated April 17, 2007, and addendum dated August 31, 2007.
10
8-26
Archaeological Survey Report for Concordia Lutheran Church Project, 267 East Oxford Street,
Chula Vista, Ca., prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates, dated April 3,2007, and addendum
September 2007.
Overview of Sewer Service for the Oxford Street Proiect. dated September 26. 2007 and amended
October 2007. prepared bv Dexter Wilson Engineering.
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached mitial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Y ta, CA 91910.
Date: II/Zllo7-
I
J :\Planning\RichardZ\Environmental\ IS-07 -031.finaIMND
II
8-27
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
OXFORD STREET/CONCORDIA LUTHERAN CHURCH RESIDENTIAL - IS-07-031
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Oxford Street/Concordia Lutheran Church Residential project.
The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State
CEQA Guidelines (IS-06-007) The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Air Quality
2. Biological Resources
3. Geology and Soils
4. HazardsIHazardous Materials
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
6. Noise
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S-07-031 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1S-07-031, 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.
J :\Planning\MARIA \Initial Study\Oxford Map\IS-07 ..031 MMRPtext.doc
8-28
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC. INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 267 E. Oxford Street. Request: 24 SFD development on a 3.9 acre Jot.
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale IS-07-031 Related cases: PCS-07~7, PCZ~H8 & GPMl7-M
J:\Planning\Public Notices\IS\IS07031.cdr 04.26.07
8-29
~KHIBrr I
"
o
,:.
o
en
U
Q.
-------------------~~ ~
:: p- .... :-1' ~
'" ".... ~ - '!:"'" ~..
~;'i(!:: :l ~! ..~ 1\j...~ :M
-1"'-' -' ~ '1- -." - ..,
~ e~:r~. 5 i lc ~:lit S~ ~i i ~
;i~I~- "1"... ... ...~.. ....-:to'll)l......
..~~4~-----=___":._.z;.g :f '" ~
I~~~ ,g n ~ .!~ ~:! i~;; r 1::
n;il ~: !' ~ ~3 h~ !!bI .:dr i .::,
. . a: ~
<.
,
:;~ (;11111 J 'S:rO-~g 'NdV
g{!fJC 'ON <:IVW
-- -- i~ON-7pi.:$~.Tr1}.."'?f;-.vOs7Jl;r-- - - -- ----
'" !?' "'I I
.; I> ~...l a- ....t; :: Ii;
tl:~ ~ ~ ~_~ > ~~e il: :l: 2
~-~ S ~ 1;;: ~~~~i ; f . i . ~
-.. e~ ~ ~~ t~~~... ~, 3 a:
.!;-r:fn~~-l~r-- Tii------c-
~~ 1-;' B~ :~~a;.. -~ 5 ~~
I
,
I'
I
~"'.,.-...
,-
~
>-
..
I ,
~ . ~-,;.
H~l .
i.
r- '_:.;_.;;~::i:S:' ,"'..,
. .
.:.0-l
. .'
,
~
~
','.";,"'.;' "j"
..)
" ;~~~J~~
.'.j
~ _~_i2~ __ .. '-
-------~ .n to
------ .. / ,~!i., ~J
. /-J .._ ~
}' ~i ul
( -"~
f......"'... '.
; '. /~If~..t ;:
;",. ...~I,~~::i
I - '--,.,
,
.
,
.,
,
,
,
,.
.~ 1
. ,
"
ei'"
",-
. ~..
..-.....
'"
!S
"
"
8i
e~
8f-
..i
"'r,.:.
,
,
,'- "
,
'"
,
~
,
",
,
"
"
..;;.
i
:",\ ~
,
"
,
,.
.
\ e.;
\ 'loZ
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
Qi.'
\)-l,
i
t
,
...
ti:'"
..
. .
8i
:.t.
I
'''-
~,
~~
I
..
..
..
.
I "'; "";
I 10): ~::
.. I
SJ r,lfHl ,t~-{]L!/ta&:1 lU'II
: '/t/!l -aN ~YPt
I t '(iN.Lm
: !lONt'W ~B'1~93W
. ,
8-30
Ii). i
q~-
. r.:..~
:\~2
,:@~
,Ai
:'(Jl.
fcl. .~
~l..
I;\~
\:I.,
@~
@~
,-
fu:\ii
\':Jot,
x~'j '"l ~
. ~I. "'.
2h-;-i~j -
t''';; j
!. J.';,'~.-lP.'. .,"C-----7j
.1dh":5 la _ '.
: I~~;, ,- ~ :s
~. ,:'t '.'l l
~Jf~------__~____ . Eq
f ,~~ .;.,;:,
I '- ~Q' ~ .~. ~
: ~ - l)-" !3l' f'
, l,..; ~ ....
i_J~--~:~~-i .~.
t.,..:;' ~ ~fis2 !
~.:~t_-~-l!ti i!
,l,t:. ~">': ~ . ~}
,~. ; - ~ ~. !
rr': ._ I
..,. ! ,
~: . .;:
~-.~..-c~-------1..
:r;':,.. :, ~~...:.r~~~'
:t . i' 'j" .
~, .
'.:J..,-...."-.--;_...-..,,.--.;,.--~- .
-'+t . '. ...
i"'n'-' ~ ~i .
1"-!~ ".,
. ",-----';;~--r
~t I:
f
@i
J"
.
I
,
,
,
~;
1.">:
1'-' ..:
....,.....-""'U
i~~LO
o~
~ a:a
"Oil
~ ~
fi LL.!!
, ~:x ~
~oi
~
\::
!g
~
\\i
l'!. .
:ii' I
':.c ..
,,',;, ;111
~s. :h
51 =~,:._..1
i~"1lI
Ifill
!
Oxford StreeVConcordia Lutheran Church Residential (lS-07-031)
Mitiaation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proaram
Table 1
Mitigation Measure
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Comments
1.
The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be
shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as
details, notes, Of as otherwise appropriate:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple
construction equipment units.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered
equipment.
. Use Injection-timing retard for diesel-powered
equipment.
. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize
fugitive dust.
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to
minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to
minimize dust.
. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary
generators during building, if available.
. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of Internal
travel path within a construction site prior to public
road entry.
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior
to vehicle entry on public roads.
. Remove any visible track-Qut into traveled public
streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
. Wet wash the construction access poInt at the end of
each workday If any vehIcle travel on unpaved
surfaces has occurred.
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent
washout of silty material onto publlc roads.
. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 Inches of
freeboard to reduce blow~off during hauling.
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
x
x
ApplicanV City
Engineering
DepartmenVCity
Planning and Building
Department
x
Page-l
Miliaation Monitorina and Reoortina Proaram
Oxford Street/Concordia Lutheran Church Residential (IS-07-031)
Ix>
~
"
Table 1
. Suspend aU soil disturbance and travel on unpaved
surfaces \fwinds exceed 25 miles per hour.
. During rough grading, use of cooled exhaust gas
redrculation in conjunction with the following:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment
that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment
operations daily. The reduction in emissions would
be direcUy proportional to the reduction in
aggregate operating hours and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings
(emissions reductlon would be directly proportional
to the reduction In aggregate horsepower)
. Requirement of one or a combination of the following
measures for reduction of emissions:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of
equipment that operate simultaneously.
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment
operations daily. The reduction in emissions
would be directly proportional to the reduction in
aggregate operating hours and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings
(emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction in aggregate
horsepower).
Page - 2
Oxford StreeVConcordia Lutheran Church Residential OS-07-0311
Table 1
2.
To ensure no direct and indirect Impacts to raptors and/or Plan Check/Site
any migratory birds occur during construction (including Inspection
clearing and grubbing), construction activitles adjacent to
nesting habitat should occur outside of the combined
breeding season of January 15 to August 15 for these
species. If removal of habitat and/or construction
activities adjacent to nest habitat must occur during the
breeding season, a pre-construction survey must be
performed by a City-approved biologist to determine the
presence or absence of nesting birds on and within 300
feet of the construction area and nesting raplors within
500 feet of the construction area. The pre-construction
survey must be concluded within 10 calendar days prior
to the start af construction, the results of which must be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds
and/or raptors are detected by the City-approved
biologist, a blo-monitor must be present on-site during
construction to minimize construction Impacts and ensure
that na nests are removed or disturbed until all young
have fled ed.
Prior to the issuance of any land development permits Plan Check/Site
Including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, the Inspection
project shall implement Best Management Practices
(BMPs) identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. BMPs shall be noted on grading and Improvement
plans and implemented during clearing and site
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Environmental Review Coordinator In order to avoid
short-term indirect impacts ta any biological resources in
the ro ect vlclni
x
x
3.
x
x
x
Applicant/City
Engineering
DepartmenUPlanning
and Building
Department
x
ApplicanVCity
Engineering
DepartmenUPlanning
and Building
Department
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and City
Building Officlal that all the recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Geoeon, dated
A ril18, 2007, have been satisfied.
Page - 3
Applicant/City
Planning and Building
Department/City
Engineering
De artment
Oxford StreeUConcordia Lutheran Church Residential C1S-0Y.031\
Table 1
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reoortinq Proqram
5.
Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement In
accordance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
PollutIon Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for
Demolition and Renovation.
Plan ChecklSlte
Inspection
x
x
AppilcanUCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenVCity
Engineering
Department
6.
7.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage Plan Check/Site
study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation Inspection
of the final grading plans and must demonstrate that the
post~development peak flow rate does not exceed the
pre-development flows as indicated in the ~Tentatlve Map
Drainage Study for Oxford Street", prepared by Hunsaker
& Associates, dated October 3, 2007 and amended
October 17, 2007 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Additionally, the City Engineer shail verify that the final
grading plans comply with the provisions of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
Order No. 2001-01 with respect to construction-related
water quality best management practices. If one or more
of the approved post construction BMPs is non-structural
then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the
commencement of construction. Compliance with said
plan shall become a permanent requirement of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary Plan Check/Site
desilUng and erosion control devices shall be Installed. Inspection
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain
Inlet to prevent sediment from entering the stann drain
system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading
and Improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
x
x
x
x
x
ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenVClty
Engineering
Department
8.
The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots 1, Plan Check/Site
24) shall remain closed to achieve a 45 CNEL Interior Inspection
noise level. The design of these homes must Include a
means of mechanical ventilation and/or air-conditioning.
The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with
the latest addition of the California and Unifonn Building
Code and to the satisfaction of the Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
Page - 4
x
x
x ApplicanVClty
Planning and Building
DepartmenVCity
Engineering
Department
x
x ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenVCity
Engineering
Department
x
Oxford StreeUConcordia Lutheran Church Residential IIS.07;031)
"
1
:n
Table 1
9.
Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall Plan Check/Site
submit a sub.sequent noise study for homes on Lots 1 and Inspection
24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator demonstrating that the final roof-mounted
HVAC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with
the City's noise control ordinance at the property
boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55
dBA Leq during daytime hours or ambient noise levels,
whichever Is greater.
To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts
during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shaH be required:
10.
A. All construction equipment shall be equipped
with Improved noise muffling, and have the
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement
measures, such as mufflers, engine covers and
engine vibration isolates in good working
conditions.
B. If possible, hydraulic equipment instead of
pneumatic impacts tools and electric powered
equipment instead of diesel-powered
equipment shall be used for all exterior
construction work.
C. All equipment shall be turned off if not in use.
D. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, project-related grading,
demolition or construction activities shall be
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a,m. Monday through Friday and between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Saturdays and Sundays.
J :\Planning\MARIA \Initial Study\Oxford Map\IS-07-031MMRPtb1.doc
Page. 5
x
x
x
ApplicanUCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Repoctinq Proqram
.,
1. Name of Proponent:
~!~
-T-
-
CnvOF
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUlA VISfA
Concordia Lutheran Church c/o
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Concordia Lutheran Church
c/o Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92014
(858) 481-8500
4. Name of Proposal:
Oxford Street! Concordia Lutheran
Church Residential
5. Date of Checklist:
October 17, 2007
6. Case No.:
IS-07 -031
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 .
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, 0 0 0 .
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 .
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
o
o
o
.
1
8-36
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
in the area?
Comments:
a-b )The proposal includes the development of twenty-four single family residential units with site
improvements in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal. The proposed landscape
improvements would enhance and improve the aesthetic quality of Oxford Street, the proposed
on-site public street and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed proj ect would not damage any
scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The site is
located on the side of a ridgeline developed with single-family homes, which slopes uphill to the
east. Development of the project site with homes could affect views from these adjacent
properties. However, the development layout is designed to include side-yard setbacks, which
allow views between proposed homes and above the roofline of single-story homes. The
approval of the project will not substantially degrade existing views across the property,
therefore, no significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
c) The proposal is an infill residential development project. The proposed project will not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent
residential surroundings. The project site is planned for single - family residential development
according to the General Plan Land Use regulations.
d) The project proposes one public streetlight on the cul-de-sac, and private lighting for each
residence, which should not affect adjacent residences. An existing streetlight will serve the
project entry at the intersection of East Oxford Street and the proposed street. The proposal will
be required to comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting. The project will
be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CYMe). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant
glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential
neighborhood area.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
o
o
o
.
2
8-37
a Williamson Act contract?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 .
Issues:
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
a-c)The project site is developed with a church, pre-school/daycare, and parking lot on the south side
of the lot and play fields on the north side of the lot. The surrounding properties have been
developed with single-family homes. These properties are consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated
farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be
created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
m. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
o
o
o
.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 .
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 0 . 0 0
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient. air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 . 0 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
o
.
o
o
3
8-38
Issues:
number of people?
Comments:
(a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti!!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant air quality impacts to a level ofless than significance.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proj ecl:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
4
8-39
o
o
o
.
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 . 0 0
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 0 .
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 . 0 0
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan7
Comments:
a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitieation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant biological resource impacts to a level of less than significance.
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines S 15064.57
o
o
o
.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines S 15064.57
o
o
o
.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
o
o
o
.
5
8-40
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside offonnal cemeteries?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) In order to assess potential historic resources located on the project site or surrounding areas, an
archaeologicalJhistorical evaluation entitled "Archaeological Survey for the Concordia Lutheran
Church Project" was prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates, dated September 19, 2007. The
following details summarize the results of the study. The existing structures were constructed
between 1962-1965 and were not associated with any important events or individuals in terms of
local, state or national history. The existing structures and the site do not qualify as a historic resource
under national, state or local register crjteria. The proposed project will not constitute a substantial,
adverse change to the significance of an historical resource as the structure has been determined by the
analysis not to be historically or architecturally significant within the project impact area. Therefore,
no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) The site has been disturbed by development of the church on the south 1/3 of the property and
previous playfield use of the northerly 2/3 of the property. Based on the level of previous site
disturbance, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resource as
defined in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated.
c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited amount of additional
grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic
features are anticipated.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site as the project
site has been previously disturbed with the existing church and auxiliary structures.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
o
o
o
.
6
8-41
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
n. Strong seismic gronnd shaking? 0 . 0 0
iii.
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
including
o
o
.
ground
failure,
o
o
o
.
IV.
Landslides?
o
o
o
.
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
o
o
o
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
.
o
d)
Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
o
o
o
.
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
o
o
.
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation:
o
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant geological impacts to a level ofless than significance.
7
8-42
Issues:
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
8
8-43
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
.
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
o
D
.
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorpora ted
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
(a-b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. The proposed project site is located within one-quarter
mile of Palomar Elementary school located on East Palomar Street. The proposed project will not
emit acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the
schools within the surrounding area.
d) The proposed project is not located on a site included on the County of San Diego Department of
Enviromnental Health Services Hazardous List pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5,
therefore, will not create a significant impact to the public or the enviromnent.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project
area to adverse safety hazards. .
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development
would not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards.
g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency
evacuation requirements. The proposed fire improvements include an emergency turning radius and
fire hydrant. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is
anticipated.
h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fIre service requirements. No
exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is
anticipated.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level of less than significance.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
o
.
o
o
9
8-44
Issues:
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
10
8-45
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
.
o
o
No
Impact
o
.
o
.
o
Issues:
Comments:
(a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitil!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hydrology/Water Quality impacts to a level ofless than significance.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
11
8-46
D
D
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
.
D
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is surrounded with single-family residential land uses. The proposed residential infill
project would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and cbaracter of the immediate
surrounding residential area. The project would not disrupt or divide an established community;
therefore, no significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project.
b) The project site is located within the RI (Single-Family Residential) Zones and RLM (Low-Medium
Density) General Plan land use designation. The project is required to rezone the existing parcel to R-
1-5-P and be in compliance with the respective zoning. The project has been found to be consistent
with the General Plan guidelines and regulations, therefore; no significant land use impacts are
anticipated.
c) Refer to Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction noise/raptor
nesting impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section, under Biological
Resources.
Miti!!ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Land U se!Planning impacts to a level of less than significance.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
o
o
o
.
12
8-47
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing church. The proposed project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents
of the State of California.
b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the project site for mineral
resource protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
13
8-48
o 0
.
o
o 0
o
.
o 0
o
.
o .
o
o
o 0
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
D
D
D
.
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Noise impacts to a level ofless than significance.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proj ect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
D
D
D
.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
D
D
D
.
c) Displace substantial numbers
necessitating the construction of
housing elsewhere?
of people,
replacement
D
o
D
.
14
8-49
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project is surrounded by existing residential development and involves the removal of the
existing church and daycare buildings and related improvements. The proposed project does not
involve the extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. Future residential
development of the site for the proposed 24 single-family residential units is consistent with the
General Plan and would not exceed the regional or local population projections. The proposed
project would involve the rezoning of the site from R-I-7 to R-I-5-P Zone, which is consistent with
the RLM General Plan designation of the site, which would be similar to the existing adjacent single-
family residential properties to the north, south and east. The proposed project would not involve
displacement of existing housing or individuals.
Mitie:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any public services:
a. Fire protection? 0 0 . 0
b. Police protection? 0 0 0 .
c. Schools? 0 0 0 .
d. Parks? 0 0 . 0
e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 .
15
8-50
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the
site. The applicant will be required to comply with the Fire Department policies for fITe hydrant
placement, fITe flow, fITe truck access and new building construction. The City's Fire performance
objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant
effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City's
Police performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District letter
dated May 22, 2007, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees
for the proposed residential construction or an alternative financing mechanism such as participation in
or annexation to a CFD is recommended.
d) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill
project. However, the applicant shall be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees
(PAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council on January 6, 2004.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other r=eational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
D
D
.
D
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
D
D
D
.
16
8-51
Issues:
Comments:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill
project and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant will
be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees (pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No.
2945 adopted by City Council on January 6, 2004.
b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is
not plarmed for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment.
Mitie:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
17
8-52
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
D D D .
D D D .
Issues:
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
(a,b,d,e) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, in their memorandum dated September 25,2007,
the proposed residential infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or
emergency access impacts. The existing church and daycare generates approximately 304 Average Daily
Trips (ADTs), as compared to the proposed project, which will generate approximately 240 ADTs. The
traffic generated by the project wiIl amount to a reduction of 64 ADT's. In addition, the project-
generated trips will not exceed the level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, due to the minimal traffic increase and
reduction of previous vehicular volume, the project will not create significant traffic operations impacts
along East Oxford Street and surrounding residential or collector streets.
c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
f) The proposal includes garage spaces in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code, and parking
on the proposed public street. The proposal meets ADA requirements for accessibility and parking.
g) There is an existing bus stop located 1 block westerly of the site at the intersection of Melrose and
East Oxford Street.
h) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation
programs.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTllHIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
D
D
D
.
18
8-53
Issues:
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
19
8-54
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 .
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems.
According to the Engineering Department, wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board not be exceeded as a result ofthe proposed project.
b) According to Sweetwater Authority correspondence dated April 24, 2007, an existing 8-inch water main is
located on the south side of East Oxford Street, with one existing water service to the site. The proposed
improvements will include a new water main extension within the proposed public road that connects to
the existing Authority water main in East Oxford Street, and tenninates in the proposed cul-de-sac. This
would include new separate laterals and meters for each parcel. As the water facility improvements are
designed in accordance with water authority standards, no significant impacts to existing facility systems
will occur as a result of the proposed project. Adequate storage facilities exist to serve the project.
c) The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could impact the storm drain system.
Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of fmal
grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project will result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities, including grassy swales and a detention basin located at the
southwest comer of the site. Installation of these improvements in conjunction with the proposed project
will result in a reduction of storm water flow. The proposed project is subject to the NPDES General
Construction Pennit requirements and shall obtain pennit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of grading pennits. In addition, the project shall be
conditioned to implement construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage facilities are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to
correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, dated September 25, 2007, adequate storage facilities
exist, and the project may be serviced from the 8"-water main on East Oxford Street and the applicant will
need to install a service main to service this site. A fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute fire flow at 20 psi
pressure for a two hour duration, as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department, is available to serve the
project. The proposed project will be required to construct expansions to existing water facilities as
described in Section b above.
e) An Overview of Sewer Service for the project was prepared on September 26, 2007 and amended October
2007, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering. The project site is within the boundaries of the City of
Chula Vista wastewater services area. The existing sewer facility system includes 8-inch sewer lines along
East Oxford Street and one sewer lateral to serve the existing church. There are currently no sewer mains
serving the northerly part of the site. Therefore a new 8-inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public
street, connecting the sewer main in East Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. The applicant shall
be required to submit a final sewer report and plan showing compliance with the City's Sewer Design
Criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's
sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
t) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs
of the region in accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regnlations related to solid
waste.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
identified storm water/storm drainage and wastewater impacts to a level of less than significant.
20
8-55
Issues:
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A) Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the Jillle 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
orless.
C) Fire and Emergencv Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
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. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps
are exempted from this Standard.
21
8-56
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
.
.
.
.
Issues:
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The TIrreshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities/I ,000 population east ofI-80S.
F) Drainage
The TIrreshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plane s) and City
Engineering Standards.
G) Sewer
The TIrreshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water
The TIrreshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized dLUing growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
22
8-57
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
.
.
.
No
Impact
.
o
o
o
-
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Commeuts:
a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) According to the Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold
standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) According to the Fire Department, adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department bas indicated they will provide service to the project,
the project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, the surrounding street segments and intersections including East
Oxford Street and Melrose Avenue will continue to operate at the same Level of Service in compliance with the
City's traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's traffic
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infil1 project and
would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant shall be required to pay
Park Acquisition and Development Fees (pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council
on January 6, 2004.
f) Based upon the review of the project, the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant
issues regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. The proposed drain system includes
improvements to existing drainage culverts to handle 2, 10, 50 and 100-year stonn events, a series of inlets,
private catch basins and culverts, underground detention systems, discharge controls, and filtering systems. No
adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
g) An Overview of Sewer Service for the project was prepared on September 26, 2007 and amended October 2007
by Dexter Wilson Engineering. The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater
services area The existing sewer facility system includes 8-inch sewer lines along East Oxford Street and one
lateral to serve the existing church. There are currently no sewer mains serving the northerly part of the site.
Therefore a new 8- inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public street, connecting the sewer main in East
Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. The applicant shall be required to submit a final sewer report and
plan showing compliance with the City's Sewer Design Criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No
adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District as noted in their
correspondence. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority dated 4/24/07, the project may be
serviced from the 8"-water main on East Oxford Street and the applicant will need to install a service main to
service this site. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will
-occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
23
8-58
~ I ~ ~
Issues:
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 of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
D
.
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction raptor nesting impacts
are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, under Biological Resources.
b) The project site has been previously disturbed with a church land use and site improvements. No
cumulative considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified.
c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as the
proposed project has been mitigated to lessen any potential significant impacts to a level of less than
significance.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant impacts to a level ofIess than significance.
24
8-59
.. ' I C
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table I, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration
1S-07-031.
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator 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 ofthe Environmental Review Coordinator.
Failure to sign below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall
indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval
and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
N.:6.\. V\d:-- ~~
ADAM Do p&VNI3( - ~~~~ ~L-
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
tD / (1 ( ^OD "1-
Date
Signature of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
25
8-60
,. " } C
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 previous pages.
D Land Use and Planning
D Population and Housing
. Geophysical
D Agricultural Resources
. HydrologyfWater
. Air Quality
D Paleontological
Resources
DTransportation/Traffic
. Biological Resources
D Energy and Mineral
Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities and Service Systems
D Aesthetics
~azards and Hazardous
Materials
D Cultural Resources
. Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
26
8-61
" .' _ r
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
II 121!t! T
Da~e I
J:\Planning\MARIA\Initial Study\Villas Del Mar\IS-04-022draftChecklist.doc
27
8-62
o
.
o
o
o
/h'r4c ilvU t:-:AIT 6
~\f?
::-~-
- -
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
,
em OF
CHULA VISTA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement
" Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by
the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain
ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must
be filed. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier..
Brookfield Shea Otav LLC
Brookfield Otav LLC
Concordia Lutheran Church of Chula Vista, California
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals with a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity.
N/A
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or 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.
N/A
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent
contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Hunsaker & Assoc. ( Lex Williman) Brookfield Otav LLC ( Adam Pevnev )
Hunsaker & Assoc. ( Marvbeth Murray) Nancv Keenan ( Dahlin Group)
Hunsaker & Assoc. (Terrv Barker)
5. Has any person' associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official" of the City
of Chula Vista as it relates to this contraCt within the past 12 months. Yes D- No &-
If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official" may have in this contract.
6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current
member of the Chula Vista City Council? No t8J Yes 0 If yes, which Council Member?
276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista 8_~fornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101
~\fy
-"t-
.
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
em' OF
CHUlA VISfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX B
Disclosure Statement- Page 2
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chura
Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal
debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes D- No i:8J_
If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided?
Date: 4/05/2007
Adam D. Pevnev - Assistant Vice President
Print or type name of Contractor I Applicant
*
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city,
municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a
unit.
**
Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of
a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vist~l~~lifornia I 91910 I (619) 691-5101
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MND (IS-07-031) FOR THE
OXFORD STREET PROJECT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, Concordia Lutheran Church submitted applications requesting approvals for a
Rezone from the R-I (Residential Single Family) Zone to the R-I-5-P (Residential Single Family,
Precise Plan) zone, establishing a Precise Plan Modifying District, and adopting Precise Plan
standards; a Precise Plan; and a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 3.90 acres located at 267
East Oxford Street into 24 single family residential lots, ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2007, a Notice of Initial Study (NOl) was circulated to
property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site; and
WHEREAS, Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study (IS-
07 -031) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the
Initial Study the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by
the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND IS-07-031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP); and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2007, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for Draft MND IS-07-
031 was posted at the County of San Diego Clerks Office and circulated for a 30-day public review
period to property owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project site as well
as any individuals and/or groups that had requested to be noticed; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Resource Conservation Committee held a duly noticed public
hearing for Draft MND IS-07-014 on November, 192007 and voted 5-0-0-1 to recommend that the
City Council certify MND 07-031 and adopt the MMRP; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Final MND IS-07-014 on December 12, 2007 and voted 6-0-0-1 recommending that the City
Council adopt Final MND 07-031 and adopt the MMRP in accordance with Resolution
and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Final
MND IS-07-031 and MMRP on January 8, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Final MND IS-07-031 together with any
comments received during the public review process; and
J:\Atlomey\DavidM\Resos\IS-07-0JI MNDResoOxford.doc
8-65
WHEREAS, the Final MND IS-07-031 and other related materials are located in the
Planning and Building Department and maintained by the custodian of said documents who is the
Director of Planning and Building. This constitutes the record of proceedings upon which this
adoption of Final MND IS-07-031 is based.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, and order as follows:
1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public
hearing on Final MND 07-031 held on December 12, 2007, as well as the minutes and
resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including
documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall
comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.).
II. MND IS-07-031 CONTENTS
That the MND IS-07-031 consists of the following:
1. Initial Study Checklist IS-07-03I; and
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-031 (including supporting technical reports)
3. Comments and Responses
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "MND IS-07-03I")
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby find that MND IS-07-031 (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, 921000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14
915000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista.
Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in MND IS-07-031, the City Council hereby
finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15074.1 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced
documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity assigned thereby to
implement the same.
J:\Altomey\DavidM\Resos\IS-07-OJ 1 MNDResoOxford.doc
8-66
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) set forth in
MND IS-07-031. The City Council further finds that the Program is designed to
ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any
other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the
mitigation measures identified MND IS-07-031 and associated Program.
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
The City Council has exercised their independent review and judgment and hereby finds on
the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and concurs with the Planning Commission
and Environmental Review Coordinator's determination that Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-07-031 in the form presented has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista and adopts
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-
07-031).
V. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City
Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the
County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These documents, along with any documents
submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any
claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code
921000 et seq.).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City ofChula Vista finds that
the MND IS-07-031 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA
Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and therefore is adopted.
Presented by
James D. Sandoval, AICP
Planning and Building Director
J:\Attomey\DavidMlResos\IS-07-03IMNDResoOxford.doc
8-67
i=- ,?/-1/ J311 A
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Oxford Street! Concordia Lutheran Church Residential
PROJECT LOCATION: 267 East Oxford Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: APN #639-392-14-00
PROJECT APPLICANT: Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92014
(858) 481-8500
CASE NO.: IS-07-031
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: October 19. 2007
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: November 19. 2007
PREP ARER:
Richard Zumwalt. A.I.C.P.. Associate Planner
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
November 20. 2007
Revisions made to this document subsequent to the issuance of the notice of availability of the
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are denoted by underline.
A. Proi ect Setting
The 3.9 -acre project site is located at 267 East Oxford Street, within the urbanized area of West em
Chula Vista, (Exhibit 1- Locator Map). The site is approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of
Melrose A venue and East Oxford Street. Primary access to the site is currently provided directly off
of East Oxford Street. The entire project site has been partially disturbed with previous uses including
a church, pre-school/daycare, and parking lot on the south side of the lot and play fields on the north
side of the lot. The land uses immediately surrounding the project site are as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes demolition of the existing Concordia Lutheran Church, daycare/community
building, and accessory buildings, and redevelopment of the 3.9 ac. site with 24 single-family
detached residential dwelling units, (Exhibit 2 - Site Plan). The site is designated Residential Low-
Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre) on the City of Chula Vista General Plan and is zoned R-I-7
Single Family Residential. The project proposes a rezone from R-I-7 to R-I-5-P (Min. lot size of
5,000 sq. ft. with a Precise Plan ModifYing District); a Precise Plan; and Tentative Subdivision Map
proposing 24 residential lots ranging from 5,006 sq. ft. to 6,249 sq. ft. in size, with 2 garage parking
spaces per home, a public street and HOA-maintained open space lots.
8-~8
Proposed on-site improvements include drainage facilities, sewer system facilities, fire hydrants,
retaining walls, fencing, improved paved areas, open space and landscape treatments. The project is
identified as developable area within the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
Subarea Plan, however, it is not located within the City's designated conservation area.
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project site is within the General Plan RLM (Low-Medium Residential Density/3-6
dwelling units per acre) and RI (Single-Family Residential) Zone. The project proposes a rezone
from R-I to R-I-5-P (Min. lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. with a Precise Plan Modifying District). The
proposed project has been found to be consistent with the applicable site development regulations and
the General Plan.
D. Public Comments
On September 12,2007, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot
radius of the proposed project site. The public review period ended September 24,2007. One e-mail
response was received during this period regarding how project grading will affect the adjacent
properties and how the design of the future homes would affect the neighbor's privacy. These issues
will be addressed in the Planning staff report regarding the project.
On October 19. 2007. the Notice of Availabilitv of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the proiect was posted in the County Clerk's Office and circulated to property owners within a 500-
foot radius of the proiect site. The 30-dav public comment period closed on November 19. 2007. No
written comments were received as a result of this notice.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project may have potential significant environmental
impacts however; mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts
to a less than significant level. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with Section 15070 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Air Oualitv
Short-Term Demolition and Construction Activities
The project proposes demolition of the existing Concordia Lutheran Church, daycare/community
building and accessory buildings. The proposed project will result in a short-term air quality impact
created from construction activities. The grading of the site for future single-family residential
development and worker and equipment vehicle trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes,
equipment exhaust, and other air pollutants associated with the construction and demolition activities.
Air quality impacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-term in
duration.
In order to analyze potential project impacts/emissions, the emission factors and threshold criteria
contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air
Quality Analysis were used.
A comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance
for each pollutant was analyzed. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model. The
addition of emissions to an air basin is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure I contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term
construction and rough grading and emissions related air quality impacts to below a level of
significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
a-S9
Combined Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts
In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is cumulatively
considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air quality. The
proposed project, a small residential infill development, once completed will not result in significant
long-term air quality impacts. The project is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan Update.
The minimal project generated traffic volume of 240 trips would not result in significant long-term
local or regional air quality impacts. Through proj ect design, emission-controlled construction
vehicles and efficiency building products and vehicles as mitigated, no area source or long term
operational vehicle emission estimates will exceed the Air Quality significance thresholds.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure I contained in Section F would mitigate construction and
grading related air quality impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are included as a
part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Biological Resources
A Biological Resource Analysis was prepared by Dudek, dated August 31, 2007, to assess the
potential biological resource impacts of the project. A biological reconnaissance survey of the project
site was conducted on March 30, 2007 to identify existing vegetation on the site. The biological
resource analysis is summarized below.
Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HUT) Permit
The project site is located within in the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan boundary under the
City's MSCP Subarea Plan. The site is located in an area designated as a Development Area, but is
not located within a strategic preserve or conservation area. The project is subject to the requirements
of the Habitat Loss Incident Take (HUT) Ordinance. In accordance with the HUT Ordinance, those
projects that are greater than one acre, contain sensitive biological resources, and are located outside
the "Covered Projects," must demonstrate compliance with the Ordinance and obtain Take authority
from the City of Chula Vista for impacts to Covered Species. The following is a summary of the
findings contained within the biological resource report as required by the City's HUT Ordinance,
Section 17.35.
Existing Conditions/ Plant Species
The 3.9-acre project site consists entirely of 1.8 acres of developed land on the south side of the site
with the existing church and accessory buildings, parking lot, and ornamental plantings, and 2.1 acres
of disturbed lands including the playfield and non-native. grasses and vegetation on the north side of
the site. Developed land includes two mature Indian Laurel Figs and one Brazilian Pepper Tree, six,
I-ft. diameter eucalyptus trees, and turf-grass under-story. The non-native grasses and vegetation in
the disturbed lands result from establishment of a Bermuda-grass playfield which is mowed but
otherwise is no longer maintained and irrigated, resulting in a mixed growth of grasses and broad-
leaved weeds. Native vegetation cover is less than one percent of the vegetative cover onsite,
occurring on the perimeter of the site adjacent to fencing where the plants are not mowed. No
endemic or special status plants exist on the property.
Wildlife/Sensitive Species/Sensitive Habitats
The biological report stated that wildlife species such as birds and butterflies occupied the site,
although no mammal, amphibian or reptile species were detected during the survey.
Ten bird species and two butterfly species were detected on site. Most bird species observed were
common, disturbance-adapted species. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi), which is a covered species
8-10
under the City of Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea Plan and a State species of special concern, was
observed during the site survey. Existing large Indian Laurel Fig and Brazilian Pepper trees occuning
on-site may provide suitable habitat for raptors, and a nest was observed in the Brazilian Pepper tree
on site. Due to the territorial /behavioral characteristics of the Coopers Hawk, it was assumed that
nest was used by them. No special status/wildlife species were reported within one mile of the
project site. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were observed in
the study area and are not expected to occur, due to the low quality of habitat onsite. Potential impacts
of the project on these resources and sensitive species, and mitigation measures are further discussed
in Project Impact section below.
Project Impact
The existing lot supports 2 large ornamental Indian Laurel Fig trees and 1 large Brazilian Pepper tree.
The proposed removal of these trees during development could impact potential habitat for the
Cooper's Hawk and other migratory bird species if the vegetation clearance occurs between January
15 tbm August 15 during breeding season. If vegetation clearance occurs between August 16 and
January 14, development of the site would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. If
removal of habitat or construction activities must occur during the breeding season, pre-construction
surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptors. The proposed
project may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources and nesting raptors, and therefore,
mitigation measures are required. The project will be required to implement the mitigation measures
specified in Section F, and therefore no impacts to Cooper's Hawk or other migratory birds are
anticipated. The project will not be required to obtain a HUT Permit pursuant to Section 17.35 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code.
Further mitigation measures include implementation of construction BMPs, and clearing, grubbing or
grading permits. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section F of this Mitigated
Negative Declaration would reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a level below
significance.
Geology and Soils
To assess the potential geologicallsoils impacts of the project, a Geotechnical Investigation evaluation
was prepared by Geocon, Inc. dated April 18, 2007. No groundwater was encountered on the site and
no groundwater related problems, either during or after construction, are anticipated. No significant
geological or soil impacts would be created as a result of the proposed project as conditioned. The
potential for soil liquefaction is considered to be low. The project site is not located in an active
Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault approximately 6 miles
away.
The site was graded previously with the development of the existing church. Proposed fill grading will
occur over the entirety of the 3.9-acre site. Grading is balanced, including 3,400 cubic yards per acre to be
excavated and filled, with a maximum cut and fill slope ratio of 2: 1. In the event of a major earthquake, the
area could be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking. However, the site is considered comparable to
others in the general vicinity. The site is also underlain with artificial fill and San Diego Formation and is
not suitable for support of structures. The project will require issuance of a grading permit to require
excavation of undocumented fill, re-grading and re-compaction of the site, and review by the consultant of
project grading and foundation plans prior to submittal to regulatory agencies for approval, to minimize the
potential for damage to future structures as a result of unstable soils, ground-shaking, or subsidence.
8-1,
According to the City's Engineering Division, the project will require a grading permit. The
preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of the grading
permit as a standard engineering requirement. In order to prevent silt discharge during construction,
the developer will be required to comply with best management practices in accordance with RWQCB
NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001. The appropriate erosion control measures
would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading plans and would be monitored
and implemented during construction by the Public Works Department. Therefore, the potential for
the discharge of silt into City storm drainage systems would be less than significant. Implementation
of the mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate potential geological/soils
impacts to a less than significance level. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
In order to assess potential hazardslhazardous material impacts, dated April 2007, Dudek prepared the
"Phase I Envirorunental Site Assessment - Concordia Lutheran Church and School" Report for the
project. The project proposal includes the demolition of the existing church, accessory buildings and
parking lot. The report found that the potential exists for impacts to result from the demolition of
structures that may contain lead and asbestos. Therefore, prior to any demolition activities, a licensed
and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor will perform asbestos and lead-based paint
abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, including San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for Demolition and Renovation.
No evidence of additional hazards or hazardous materials or undocumented fill was observed on the
site. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate
potential hazardslhazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are
included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Hydrology and Water Ouality
In order to assess potential hydrology and water quality impacts, a "Tentative Map Drainage Study
for Oxford Street", dated October 3, 2007, and amended October 17, 2007 and the "Tentative Map
Water Quality Technical Report for Oxford Street" dated October 3, 2007, prepared by Hunsaker &
Associates, were submitted for the project and is summarized below:
Existing Conditions
The existing site is bordered on the north, west and east by existing single-family development.
Drainage from the existing development, including the buildings and playfield, flows southerly
toward East Oxford Street south of the site. The flows are then conveyed via existing curb, gutter and
sidewalk in a westerly direction towards the intersection of Melrose and East Oxford Street.
Proposed
The project proposes construction of a storm drain system, including a curb and gutter system, a
cross-gutter, SwaleGard curb inlet filters, and a grass-lined swale. Low flows form the site would be
intercepted and diverted by proposed cross-gutters to curb-inlet filters which will screen out larger
materials and discharge water directly into a proposed grass-lined swale located at the southwestern
corner of the project site. The grass-lined swale will convey flow in a westerly direction, and will be
graded at approximately 0.2% slope to permit water to percolate prior discharge to the public
curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at the southwestern corner of the site.
Peak flows from the east side of the site will be conveyed along the proposed public street and bypass
the cross gutter, flowing directly to East Oxford Street. A portion of the peak flows from the west
side of the site will enter the curb inlets filters and be diverted to the grass-lined swale before
s-h
discharge to the public curb/gutter system on East Oxford Street at the southwestern comer of the site
while the remaining will bypass the inlets and flow out to East Oxford Street.
According to the Engineering Department, the proposed improvements appear adequate to handle the
project storm water runoff generated from the site. The existing flows to East Oxford Street were
analyzed under the 2, 10, 50 and 100-year flood event. Additional Best Management Practices
(BMPs) included as part of the project design consist of a storm drain inlet protection system (curb
inlet filters), grass-lined swale, and permeable pavement in the driveways. No adverse impacts to the
City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
As a standard condition, a final drainage study will be required in conjunction with the preparation of
the project grading plans. Properly designed drainage facilities will be installed at the time of the site
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, compliance with required NPDES
regulations and construction BMPs such as de-silt basins and silt fences will reduce water quality
impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in
Section F below would mitigate potential hydrology and water quality impacts to a level of less than
significance. These measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Noise
In order to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed project, a noise study was prepared by
Dudek, entitled "Concordia Lutheran Church - Residential Project, City of Chula Vista Exterior
Noise Study", dated April 17, 2007, and addendum dated August 31, 2007 for the project. The study
anticipated that on-site workers and adjacent residential population may be exposed to construction
noise associated with short-term construction activities. However, the project will be required to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, due to the minimal construction activities
associated with the project, impacts to surrounding residential properties related to construction noise
levels are not expected to be significant. The proposed residential project is not located within the
Health Risk Assessment Area (HRAA), within 500 feet of any adjacent freeway or highway. The
project is not anticipated to potentially violate the noise limits of the City's noise control ordinance.
Residences on lots 1 and 24 will be directly exposed to auto traffic on East Oxford Street, and are
likely to be affected by exterior CNEL noise levels of approx. of 61 decibels. Typical residential
construction may lower the interior noise level approx. 20 dB with windows closed. Installation of
mechanical ventilation and/or air conditioning in the homes on lots 1 and 24 in accordance with the
Ca. Building Code is necessary to ensure that windows can be closed to achieve compliance with the
45 dB interior standard. In addition, submittal of a subsequent noise study after installation of the
rooftop and HV AC equipment for review. Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in
Section F below would mitigate potential noise impacts to a level of less than significance. These
measures are included as a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Ouality
I. The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be shown on all applicable grading, and
building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless
approved in advance in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment.
a-h
o Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust.
o Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust.
o Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust.
o Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if
available.
o Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site
prior to public road entry.
o Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads.
o Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
o Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on
unpaved surfaces has occurred.
o Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public
roads.
o Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during
hauling.
o Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
o During rough grading, use of cooled exhaust gas re-circulation in conjunction with the
following:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment operations daily. The reduction in
emissions would be directly proportional to the reduction in aggregate operating hours
and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings (emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction in aggregate horsepower)
o Requirement of one or a combination of the following measures for reduction of emissions:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment operations daily. The reduction in
emissions would be directly proportional to the reduction in aggregate operating hours
and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings (emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction in aggregate horsepower)
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds / Cooper's Hawk
2. To ensure no direct and indirect impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds occur during
construction (including clearing and grubbing), construction activities adjacent to nesting habit
should occur outside of the combined breeding season of January 15 to August 15 for these
species. If removal of habitat and/or construction activities adjacent to nest habitat must occur
during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey must be performed by a City-approved
biologist to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on and within 300 feet of the
construction area and nesting raptors within 500 feet of the construction area. The pre-
construction survey must be concluded within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction,
the results of which must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any
construction activities. If nesting birds and/or raptors are detected by the City-approved biologist,
a bio-monitor must be present on-site during construction to minimize construction impacts and
ensure that no nests are removed or disturbed until all young have fledged.
8-74
Indirect Impacts
3. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing or grading pennits, the
project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. BMPs shall he noted on grading and improvement plans and implemented during clearing
and site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator in
order to avoid short-term indirect impacts to any biological resources in the project vicinity.
Geologv and Soils
4. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and
City Building Official that all the recommendations in the GeoTechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon,
dated April 18, 2007, have been satisfied.
HazardslHazardous Materials
5. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard
for Demolition and Renovation.
Hvdrologv and Water Oualitv
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the
preparation of the final grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does
not exceed the pre-development flows as indicated in the "Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford
Street, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated October 3, 2007", and amended October 17, 2007, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer shall verify that the fmal grading plans
comply with the provisions of RWQCB NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-2007-0001 with respect
to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post
construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan
shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed.
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm
drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
Interior - Vehicle Noise Mitigation
8. The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots I, 24) would need to remain closed to achieve a
45 CNEL interior noise level. The design of these homes must include a means of mechanical ventilation
and/or air-conditioning. The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with the latest addition of the
California and Uniform Building Code and to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
9. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit a subsequent noise study for the homes on
Lots I and 24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator demonstrating that the final
roof-mounted HV AC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with the City's noise control ordinance
at the property boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours or
ambient noise levels, whichever is greater.
Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation
10. To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shall be required:
8-~5
3. Prior to issuance of any land development pennits, including clearing and grubbing or grading pennits, the
project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. BrvIPs shall be noted on grading and improvement plans and implemented during clearing
and site development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator in
order to avoid short-term indirect impacts to any biological resources in the project vicinity.
Geologvand Soils
4. Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and
City Building Official that all the recommendations in the GeoTechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon,
dated April 18, 2007, have been satisfied.
HazardslHazardous Materials
5. Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead-based paint abatement in accordance to all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard
for Demolition and Renovation.
Hvdrologv and Water Oualitv
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a [mal drainage study shall be required in conjunction with the
preparation of the fmal grading plans and must demonstrate that the post-development peak flow rate does
not exceed the pre-development flows as indicated in the "Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford
Street, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated October 3, 2001", and amended October 17,2007, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer shall verify that the frnal grading plans
comply with the provisions of RWQCB NPDES Municipal Pennit, Order No. R9-2007-0001 with respect
to construction-related water quality best management practices. If one or more of the approved post
construction BMPs is non-structural, then a post-construction BMP plan shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. Compliance with said plan
shall become a permanent requirement of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed.
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm
drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement plans to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
Interior - Vehicle Noise Mitigation
8. The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots I, 24) would need to rennain closed to achieve a
45 CNEL interior noise level. The design of these homes must include a means of mechanical ventilation
and/or air-conditioning. The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with the latest addition of the
California and Uniform Building Code and to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
9. Prior to approval of building pennits, the applicant shall submit a subsequent noise study for the homes on
Lots 1 and 24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator demonstrating that the final
roof-mounted BY AC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with the City's noise control ordinance
at the property boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours or
ambient noise levels, whichever is greater.
Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation
10. To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shall be required:
8-~6
A. All construction equipment shall be equipped with improved noise muffling, and have the
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine covers,
and engine vibration isolators in good working condition.
E. If possible, hydraulic equipment instead of pneumatic impact tools and electric powered
equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment shall be used for all exterior construction
work.
C. All equipment shall be turned off if not in use.
D. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related
grading, demolition or construction activities shall be prohibited between the hours of
10:0 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
G. Agreement to Imolement Mitigation Measures
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator 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 Applicant's and Operator's desire that the
Project be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
#.ht, VIet.- LPJ:h..f!hf:Jr. , L.
1 r:;{ ~o~ ""","" (}r..., ~
HJA.fV\ 0, fBJ III-' - P7(: 6tJ;iJ';(ki:vt> (/'01:{ u-&
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
orized rep tative)
[0 Nt! ';U)O-:r-
Date
Iv It'( (2..009"
Date
Signature of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
H. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City ofChula Vista:
Steve Power, Planning and Building Department
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building Department
Maria Muett, Planning and Building Department
Ben Guerrero, Planning and Building Department
Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building Department
8 -9n
Glen Laube, Planning and Building Department
Lynnette Tessitore- Lopez, Planning and Building Department
Tom Adler, Engineering Department
Mario Ingrasci, Engineering Department
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering Department
Jim Newton, Engineering Department
Hasib Baha, Engineering Department
Richard Hopkins, Public Works Operations
Steven Gonzales, Public Works Operations
David McRoberts, Public Works Operations
Khosro Aminpour, Public Works Operations
Muna Cuthbert, Public Works Operations
Kelly Briers, Fire Department
Others:
Rafael Munoz, Chula Vista Elementary School District
Hector Martinez, Sweetwater Authority
Laurie Edwards, Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Union High School District
David Gottfredson, RECON
2. Documents
City ofChula Vista General Plan, 2005 (as amended).
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code.
City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, February 2003.
Biological Resource Analysis prepared by Dudek, dated August 31, 2007 and addendum.
Geotechnical Investigation for Oxford Street, Chula Vista, Ca.
dated April 18, 2007, and addendum dated October 8, 2007, by Geocon, Inc.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Concordia Lutheran Church and School, 267 East
Oxford Street, Chula Vista, Ca. prepared by Dudek, April 2007, and addendum dated August 31,
2007.
Tentative Map Drainage Study for Oxford Street, dated October 3, 2007 and amended October
17, 2007 prepared by Hunsaker & Associates
Tentative Map Water Quality Technical Report for Oxford Street, dated October 2, 2007 and
amended October 2007 prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
Air Quality URBEMIS Model, dated October 2007
Concordia Lutheran Church - Residential Project, City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Study",
prepared by Dudek, dated April 17, 2007, and addendum dated August 31, 2007.
8....1118
Archaeological Survey Report for Concordia Lutheran Church Project, 267 East Oxford Street,
Chula Vista, Ca., prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates, dated April 3, 2007, and addendum
September 2007.
Overview of Sewer Service for the Oxford Street Proi ect. dated September 26. 2007 and amended
October 2007, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering.
3. Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula V' ta, CA 91910.
Date:
1I/'L/lo9-
I
J :\Planning\RichardZ\Environmental\ IS-07 ~031.finalMND
8-7~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC. INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT 267 E. Oxford Street. Request: 24 SFD development on a 3.9 acre lot.
ADDRESS:
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale IS-07-031 Related cases: PCS-07-07, PCZ-07-08 & GPA-07-04
J:\Planning\Public Notices\IS\IS07031.cdr 04.26.07
8-80
,eKHISIi I
"-
o
"-
o
"'
u
"'-
2 p...
.
;t filtH.! J -$M-ctg 'M!V
'l~Dr: '0,", .NW
----'~aN-~~~-v.L43~VO~anr---------
't ..~ ..- ..-r;.. : l f 1
" t '" · .,. "' . .
..~.. ~ !,:t . ~ G,~'" c: J eo ..
~-1 ~ ~ == ~~~~~ '= I .~' ~ ~
;."!?... 4'..2~"~: ,] a
.!-rnr}~~~;- Ir--!-f-tT----c-
B~ fa- a Eg B~~~~.. ~ ~ g ~~
: )
.L
I'
,
~'.:' ,-
".
1
.~
,Iil
~-'ij
'i ,~--~J
. nIl:!:'. ~;,. .
.: :":; ','i:' - l
hd'1
fr:~~--------"--- , ~
. ". '.
; _ 'Sri' :;; ~[ -:t
It,.. ~l~;
;", h~ ,.~'r
':,,.G;-,-----~~~~
~(",;. m ;~~~- I
f,-I-' ~ :oo;;~-~' ~
t~, 't;'lt.-~ I Ci) I
t, -::. Mi.~-l:]j Ci I'
':\; . ,,'ll: 1 ~
~;:~rt-.---~-.~-~.... . ~ t
~:. ~ So! ~ ">: ~ I
f~.. f 'J' .!
fl'" ._,',.," .
l?'i--"-----~---.-h. '. .
r~ ....,.
!-'",. ~ 'j.
ft. . t:I... I'
',. " 1',... .
;~. -~-~..----~~-~-r '
~'C- [if I,
, ;11'
, ,
~ -------";~-----l'
!
,
1r
"
Ipl:
f
~ ,
~ ,
,
,
,
.,
\
,
,
,
'[,/'> -
,': 'e~:
2........~)";,, __............:,
?- 8i">
,
, ' tS'ii.....
i \;JZ
,i
Sj'
Q~
I(jj~
. ,
'"
~ Q",i
::; .\~
o t
U ,.Afr---:~.~..-~..:ii
14 "~...H .~
.., ,~-~~ Qo ~t.
.c;." ~~ti....,
e-~~-C";,
.u ,-;l ,~. . ,?
~.~ ':,~;:~, ~ ',:.;~~'" :~_\
:-l_ _~,.".___: I~
) ~~
8j
;,:,
@'-
bi'"
,_It
< ,
ei
r,;..-
\7~
8i
i'
@i
'Ii
6~
@i
@i
,
" -~,
,
. .-" ""....'\.
"~x
,
'x
,,'
,,- "
,
€J'
''4':'."
r-l
fI;
\fl.
'"
,
,
"....'
,
"
\
,.
,
\ ~;
\ -.".;
,
\
\
,
,
,
~,
~~
.......,f~'.
I $-
, -
I
,
,
: It,:
I Mi
I
,
I
I
,
I
.>-i':rt...r"a,,'...
,
I,
I
I.
~; f" ,,;
1 l?] : i';l:-
, ,
91 fiI:JNJ. n-O~9t,tJCg WdY
I /'i'ttf -aN r.i!tJo'~;
J ~ '(jNJ.W
I ~(jf.J}'W {f3'1~SEW
, ,
,"
"
I
,
,
I
I'
8-81
/"".
'r-
""""'...... "" ~.
~ o;;t~LO
"'- OJ
'" a:~
::;; O~
UJ ..
>
~ u..~
'" Xg
z
w
>- 0&
<--L
\:::
!g
~
~
. 19i I
-:";'. I
~~~l;f
!~-ijl
if'-
!
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
OXFORD STREET/CONCORDIA LUTHERAN CHURCH RESIDENTIAL - IS-07-031
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro gram has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Oxford Street/Concordia Lutheran Church Residential project.
The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State
CEQA Guidelines (IS-06-007) The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Air Quality
2. Biological Resources
3. Geology and Soils
4. HazardslHazardous Materials
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
6. Noise
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-07-031 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-07-031, 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.
J:\Planning\MARIA \Initial Study\Oxford Map\IS-07 -031MMRPtext.doc
8-82
Oxford StreeUConcordia Lutheran Church Residential (IS-07-0311
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reoortinq Proqram
Table 1
Mitigation Measure
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Comments
CD
I
CD
c..>
1.
The following air quality mitigation requirements shall be
shown on all applicable grading, and building plans as
details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate:
. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple
construction equipment units.
. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment.
. Use electrical construction equipment as practical.
. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered
equipment.
. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered
equipment.
. Water the construction area twice daily to minimize
fugitive dust.
. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to
minimize fugitive dust.
. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to
minimize dust.
Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary
generators during building, if available.
Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal
travel path within a construction site prior to public
road entry.
. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior
to vehicle entsy on public roads.
. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public
streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of
each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved
surfaces has occurred.
. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent
washout of silty material onto public roads.
Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of
freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling.
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
x
x
x
Applicant/ City
Engineering
Department/City
Planning and Building
Department .
Page - 1
Oxford Street/Concordia Lutheran Church Residential (IS-07-031)
Mitioation Monitorinq and ReDortinq Proqram
Table 1
. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved
sulfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
. During rough grading, use of cooled exhaust gas
recirculation in conjunction with the foHowing:
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of equipment
that operate simultaneously
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment
operations daily. The reduction in emissions would
be directly proportional to the reduction in
aggregate operating hours anci/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings
(emissions reduction would be direCUy proportional
to the reduction in aggregate horsepower)
. Requirement of one or a combination of the following
measures for reduction of emissions:
co
I
CO
.j>.
a) Reduction of the number of pieces of
equipment that operate simultaneously.
b) Reduction of the number of hours that equipment
operations daily. The reduction in emissions
would be directly proportional to the reduction in
aggregate operating hours and/or
c) Use equipment with lower horsepower ratings
(emissions reduction would be directly
proportional to the reduction In aggregate
horsepower).
Page - 2
Oxford Street/Concordia Lutheran Church Residential (IS-07-031\
Table 1
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq ProQram
2.
CD
I
CD
tn
3.
To ensure no direct and indirect impacts to raptors and/or Plan Check/Site
any migratory birds occur during construction (including Inspection
clearing and grubbing), construction activities adjacent to
nesting habitat should occur outside of the combined
breeding season of January 15 to August 15 for these
species. If removal of habitat and/or construction
activities adjacent to nest habitat must occur during the
breeding season, a pre.construction survey must be
performed by a City~approved biologist to determine the
presence or absence of nesting birds on and within 300
feet of the construction area and nesting raptors within
500 feet of the construction area. The pre-construction
survey must be concluded within 10 calendar days prior
to the start of construction, the results of which must be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds
and/or raptors are detected by the City-approved
biologist, a bio-monitor must be present on-site during
construction to minimize construction impacts and ensure
that no nests are removed or disturbed until all young
have fled ed,
Prior to the issuance of any land development permits Plan Check/Site
including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, the Inspection
project shall implement Best Management Practices
(BMPs) identified in the Stonn Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. BMPs shall be noted on grading and improvement
plans and implemented during clearing and site
development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Environmental Review Coordinator in order to avoid
short-term Indirect impacts to any biological resources in
the ro'ect vlcinit .
x
x
x
ApplicanVCity
Engineering
DepartmenttPlanning
and Building
Department
x
ApplicanVCily
Engineering
DepartmenUPlanning
and Building
Department
x
x
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the City Engineer and City
Building Official that all the recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Geoeon, dated
A ril18, 2007, have been satisfied,
Page - 3
ApplicanVCily
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
De artment
Oxford StreeUConcordia Lutheran Church Residential OS-07-031)
Table 1
Mitioation Monitorina and Reoortino Proaram
5.
Prior to any demolition activities, a licensed and
registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor shall
perform asbestos and lead.based paint abatement In
accordance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, including San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 361.145 - Standard for
Demolition and Renovation.
x
x
ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenVCity
Engineering
Department
00
I
00
en
Plan Check/Site
Inspection
x
6.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage
study shall be required in conjunction with the preparation
of the final grading plans and must demonstrate that the
post.development peak flow rate does not exceed the
pre-development flows as indicated in the ~Tentative Map
Drainage Study for Oxford Street", prepared by Hunsaker
& Associates, dated October 3, 2007 and amended
October 17, 2007 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Additionally, the City Engineer shall verify that the final
grading plans comply with the provisions of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
Order No, 2001-01 with respect to construction-related
water quality best management practices. If one or more
of the approved post construction BMPs is non-structural
then a post-construction 8MP plan shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the
commencement of construction. Compliance with said
plan shall become a permanent requirement of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, temporary Plan Check/Site
desilting and erosion control devices shall be installed. Inspection
Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain
inlet to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain
system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading
and improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
x
x
x
ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenVCity
Engineering
Department
x
ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
8.
The windows of homes facing East Oxford Street (Lots 1,
24) shall remain closed to achieve a 45 CNEL interior
noise level. The design of these homes must include a
means of mechanical ventilation and/or air-conditioning,
The mechanical ventilation should be in accordance with
the latest addition of the California and Uniform Building
Code and to the satisfaction of the Building Official and
Environmental Review Coordinator.
Page - 4
ApplicanVCity
Planning and Building
Department/City
Engineering
Department
Oxford 8treeVConcordia Lutheran Church Residential 08-07-031)
00
I
00
-.j
9.
Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall Plan Checl<lSite
submit a sUbsequent noise study for homes on Lots 1 and Inspection
24 to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator demonstrating that the final roof-mounted
HVAC and/or Air Conditioning equipment complies with
the City's noise control ordinance at the property
boundaries of 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 55
dBA Leq during daytime hours or ambient noise levels,
whichever is greater.
To minimize the potential noise and vibration impacts
during construction upon adjacent residences, the
following shall be required:
10.
A. All construction equipment shall be equipped
with improved noise muffling, and have the
manufacturers' recommended noise abatement
measures, such as mufflers, engine covers and
engine vibration isolates in good working
conditions.
8. If possible, hydraulic equipment instead of
pneumatic impacts tools and electric powered
equipment instead of diesel~powered
equipment shall be used for all exterior
construction work.
C. All equipment shall be turned off jf not in use.
D. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, project-related grading,
demolition or construction activities shall be
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Saturdavs and Sundavs.
J:\Pianning\MARIA\lnitial Study\Oxford Map\lS-07-031MMRPtbl.doc
Table 1
Page - 5
x
x
x
ApplicanUCity
Planning and Building
DepartmenUCity
Engineering
Department
Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reoortinq Proqram
I
1. Name of Proponent:
~(ft..
---
CllYOF
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CHUlA VI5fA
Concordia Lutheran Church c/o
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Chula Vista
Planning and Building Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
Concordia Lutheran Church
c/o Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92014
(858) 481-8500
4. Name of Proposal:
Oxford Street/ Concordia Lutheran
Church Residential
5. Date of Checklist:
October 17, 2007
6. Case No.:
IS-07-031
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
o
o
o
.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
o
o
o
.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
o
o
o
.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
o
o
o
.
S-gS
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
in the area?
Comments:
a-b)The proposal includes the development of twenty-four single family residential units with site
improvements in accordance with the City of Chula Yista Municipal. The proposed landscape
improvements would enhance and improve the aesthetic quality of Oxford Street, the proposed
on-site public street and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project would not damage any
scenic resources, vegetation, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The site is
located on the side of a ridgeline developed with single-family homes, which slopes uphiII to the
east. Development of the project site with homes could affect views from these adjacent
properties. However, the development layout is designed to include side-yard setbacks, which
allow views between proposed homes and above the roofline of single-story homes. The
approval of the proj ect will not substantially degrade existing views across the property,
therefore, no significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
c) The proposal is an infill residential development project. The proposed project wiII not
substantiaIly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its adjacent
residential surroundings. The project site is planned for single - family residential development
according to the General Plan Land Use regulations.
d) The project proposes one public streetlight on the cul-de-sac, and private lighting for each
residence, which should not affect adjacent residences. An existing streetlight wiII serve the
project entry at the intersection of East Oxford Street and the proposed street. The proposal wiIl
be required to comply with the City's minimum standards for roadway lighting. The project will
be required to comply with the light and glare regulations (Section 19.66.100) of the Chula Yista
Municipal Code (CYMC). Compliance with these regulations will ensure that no significant
glare, or light would affect daytime or nighttime views in the surrounding residential
neighborhood area.
Miti!!:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide hnportance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
o
o
o
.
8-8'9
a Williamson Act contract?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
D D D .
Issues:
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFannland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
a-c)The project site is developed with a church, pre-schoolldaycare, and parking lot on the south side
of the lot and play fields on the north side of the lot. The surrounding properties have been
developed with single-family homes. These properties are consistent with the Chula Vista
General Plan and zoning designation, and contain no agricultural resources or designated
farmland. The proposal would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts to agricultural resources would be
created as a result of the proposed project.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
ill. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
o
o
o
.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 .
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 0 . D 0
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
regIOn is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing ermSSlOllS, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 . 0 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
o
.
o
D
8-~O
Issues:
number of people?
Comments:
(a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti!!ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant air quality impacts to a level ofIess than significance.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, fiIIing, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
8-~1
D
D
D
.
.
D
D
D
D
D
D
.
Issues:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or orclinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or orclinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitil!:ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
.
o
.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
.
o
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant biological resource impacts to a level ofless than significance.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines ~ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines ~ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
8-~2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside offormal cemeteries?
D
D
D
.
Comments:
a) In order to assess potential historic resources located on the project site or surrounding areas, an
archaeological!historical evaluation entitled "Archaeological Survey for the Concordia Lutheran
Church Projecf' was prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates, dated September 19, 2007. The
following details summarize the results of the study. The existing structures were constructed
between 1962-1965 and were not associated with any important events or individuals in terms of
local, state or national history. The existing structures and the site do not qualify as a historic resource
under national, state or local register criteria. The proposed project will not constitute a substantial,
adverse change to the significance of an historical resource as the structure has been determined by the
analysis not to be historically or architecturally significant within the project impact area. Therefore,
no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) The site has been disturbed by development of the church on the south 1/3 of the property and
previous playfield use of the northerly 2/3 of the properly. Based on the level of previous site
disturbance, the potential for significant impacts or adverse changes to archaeological resource as
defmed in Section 15064.5 is not anticipated.
c) Based on the level of previous disturbance to the site and the relatively limited amount of additional
grading for the proposed project, no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic
features are anticipated.
d) No human remains are anticipated to be present within the impact area of the project site as the project
site has been previously disturbed with the existing church and auxiliary structures.
Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
1.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
D
D
D
.
8-9'3
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
u. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 . 0 0
111.
Seismic-related
liquefaction?
failure,
including
ground
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments:
a-e) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Mitigation:
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant geological impacts to a level ofless than significance.
8-9~
Issues:
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
1) For a project within the VlCffilty of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) hnpair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
8-~5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
(a-b) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. The proposed project site is located within one-quarter
mile of Palomar Elementary school located on East Palomar Street. The proposed project will not
emit acutely hazardous emissions or materials, therefore, will not create a significant impact to the
schools within the surrounding area.
d) The proposed project is not located on a site included on the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health Services Hazardous List pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5,
therefore, will not create a significant impact to the public or the environment.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project
area to adverse safety hazards.
f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development
would not expose people working in the project area to adverse safety hazards.
g) The project is designed to meet the City's emergency response plan, route access and emergency
evacuation requirements. The proposed fITe improvements include an emergency turning radius and
fire hydrant. No impairment or physical interference with the City's emergency response plan is
anticipated.
h) The project is designed to meet the City's Fire Prevention building and fITe service requirements. No
exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to wildfires is
anticipated.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hazards/Hazardous Materials impacts to a level ofless than significance.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
o
.
o
o
8-~6
Issues:
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? Result in a potentially
significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a IOO-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
8-90,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
.
Less Than
Significant
Impact
.
D
.
D
D
No
Impact
o
.
o
.
D
Issues:
Comments:
(a-f) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
Miti2ation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Hydrology/W ater Quality impacts to a level of less than significance.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established conununity?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural conununity conservation plan?
8-98
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
.
o
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is surrounded with single-family residential land uses. The proposed residential infill
project would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and character of the immediate
surrounding residential area. The project would not disrupt or divide an established community;
therefore, no significant land use impact would occur as a result of the project.
b) The project site is located within the RI (Single-Family Residential) Zones and RLM (Low-Medium
Density) General Plan land use designation. The project is required to rezone the existing parcel to R-
1-5-P and be in compliance with the respective zoning. The project bas been found to be consistent
with the General Plan guidelines and regulations, therefore; no significant land use impacts are
anticipated.
c) Refer to Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction noise/raptor
nesting impacts are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section, under Biological
Resources.
Mitie:ation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Land UselPlanning impacts to a level ofless than significance.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
o
o
o
.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land .
use plan?
o
o
o
.
8-99
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The project site has been previously disturbed with the existing church. The proposed project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the residents
of the State of California.
b) The State of California Department of Conservation has not designated the projeCt site for mineral
resource protection. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
Mifu!:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
8-11&0
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e-f) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, nor is it
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project development would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Mitigation:
The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant Noise impacts to a level ofless than significance.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proj ecl:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
D
D
D
.
c) Displace substantial numbers
necessitating the construction of
housing elsewhere?
of people,
replacement
D
o
o
.
8-1\11
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project is surrounded by existing residential development and involves the removal of the
existing church and daycare buildings and related improvements. The proposed project does not
involve the extension of public facilities that would induce substantial growth. Future residential
development of the site for the proposed 24 single-family residential units is consistent with the
General Plan and would not exceed the regional or local population projections. The proposed
project would involve the rezoning of the site from R-I-7 to R-I-5-P Zone, which is consistent with
the RLM General Plan designation of the site, which would be similar to the existing adjacent single-
family residential properties to the north, south and east. The proposed project would not involve
displacement of existing housing or individuals.
Miti!!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any public services:
a. Fire protection? 0 0 . 0
b. Police protection? 0 0 0 .
c. Schools? 0 0 0 .
d. Parks? 0 0 . 0
e. Other public facilities? 0 0 0 .
8-1b'i2
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Depar1ment, adequate fire protection services can continue to be provided to the
site. The applicant will be required to comply with the Fire Department policies for fITe hydrant
placement, fITe flow, fITe truck access and new building construction. The City's Fire performance
objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
b) According to the Chula Vista Police Department, adequate police protection services can continue to be
provided upon completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant
effect upon or result in a need for substantial new or altered police protection services. The City's
Police performance objectives and thresholds will continue to be met.
c) The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no significant adverse
impacts to public schools would result. According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District letter
dated May 22, 2007, the applicant would be required to pay the statutory building permit school fees
for the proposed residential construction or an alternative financing mechanism such as participation in
or annexation to a CFD is recommended.
d) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infiII
project. However, the applicant shall be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees
(pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council on January 6, 2004.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and would continue to be served by existing public infrastructure.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
D
D
.
D
b)
Does the proj ect include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
D
D
o
.
a-ra3
Issues:
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infill
project and would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant will
be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development Fees (pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No.
2945 adopted by City Council on January 6, 2004.
b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project site is
not planned for any future parks and recreation facilities or programs. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment.
Mitil!ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
proj ect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion managernent agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
8-1l:Y4
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
0 0 0 .
0 0 0 .
Issues:
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
(a,b,d,e) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, in their memorandum dated September 25,2007,
the proposed residential infill project is not anticipated to result in any significant traffic, circulation or
emergency access impacts. The existing church and daycare generates approximately 304 Average Daily
Trips (ADTs), as compared to the proposed project, which will generate approximately 240 ADTs. The
traffic generated by the project will amount to a reduction of 64 ADT's. In addition, the project-
generated trips will not exceed the level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, due to the minimal traffic increase and
reduction of previous vehicular volume, the project will not create significant traffic operations impacts
along East Oxford Street and surrounding residential or collector streets.
c) The proposal would not have any significant effect upon any air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
f) The proposal includes garage spaces in accordance with the Chula Vista Zoning Code, and parking
on the proposed public street. The proposal meets ADA requirements for accessibility and parking.
g) There is an existing bus stop located I block westerly of the site at the intersection of Melrose and
East Oxford Street.
h) The proposal would not conflict with adopted transportation plans or alternative transportation
programs.
Mitie:ation:
No mitigation measures are required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
o
o
o
.
8-1~5
Issues:
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a-r86
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
D D D .
D
D
.
D
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project site is located within an urban area that is served by all necessary utilities and service systems.
According to the Engineering Department, wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board not be exceeded as a result of the proposed project.
b) According to Sweetwater Authority correspondence dated April 24, 2007, an existing 8-inch water main is
located on the south side of East Oxford Street, with one existing water service to the site. The proposed
improvements wiIl include a new water main extension within the proposed public road that connects to
the existing Authority water main in East Oxford Street, and terminates in the proposed cul-de-sac. This
would include new separate laterals and meters for each parcel. As the water facility improvements are
designed in accordance with water authority standards, no significant impacts to existing facility systems
wiIl occur as a result ofthe proposed project. Adequate storage facilities exist to serve the project.
c) The potential discharge of silt during construction activities could impact tbe storm drain system.
Appropriate erosion control measures will be identified in conjunction with the preparation of final
grading plans to be implemented during construction. The proposed project will result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities, including grassy swales and a detention basin located at the
southwest comer of the site. Installation of these improvements in conjunction with the proposed project
will result in a reduction of storm water flow. The proposed project is subject to the NPDES General
Construction Permit requirements and shall obtain permit coverage and develop a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of grading permits. In addition, the project shall be
conditioned to implement construction and post-construction water quality Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in accordance with the Chula Vista Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). No significant impacts to the City's storm drainage facilities are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
d) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District. Pursuant to
correspondence from the Sweetwater Authority, dated September 25, 2007, adequate storage facilities
exist, and the project may be serviced from the 8"-water main on East Oxford Street and the applicant wiIl
need to install a service main to service this site. A fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute fire flow at 20 psi
pressure for a two hour duration, as required by the Chula Vista Fire Department, is available to serve the
project. The proposed project will be required to construct expansions to existing water facilities as
described in Section b above.
e) An Overview of Sewer Service for the project was prepared on September 26, 2007 and amended October
2007, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering. The project site is within the boundaries of the City of
Chula Vista wastewater services area. The existing sewer facility system includes 8-inch sewer lines along
East Oxford Street and one sewer lateral to serve the existing church. There are clUTently no sewer mains
serving the northerly part of the site. Therefore a new 8-inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public
street, connecting the sewer main in East Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. The applicant shall
be required to submit a final sewer report and plan showing compliance with the City's Sewer Design
Criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's
sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
f) The City of Chula Vista is served by regional landfills with adequate capacity to meet the solid waste needs
of the region in accordance with State law.
g) The proposal would be conditioned to comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid
waste.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
identified storm water/storm drainage and wastewater impacts to a level of less than significant.
8-f87
Issues:
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A) Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30,
2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by
buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be
phased such that the City will not fall below the city-
wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library
facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain
an average response time to all "Priority One"
emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b) Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes
or less.
C) Fire and Emergencv Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire
and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
The Tbreshold 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. Signalized intersections west ofI-805 are not
to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps
are exempted from this Standard.
8-1158
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
.
.
.
.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Issues: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
E) Parks and Recreation Areas 0 0 0 .
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilitiesfl,OOO population east ofI-80S.
F) Drainage 0 0 . 0
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows
and volwnes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plane s) and City
Engineering Standards.
G) Sewer
o
o
.
o
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volwnes not exceed City Engineering Standards.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering
Standards.
H) Water
o
o
.
o
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and
construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee offset program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
8-1f}9
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not induce substantial population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) According to the Police Department. adequate police protection services can continue to be provided upon
completion of the proposed project. The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a
need for substantial new or altered police protection services. No adverse impact to the City's Police Threshold
standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
c) According to the Fire Department. adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the project site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project.
the project will contnbute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. TIris increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
and Emergency Medical Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
d) According to the Traffic Engineering Division, the surrounding street segments and intersections including East
Oxford Street and Melrose Avenue will continue to operate at the sarne Level of Service in compliance with the
City's traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic. No adverse impact to the City's traffic
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
e) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small residential infil1 project and
would not impact existing or proposed recreational facilities. However, the applicant shall be required to pay
Park Acquisition and Development Fees (pAD) in accordance with Ordinance No. 2945 adopted by City Council
on January 6, 2004.
f) Based upon the review of the project. the Engineering Department has determined that there are no significant
issues regarding the proposed drainage improvements of the project site. The proposed drain system includes
improvements to existing drainage culverts to handle 2, 10, 50 and 100-year storm events, a series of inlets,
private catch basins and culverts, underground detention systems, discharge controls, and filtering systems. No
adverse impacts to the City's drainage threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project.
g) An Overview of Sewer Service for the project was prepared on September 26, 2007 and amended October 2007
by Dexter Wilson Engineering. The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater
services area. The existing sewer facility system includes 8-inch sewer lines along East Oxford Street and one
lateral to serve the existing church. There are currently no sewer mains serving the northerly part of the site.
Therefore a new 8- inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public street. connecting the sewer main in East
Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. The applicant shall be required to submit a final sewer report and
plan showing compliance with the City's Sewer Design Criteria, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No
adverse impacts to the City's sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
h) The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District as noted in their
correspondence. Pursuant to correspondence from the Sweetwater Anthority dated 4/24/07, the project may be
serviced from the 8"-water main on East Oxford Street and the applicant will need to install a service main to
service this site. No significant impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will
occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
8-11'0
, I 1 ;
Issues:
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 of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
D
D
D
.
a) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E. Potential short-term construction raptor nesting impacts
are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F, under Biological Resources.
b) The project site has been previously disturbed with a church land use and site improvements. No
cumulative considerable impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, other current projects and probable future projects have been identified.
c) The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as the
proposed project has been mitigated to lessen any potential significant impacts to a level of less than
significance.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures contained in Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would mitigate
potentially significant impacts to a level ofless than significance.
8-1'11
, ,
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant
Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS-07-031.
XX. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and/or Operator 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 below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall
indicate the Applicant and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval
and that the Applicant and/or Operator shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report.
AS&\'. V\d=--~~
ADAM D. f'f-VNe( - ~~~~ ~L.-
Printed Name and Title of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
1D 1(1 ( "OD "l-
Date
Signature of Applicant
(or authorized representative)
N/A
Printed Name and Title of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
N/A
Signature of Operator
(if different from Applicant)
Date
8-12/52
I' I ,1
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 previous pages.
o Land Use and Planning
D Population and Housing
. Geophysical
o Agricultural Resources
. Hydrology/Water
. Air Quality
D Paleontological
Resources
DTransportationlTraffic
. Biological Resources
D Energy and Mineral
Resources
o Public Services
D Utilities and Service Systems
D Aesthetics
~azards and Hazardous
Materials
D Cultural Resources
. Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
8-12f3
,. ..
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
{J /21 /0 T
Date I
J:\Planning\MARIA\Initial Shidy\Villas Del Mar\IS-04~022draftCheck1ist.doc
8-1 ~1I
o
.
o
o
o
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 TO
REZONE ONE 3.9 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 267 EAST
OXFORD STREET FROM R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
F AMIL Y) TO R-1-5-P (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
PRECISE PLAN), AND ADOPTING PRECISE PLAN
STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, the subject matter of this Ordinance is the Zoning Map established by Chapter
19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, and the area of the Zoning Map to be used as the
project area is identified as Exhibit "A," attached hereto; and,
WHEREAS, an application made by Concordia Lutheran Church ("Applicant") to amend the
Zoning Map was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on April
10,2007; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to rezone the 3.9 acre Project site located at 267 East
Oxford Street from the R-I (Residential Single Family) Zone to the R-I-5-P (Residential Single
Family, Precise Plan) zone, establishing a Precise Plan Modifying District, and adopting Precise
Plan standards ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study (IS-
07-031) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the
Initial Study the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project could result in
significant impacts on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by
the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; therefore, the Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND IS-07-03I) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at a public
hearing held at a time and place advertised, namely 6:00 pm on December 12, 2007, in the Council
Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said zone change
(PCZ-07-08) and notice of said hearing, together with' its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.
January 8, 2008, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue and said hearing was thereafter
closed.
J:lAuomey\DavidMIOrdinances\PCZ.07.08DraftOrd Oxford.doc
8-115
Ordinance No.
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista does hereby ordain as follows:
1. FINDINGS FOR APROV AL OF REZONE AND PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
DISTRICT, INCLUDING PRECISE PLAN STANDARDS.
Pursuant to Section 19.56.041 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista finds that the following circumstances are evident, which allows the application of the
"P" Precise Plan Modifying District to the project site.
I. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity.
The City Council finds that the proposed precise plan standards contained in attached
Exhibit C will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood because the
proposed standards allow the applicant to design a Project that is more compatible with the
existing residential development in the area. The surrounding area includes single-family
homes to the north, south, east and west. These homes were developed pursuant to the R-I-7
zone with predominantly 7,000 square foot lots. To provide a subdivision design that is more
compatible with the R-I-7 zone, the Project will include a minimum rear yard setback
requirement of20 feet, which exceeds the R-I-5 requirement, and matches that ofthe R-I-7
zone. Through the use of three different floor plans at varying setbacks, the front and rear
yards ofthe Project will be staggered, which will vary the alignment of homes to add visual
interest. The applicant is proposing single-story plans on 10 of the lots, which will
complement the surrounding area, which also contains a mixture of single-story and two-
story development. Such standards will allow construction ofa single-family development
that is more compatible with the surrounding R-I-7 zone type of development than the
typical R-I-5 development.
2. That such plan satisfies the following principles for amendment of the "P" modifYing district
as set forth in CYMC 19.56.041:
(a) The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
or the City the appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and
proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zone
The City Council finds that application of the "P" modifYing district is appropriate
because the underlying R-I-5 zone regulation does not allow development
standards needed to achieve a project design that is compatible with the adjacent
residential area, and therefore a precise plan modifYing district is needed to allow a
more compatible design. Development of the site under the standard R-I-5 zoning
would potentially result in massing issues created by rows of rear elevations of
J:\Altomey\OavidM\OrdinancesIPCZ-07-08DraftQrd Oxford.doc
8-116
Ordinance No.
Page 3
homes developed with a 15 ft. rear yard setbacks. The Precise Plan standards will
allow the Project to be designed with development standards which will make a
more appropriate transition between adjacent single family development on 7,000
square foot lots, and will also be designed to include walls, fencing and landscaped
open space lots that will help buffer the units adjacent from the adjacent uses, in a
manner that the development of the site will better coexist with adjacent uses.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the "P"
Precise Plan Modifying District.
(a) With the exception of the rear yard setback of20 feet and the front yard setback to the
porch of 10 feet, the development standards are the same as the R-I-5 zone.
(b) Development of the lot using the development standards of the R-I-5 zone would limit
the ability of the applicant to propose a design that meets the goal of achieving an
efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zone. The
Precise Plan will provide special development standards that will make the project more
compatible with adjacent single-family housing, which was developed under the R-I-7
development standards.
(c) The City Council finds that these requested deviations under the Precise Plan are
warranted in order to achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
4. That the approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies of
the City OfChula Vista.
(a) The Project has been designed and evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan. The Precise Plan, as described above, will allow the Project to be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
The Precise Standards as depicted in Exhibits B are adopted and are supported by the required
findings (CVMC Section 19.56.041, as outlined in Section II (E) above.
II. ACTION
Finding that it is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and all other
applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
planning and zoning practice support their approval and implementation, the City Council of
the City OfChula Vista hereby amends the Zoning Map, re-zoning the 3.9 acre Project site
located at 267 East Oxford Street from the R-l (Residential Single Family) Zone to the R-I-
5-P (Residential Single Family, Precise Plan) zone, establishing a Precise Plan Modifying
District, and adopting Precise Plan standards;.
J:\AllomeyIDavidMIOrdinances\PCZ-07-08DraftOrd Oxford.doc
8-117
Ordinance No.
Page 4
J :\Attorney\DllvidM\OrdinancesIPCZ-07 -08DrnflOrd Ox ford.dac
8-118
Ordinance No.
Page 5
III. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its
adoption.
Presented by
James D, Sandoval
Planning and Building Director
J:\AllomeylDavidM\Ordinances\PCZ-07.08DraftOrd Oxford.doc
8-119
~\)
<C \,\0"
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANr. Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC. ZONE CHANGE
PROJECT 267 E. Oxford Street. Request: 36 5FD development on a 3.9 acre lot. Zone change
ADDRESS: proposed from R1 to R2. Located at 267 E. Oxford 5t
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale pel-07-08 Related cases: 15-07-031, PCS-ll7 -ll7 & GPA-ll7-04
J:\Planning\Public Notices\PCZ\PCZ0708.cdr 04.26.07
8-120
ORDINANCE #
12/12/07
f'l+1IE(iE
OXFORD STREET pROJECT
PCZ-07-08 / PCM 08-02
PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft. minimum
Lot Width 50 ft. minimum, except 35 ft. for cul-de-sac lots
Building Coverage 40% maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% Maximum
(including garage)
Front Yard Building Setback:
(all setbacks measured from property line except
where noted)
. To Building (living area) IS ft.
. To Porch 10 ft.
Width of porch shall not exceed 1/3 width of
house
. To Garage 22 ft. from closest edge of sidewalk to face of
garage
Rear Yard Building Setback: j
20 ft, with the following exception:
Up to 1/3 of the width of the first story of any
house may encroach 5 ft. into the required 20 ft.
rear yard setback, as long as the second
story meets the main 20 ft. setback.
Interior Side Yard Building Setback 5 ft.
Exterior Side Yard Building Setback 10 ft.
Building Height: 28 ft. / 2 stories
(Measured to mean height level between eave
and ridge - per CYMe 19.04.038)
Fencing/Walls: Decorative stucco, split-face block walls, rail
(view) or wood privacy fencing are permitted.
Maximum height is 6 feet from adjacent grade level.
Garage Minimum 400 square foot, 2 car garage with
(Continued on Pg.2) minimum dimension of 20 feet.
8-121
ORDINANCE #
12/12/07
OXFORD STREET l'KOJECT
PCZ-07 -08 1 PCM 08-02
Notes:
a. Minor modifications to Precise Plan map are permitted pursuant to approval
of a Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Zoning Administrator, per
CVMC 19.14.420. Amendments to the Precise Plan Map shall comply with
the Precise Plan Development Standards. All other Precise Plan amendments
shall comply with Precise Plan Modification requirements per CYMC
19.14.577.
b. Uses and Development standards not addressed in this Precise Plan shall
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, CYMC Title 19.
c. Accessory Uses and Structures shall comply with requirements ofCYMC
19.24.030, with the following exceptions:
(1) The first 300 square feet of any attached or detached open structure, such
as a patio cover or gazebo, which are open on 2 or more sides, are exempt
from the Floor Area Ratio requirements.
(2) The first 100 square feet of detached enclosed buildings such as a pool,
storage, or garden building is exempt for the floor are ratio requirement.
(3) A 5-foot rear and side yard setback is required for any accessory structure
in the required rear or side yard area.
8-122
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN AND A
TENTATIVE MAP SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
CONTAINED HEREIN FOR THE OXFORD STREET
PROJECT, TO DIVIDE 3.90 ACRES LOCATED AT 267 EAST
OXFORD STREET INTO 24 SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL
LOTS.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is depicted
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose
of general description consists of 3.90 acres located at 267 East Oxford Street, consisting of
APN 639-392-14-00, ("Project Site"); and
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2007, duly verified applications requesting approval of a
Precise Plan (PCM-08-02) and Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-07-07, Chula Vista Tract
No. 07-07) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department by
Concordia Lutheran Church ("Applicant" and "Owner"); and
C. Project Description; Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests approval of a Precise Plan and Tentative Map to
subdivide 3.90 acres into 24 single family residential lots ("Project") on said Project Site;
and
WHEREAS, said Applicant requests a rezone of the property from the R-I-7 Single
Family Residential zone to the R-l-S-P Single Family Residential zone, with a Precise Plan
Modifying District on the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed Project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial
Study, IS-07 -031 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Coordinator has
determined that the Project could result in significant effects on the environment. However,
revisions to the Project made by or agreed to by the Applicant would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-07-
031.
J:\AtlomeyIDavidM\Resos\pcS"07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO {12-19)Oxford,doc 8 -1 23
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 2
D. Planning Commission Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given
by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property
owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on December 12, 2007, wherein the Planning Commission, took public testimony, heard
staffs' presentation, and reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND
IS-07-031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), along
with the applications for a Zone Change (PCZ-07-08), a Precise Plan (PCM-08-02) and
Tentative Map (PCS-07-07); and
WHEREAS, following staffs' presentation and hearing of public comments, the Planning
Commission considered all evidence and testimony presented and voted 6-0-0-1 to
recommend that the City of Chula Vista City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND IS-07 -031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
and approve the Zone Change (PCZ-07-08), Precise Plan (PCM-08-02) and Tentative Map
(PCS-07-07) in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions herein; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission motion and vote
to approve the Project, along with any relevant comment be forward to the City Council for
their consideration at a public hearing to be held following the Planning Commission action;
and
E. City Council Record on Applications
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the City Council for consideration of the
Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundary of the Project, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 8, 2008, in the Council Chambers, 276
Fourth Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed and considered the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND IS-07-031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), Zone Change (PCZ-07-08), Precise Plan (PCM-08-02), and
Tentative Map (PCS-07-07); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista after considering all evidence
and testimony presented voted X-X-X-X to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND IS-
07 -031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and to
J:\AltomeyIDavidM\ResoslpcS-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (ll-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 24
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 3
approve the Zone Change (PCZ-07-08), Precise Plan (PCM-08-02), and Tentative Map
(PCS-07-07) based on the findings and in accordance with the conditions listed below.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL YED that the City Council does hereby find, detennine and
resolve as follows:
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
Record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission at their public hearing on
December 12, 2007, including their vote upon Planning Commission Resolution No.
PCZ-07-08/PCM-08-02!PCS-07-07 recommending approval, along with any relevant
comments, have been provided to the City Council and are hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the
decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) claims.
III. PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS! APPROY AL
I. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The City Council finds that the proposed precise plan and development standards
contained in attached Exhibit C will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to design a Project that
is more compatible with the type and intensity of existing residential development in the
area. The surrounding area includes single-family homes to the north, south, east and
west. These homes were developed pursuant to the R-I-7 zone with predominantly 7,000
square foot lots. To provide a subdivision design that is more compatible with the R-I-7
zone, the Project will include a minimum rear yard setback requirement of20 feet, which
exceeds the R-I-5 requirement, and matches that of the R-I-7 zone. Through the use of
three different floor plans at varying setbacks, the front and rear yards of the Proj ect will
be staggered, which will vary the alignment of homes to add visual interest. The applicant
is proposing single-story plans on 10 of the lots, which will complement the surrounding
area, which also contains a mixture of single-story and two-story development. Such
standards will allow construction of a single-family development that is more
aesthetically attractive and compatible with the surrounding R-I-7 zone type of
development than the typical R-I-5 development. The project meets the density
requirements of the General Plan, and therefore the intensity of development is consistent
with that of the surrounding single-family area and will not adversely impact public
facilities such as parks and schools.
2. That such plan satisfies the following principles for amendment of the "P" modifying
district as set forth in CYMC 19.56.041:
(a) The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner
or the City the appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and
proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zone
J:\AlIomey\DavidMIResos\pcs-07-01-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO {12-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 25
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 4
The City Council finds that application of the "P" modifying district is
appropriate because the underlying R-I-5 zone regulation does not allow
development standards needed to achieve a project design that is compatible with
the adjacent residential area, and therefore a precise plan modifying district is
needed to allow a more compatible design. Development ofthe site under the
standard R-I-5 zoning would potentially result in massing issues created by rows
of rear elevations of homes developed with a 15 ft. rear yard setbacks. The
Precise Plan standards will allow the Project to be designed with development
standards which will make a more appropriate transition between adjacent single
family development on 7,000 square foot lots, and will also be designed to
include walls, fencing and landscaped open space lots that will help buffer the
units adjacent from the adjacent uses, in a manner that the development of the site
will better coexist with adjacent uses.
3. That any exceptions granted which may deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the "P"
Precise Plan Modifying District.
With the exception of the rear yard setback of 20 feet and the front yard setback to the
porch of I 0 feet, the development standards are the same as the R-1-5 zone. Minor
encroachment into the front and rear yard setbacks would add interest and articulation to
the street scene and rear elevations.
Development of the lot using the development standards of the R-1-5 zone would limit
the ability of the applicant to propose a design that meets the goal of achieving an
efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zone. The
Precise Plan will provide special development standards that will make the project more
compatible with adjacent single-family housing, which was developed under the R-1-7
development standards.
The City Council finds that these requested deviations under the Precise Plan are
warranted in order to achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
4. That the approval of this plan will conform to the General Plan and the adopted policies
of the City OfChula Vista.
The Project has been designed and evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan. The Precise Plan, as described above, will allow the Project to be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
The Oxford Street Precise Plan Map and Text as depicted in Exhibit B is adopted and is
supported by the required findings (CYMC Section 19.56.041, as outlined in Section II (E)
above.
J:\Allomey\DavidM\Resos\pcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19)Ox.ford.doc 8 -1 26
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 5
IV. WAIVER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
Pursuant to CVMC 19.09.050, the City Council hereby finds that the requirement for a
Public Facilities Financing Plan is hereby waived because the project is infill
development located in a developed portion of the City where adequate public facilities
exist or will be provided concurrent with development of the project site, therefore there
are no public service, facility or phasing needs that warrant the preparation of a Public
Facilities Financing Plan.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for 267 East
Oxford Street, is in conformance with the elements of the City's General Plan, based on
the following:
1. Land Use
The General Plan land use designation is Low Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling
units per acre). The proposed 24-lot subdivision will be developed at a density of 6
dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowable density and permitted number
of dwelling units.
2. Circulation
All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist or will be
constructed or paid for by the Applicant in accordance with the Conditions of
Approval. The on - site public street is designed in accordance with the City design
standards and/or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections.
3. Public Facilities
The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and
services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those
services. There are no public service, facility, or phasing needs created by the Project
that warrants the preparation of a Public Facilities Financing Plan, therefore this
requirement is waived.
4. Housing
The Project is consistent with the density prescribed within the Residential Low-
Medium General Plan designation, and provides additional opportunities for single-
family residential home ownership in the southwestern portion of the City.
5. Growth Management
The surrounding street segments and intersections including East Oxford Street and
Melrose Avenue will continue to operate at the same Level of Service in compliance
with the City's traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic. No
J:\Attomey\DavidM\Resos\pcs-07.07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 27
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 6
adverse impact to the City's traffic threshold standards would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
The Project site is located in the attendance area of Palomar Elementary School,
within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The Project is
also within the attendance area of Castle Park Junior High School and Castle Park
High School, within the Sweetwater Union High School District. Palomar Elementary
is presently below its capacity, and both Castle Park Junior High and Castle Park
High Schools were both above their capacity. Both school districts responded that
they would be able to accommodate the additional students generated by the Project,
and that the schools would not be adversely impacted by the approval of the Project.
The project site is within the potable water service area of the Sweetwater District.
The project may be serviced from the 8"-water main on East Oxford Street and the
applicant will need to install a service main to service this site. No significant
impacts to existing facility systems or the City's water threshold standards will occur
as a result of the proposed project.
The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Chula Vista wastewater
services area. The existing sewer facility system includes 8-inch sewer lines along
East Oxford Street and one lateral to serve the existing church. Therefore a new 8-
inch sewer lateral line within the proposed public street, connecting the sewer main in
East Oxford Street is proposed to service the lots. No adverse impacts to the City's
sewer system or City's sewer threshold standards will occur as a result of the
proposed project.
6. Open Space and Conservation
The project proposes individual single-family homes that meet the minimum open
space requirement per the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The Environmental Review
Coordinator has prepared a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, 1S-07-031, in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and finds that the development of the site to be consistent with the goals
and policies of the Conservation Element.
7. Parks and Recreation
The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, as it is a small
residential infill project and would not impact existing or proposed recreational
facilities. The Project has been conditioned to pay park acquisition and development
fees prior to recordation of the Final Map.
8. Safety
The City Engineer, Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed
subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the
proposal meets those standards.
9. Noise
The Project has been reviewed for compliance with the Noise Element, a noise study
has been prepared by the applicant, which has determined that the project as
J:\A110meyID3vidM\Resoslpcs-07-07-pcm-QS-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19}Oxford.doc 8 _, 28
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 7
conditioned will comply with applicable noise measures at the time of issuance of the
building permit. The Project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be
designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and exterior noise exposure
over 65 dBA for all outside private yard areas.
10. Scenic Highwav
This Project Site IS not located adjacent to or visible from a designated scemc
highway.
II. Seismic Safety
A Geotechnical report has been prepared for the Project, which has determined that
the site is not within or near a mapped earthquake fault zone, and there are no known
or suspected seismic hazards associated with the Project site. Conditions of approval
have been included which require that a detailed soils report and geo-technical study
be prepared prior to approval of grading plans, and that foundation plans be reviewed
in conjunction with building permits. Therefore, project compliance with applicable
Uniform Building Code standards would adequately address any building
safety/seismic concerns.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. The site is physically suited for residential development because it is graded, level, is
presently developed as a church, and is located adj acent to existing residential
development. The Project conforms to all standards established by the City for a
residential development.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both in nature and extend to the impact created
by the proposed development.
VI. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a) and failure to follow
timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, set aside, void or annual
1:\AllomeyIDavidMlResoslpcs-07.07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO {IZ-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 29
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 8
imposItIOn. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does
not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service
fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations,
or other exactions which have been given notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges
to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to
the general and special conditions set forth below.
VII. TENT A TIVE MAP GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Project Site is Improved with Project
The Applicant, or hislher successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the
Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 07-07, located
at 267 East Oxford Street.
VIII. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. The conditions herein imposed on the tentative map approval or other entitlement herein
contained is approximately proportional both to nature and extent of impact created by the
proposed development. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements
listed below shall be fully completed by the Applicant, Owner or Successor-in-Interest to the
City's satisfaction prior to approval of the Final Map, unless otherwise specified:
GENERAL! PLANNING AND BUILDING
I. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Applicant
as to any or all of the property.
2. Applicant shall pay in full any unpaid balance for the Project, including Deposit Account
No. DQI439 and related Engineering Department accounts.
3. Applicant and hislher successors in interest shall, comply, remain in compliance and
implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which
is the subject matter of this Tentative Subdivision Map and as recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on November 28, 2007. The Applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including recordation of
covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures as the City may require
compliance with the above regulatory documents. Said Agreement shall also ensure that,
after approval of the Final Map, the Applicant and hislher successors in interest will
continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such Plans.
4. Any and all agreements that the Applicant is required to enter into hereunder shall be in a
form approved by the City Attorney.
5. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall 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
J:\AltomeyIDavidM\Resoslpcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 30
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 9
shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of
building permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived
from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall
be notified in writing 10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by
the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the
City.
6. The Applicant shall implement to the satisfaction of the City Environmental Review
Coordinator and the City Engineer the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS-07-031) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project.
7. The Applicant shall comply with the "Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan"
which has been approved by the City of Chula Vista Conservation Coordinator. The plan
demonstrates those steps the Applicant will take to comply with Municipal Code,
including, but not limited to Sections 8.24 and 8.25, and meet the State mandate to reduce
or divert at least 50 percent of the waste generated by all residential, commercial and
industrial developments. The Applicant shall contract with the City's franchise hauler
throughout the construction and occupancy phase of the project. The plan shall
incorporate trash enclosures which are designed to comply with the City's N.P.D.E.S.
permit if applicable, to provide compatibility with the architectural style of the
development, and to enhance trash enclosure doors where they are highly visible.
8. Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division and remove all
existing structures prior to issuance of the Grading Permit or Final Map, whichever
occurs first.
9. Applicant shall present written verification to the City Engineer from the Sweetwater
Authority that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long-term
water storage facilities.
10. Applicant shall obtain approval of a street name and street addresses to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning and Building and City Engineer.
II. Applicant shall pay all applicable parkland acquisition and development (PAD) fees,
including in-lieu fees, to the City in accordance with Chapter 17.10 of the Municipal
Code.
12. Applicant shall submit detailed street tree and landscape erosion control plans for the
Project concurrent with grading plan submittal and approved prior to approval of the
Grading Permit by the Director of Building and Planning or designee. Plans shall be
prepared by a registered Landscape Architect pursuant to the City's Landscape Manual,
City Grading Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Plans shall be consistent with the
Concept Landscape Plan approved in conjunction with the Precise Plan and Tentative
Map.
J:\AttomeyIDavidMIResoslpcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFTee RESQ(12-19)Ox:ford.doc 8 -1 31
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 10
13. Applicant shall install landscaping as depicted on the approved landscape plans and shall
provide root barriers and deep watering irrigation systems for trees, as approved by the
Director of Planning & Building.
14. Applicant shall enter into an assignable "Grant of Easements and Encroachment permit"
to ensure the perpetual maintenance of landscaping within the right-of-way by the Home
Owner's Association. Street parkways shall be designated as recycled water use areas, if
approved by the local water purveyor and the San Diego County Health Department.
15. Prior to the installation of any dry utilities, including but not limited to cable, telephone,
gas or electric lines, Applicant shall complete street improvement Landscape
Improvement Plan showing above ground utilities. Prior to any utility installation, wood
stakes shall be placed by the Applicant "on-site" according to the approved street
improvement Landscape Improvement Plan, and shall be painted a bright color and
labeled as "future street tree location". Applicant agrees to provide to the City adequate
documentation that all utility companies have been given notice that no dry utility line
shall be located within five feet of the wood stake in any direction. Applicant will
maintain street tree identification stakes in the locations as shown on the approved street
improvement Landscape Improvement Plan until all dry utilities are in place.
16. Applicant shall provide a minimum of 3 feet of flat ground access from the face of any
HOA maintained wall, fence, or landscaped area, to the beginning of the slope rounding
for maintenance, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning & Building.
17. Applicant shall install fire hydrants as determined by the City Fire Marshall. Said
hydrant locations shall be shown on the improvement plans.
18. Applicant shall submit plans and information to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Fire
Department that the Project meets the Chula Vista Fire and California Fire Code
requirements, including but not limited to fire access, water supply, sprinkler systems,
and fire alarms.
GRADINGIDRAINAGEINPDES
19. The Applicant shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a detailed grading
plan in accordance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance.
20. The Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
and obtain a construction permit to perform any work in the City's right of way or future
right of way.
21. The Applicant shall provide a conceptual Dry Utility Plan, Geological Investigation,
Water and Sewer Availability Studies, Drainage Study, Water Quality Technical Reports
(WQTR) with the Improvement and Grading Plan submittals.
J:\Allomey\DavidM\Re.oslpcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFf CC RESO {12-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 32
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 11
22. The Applicant shall obtain approval of water improvements by the Sweetwater Authority
in conjunction with Improvement plans.
23. The Applicant shall 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 construction of dwelling units.
24. The Applicant shall incorporate site design BMP features and permanent BMP's
described in the final approved water quality and drainage report into the design and
construction of the project and shown on the grading plans.
25. The Applicant shall replace all existing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters on East Oxford
Street from property line to property line with curb, gutter and sidewalk to match existing
improvements to satisfaction of City Engineer.
26. The Applicant shall install curb, gutter and sidewalk paving on the proposed onsite public
street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicant shall install ADA Pedestrian Ramps on both sides of proposed onsite
public street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
28. The Applicant shall repair East Oxford Street along the property line to the centerline
with an asphalt treatment approved by the City Engineer.
29. The applicant is required to comply with the City's SUSMP as amended from time to
time.
30. Applicant shall establish a homeowners association to fund and oversee a contract for the
maintenance of the onsite storm water BMP's. The frequency of maintenance of the
storm water BMP's shall be contained in the provisions of the Codes, Covenants &
Restrictions (CC&Rs). The City Engineer and Director of Public Works shall approve
the provisions of the CC&Rs regarding the onsite storm water BMP's prior to approval of
the final map.
IMPROVEMENTS
31. All sewer laterals shall be privately maintained by the homeowner or HOA from each
building to the City maintained public sewer main.
32. Applicant shall 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.
J:\Altomey\DavidM\Resos\pcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19)Oxford.doc 8 -1 3 3
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 12
33. Applicant shall guarantee, subject to Municipal Code Section 18.44 relating to the
construction of public street improvements for the project.
34. Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of ties to
established survey monuments to the proposed street centerlines prior to issuance of any
grading or construction permits or approval of the Final Map.
CC&R's
35. The Applicant shall submit a Declaration or Supplementary Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for approval by the City Engineer and Director of
Planning and Building prior to approval of the final map. The CC&Rs shall include the
following obligations of the Homeowners Association (HOA):
a. Listing of maintained private facilities.
b. The City's right but not the obligation to enforce CC&R's.
c. Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless all
homeowners and 100% of the first mortgage oblique have signed a written
petition.
d. Maintenance of all private walls, fences, lighting structures, paths, recreational
amenities and structures, drainage structures and landscaping.
e. Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of
pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system.
f. Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the
City can become effective, said revisions shall be subject to approval of the City.
The HOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior
consent of 100% of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the
HOA.
g. The HOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance
obligations described herein without the prior consent of 100% of the holders of
first mortgages or property owners within the HOA.
36. The CC&Rs referenced in condition 35 shall be consistent with Chapter 18.44 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
37. The Applicant shall submit homeowners associatIOn (HOA) budget for review and
approval prior to final map approval by the City Engineer for the maintenance of private
facilities, including but not limited to streets, storm drains and sewage systems. Said
budget shall include the BMP's and landscaping within the public street right-of-way.
EASEMENTS
38. All existing easements shall be shown and tied at lot lines on the final map. A title report
dated within 60 days of submittal of the final map shall be submitted together with
backing documents for all existing public utility easements and offers of dedication.
Developer shall submit evidence of noticing to all existing public utility easement holders
J:\Allomey\DavidM\Resoslpcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19}Oxford.doc 8 -1 3 4
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 13
within the project boundaries as required by the Section 66436 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
39. Applicant shall grant to the City a 5.5-foot wide street tree planting and maintenance
easement along all public streets within the subdivision as shown on the Tentative Map.
40. Applicant shall process a "Grant of Easements, License and Maintenance Agreement" to
allow the HOA to maintain the landscaping within the proposed public right of way.
AGREEMENTS
41. Applicant and his/her successors in interest 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 Councilor
any approval by its agents, officers, or employees wit regard to this subdivision pursuant
to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the
subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City
fully cooperates in the defense.
42. Applicant and his/her successors in interest agree to hold the City harmless from any
liability for erosion, siltation, increase flow of drainage, or spillage of sewage resulting
from this Project, now and in the future.
43. Applicant and his/her successors in interest agree to ensure that all franchised cable
television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision.
44. Applicant and his/her successors in interest agree to comply with all applicable sections
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and prepare the Final Map and all plans in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the
Subdivision Manual of the City ofChula Vista.
45. Applicant shall enter into separate agreements with the Sweetwater Union High School
District and Chula Vista Elementary School District regarding annexation into
Community Facilities District No. 10, or pay school fees as required by State Law, to the
satisfaction of the above school districts prior to issuance of the first building permit for
the Project.
MISCELLANEOUS
46. On the Final Map, the Applicant shall tie the boundary ofthe subdivision to the
California Coordinate System (CeS83), Zone VI based on the North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83).
47. Applicant shall pay following fees based on the final building permit issuance:
J:\AtlomeyIDavidM\Resos\pcs-07-07-pcm-{)8-02 DRAFT CC RESO (11_19)O"ford.doc 8 -1 35
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 14
a) Sewer Connection and Capacities fees
b) Development Impact Fees
c) Traffic Signal Fees
48. Improvement Plans shall show that driveways shall comply with the City of Chula Vista
driveway standards per CVCS I-B to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
49. The Applicant shall submit copies of the Final Map, grading plans, and improvement
plans in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of the Final Map in
a form acceptable to the City Engineer.
50. Applicant shall submit a conformed copy of a recorded tax certificate covermg the
property prior to approval of the Final Map.
51. Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of ties to
established survey monuments to the proposed street centerlines prior to issuance of any
grading or construction permits or approval ofthe Final Map.
B. The following Conditions of Approval shall be satisfied prior to issuance of the first building
permit for the Project, unless otherwise noted:
I Applicant shall design all dwelling units to preclude interior noise levels over 45dBA and
exterior noise exposure over 65 dBA for all outside private yard areas.
2 Plans for new construction shall comply with 2001 Ca. Building Code, Electrical code,
Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Fire Code, 2004 Energy Code, 1997 Uniform Code
for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Seismic Zone 4, Wind speed - 70 MPH, and
Exposure-c. Plans submitted on or after January 1,2008 shall comply with 2005 Energy
Code, and new 2007 Ca. Building Code, Electrical Code Plumbing Code, Fire Code and
Mechanical Code.
3 Applicant shall submit a detailed wall/fencing plan showing that all project walls and
fences comply with the Oxford Street Precise Plan dated 11/20/07 and applicable City of
Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements. Plan shall indicate color, materials, height and
location of freestanding walls, retaining walls, and fences to the Director of Planning and
Building for approval prior to issuance of the first building permit. The wall plan shall
also include details such as accurate dimensions, complete cross-sections showing
required walls, adjacent grading, landscaping, road/trail/sidewalk improvements, and the
location of typical residential structures. Materials and color used shall be compatible
and all walls located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or
pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron
material. Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed nine (9) feet in
height. The Applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross-section of the
maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination walls," which include retaining and
free standing walls, as part of said wall plan.
J:\AlIomeyIDavidM\Resos\pcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO {12-19)Oxford.doc
8-136
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 15
IX. 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 Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the sole
expense of the property owner and the Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy of this
recorded document within ten days of recordation to the City Clerk shall indicate the
property owner and Applicant's desire that the Project, and the corresponding application for
building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval. Said
document will also be on file in the City Clerk's Office and known as Document No.
Signature of Applicant
Date
Signature of Property Owner
Date
X. CONSEQUENCE OF F AlLURE 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. The Applicant shall be notified ten (10)
days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given
the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable and
diligent time frame.
XI. INVALIDITY ; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in
the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
J:\Attomcy\DavidM\Resos\pcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFf CC RESO (12_19)Qxford.doc 8 3
-1 7
Resolution No. 2007-
Page 16
Presented by:
James D. Sandoval
Director of Planning & Building
j:\AlIamey\DavidM\Resoslpcs-07-07-pcm-08-02 DRAFT CC RESO (12-19)Oll.ford.doc 8 -1 3 8
~\J
I::~OY
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPllON:
C) APPLICANT: Brookfield Shea Olay, LLC. ZONE CHANGE
PROJECT 267 E. Oxford Street. Request: 36 5FD development on a 3.9 acre lot. Zone change
ADDRESS: proposed from R 1 to R2. Located at 267 E. Oxford 51
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale pel-07-0B Related cases: 1s-{)7'{)31, PCS.{)7.{)7 & GPA.{)7-ll4
J:\Planning\Public Notices\PCZ\PCZ070B.cdr 04.26.07
8-139
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Draft August 3, 2007
Revised October 5, 2007
Revised November 8, 2007
Revised December 18,2007
Project Proponent:
Brookfield Shea Otay, LLC
12865 Pointe Del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
(858) 481-8500
Contact: Adam Pevney
Property Owner:
Concordia Lutheran Church ofChula Vista, California
267 East Oxford Street
Chula Vista, California 91911
Contact: Pastor Richard Schmidt
Planning:
Teresa Barker, ASLA
Planning & Landscape Architecture
1249 Myrtle Avenue
San Diego, California 92103
(619) 501-9157
Contact: Terry Barker
Planning & Engineering:
Hunsaker & Associates
9707 Waples Street
San Diego, California 92121
(858) 558-4500
Contact: MaryBeth Murray
Landscape Architecture:
Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc.
9404 Genessee Avenue, Suite 140
La Jolla, California 92037-8977
(858) 558-987
Contact: Rob Streza
8-140
f- "I VI \ (S \ \ 1).
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Table l!(Contents..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
A. Existing Site Description .......................................................................................... 1
B. Planning Process and Entitlements ........................................................................... 1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 4
A. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................4
B Open Space Plan ....................................................................................................... 4
C. Grading and Drainage Plan ....................................................................................... 4
D. Site Access ................................................................................................................5
E. Utilities...................................................................................................................... 5
F. Walls and Fencing..................................................................................................... 6
G. Trash and Recycling.................................................................................................. 6
H. Maintenance... ... .... ................. .... .... ....... ... .... ........................ .................. .... ........... ..... 6
II. PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS............................................ 12
A. Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 12
B. Architecture............................................................................................................... 16
C. Landscape Architecture.............................................................................................26
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 1- Site Location Map............................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph............................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 - Precise Plan......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 - Tentative Map ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5 - Grading Cross Sections....................................................................................... 9
Figure 6 - Street Cross Sections .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 7 - Utility and Drainage Detail................................................................................. II
Figure 8 - Trash and Recycling Container plan .................................................................. 12
Table 1- Oxford Street Precise Plan Development Standards ............................................ 13
Table 2 - Tentative Map Lot Summary .............................................................................. 15
Figure 9 - Oxford Plan I Elevations.................................................................................... 17
Figure 10 - Oxford Plan 1 - Floor Plan................................................................................ 18
Figure 11- Oxford Plan 2 Elevations.................................................................................. 19
Figure 12 - Oxford Plan 2 - Floor Plan................................................................................ 20
Figure 13 - Oxford Plan 3 Elevations.................................................................................. 22
Figure 14 - Oxford Plan 3 - Floor Plan................................................................................ 23
Figure 15 - Enhanced Side Elevations ................................................................................25
Figure 16 - Landscape Concept Plan................................................................................... 27
Figure 17 - Landscaped Street Elevation. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..28
Figure 18 - Landscape Details..............................................................................................29
Figure 19 - Fence and Wall Plan ......................................................................................... 30
8-141
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Table (lfContents',
RELATED DOCUMENTS
. TM Drainage Study, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, October 3,2007
. TM Water Quality Technical Report, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, October 3,
2007
. Overview of Sewer Service, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., September 26,
2007
. Geotechnical Study, prepared by Geocon, April 18, 2007
. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Dudek, April 2007
. Biological Resources and Impacts Analysis, prepared by Dudek, August 31, 2007
. Archaeological Survey, prepared by Brian F. Smith & Associates, September, 19,2007
. Trip Generation Comparison, prepared by Darnell & Associates, September 21, 2007
. Exterior Noise Study, prepared by Dudek, April 17, 2007
. Water Availability Letter, Sweetwater Authority, April 2007
. Fire Flow Availability, Sweetwater Authority, September 25, 2007
8-142
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
I",troduction .
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Existing Site Description
The Oxford Street Precise Plan site is a 3.9-acre property located at 267 East Oxford Street in
Southwestern Chula Vista, illustrated in Figure 1, Location Map and Figure 2, Aerial Photo.
Concordia Lutheran Church of Chula Vista, California owns the property and has provided a
church and community facilities on the site for over 40 years. The church facility includes a
worship center, offices, daycare, play areas and parking areas located in the southern area of
the property near East Oxford Street. Two mature ficus trees, a Brazilian pepper tree and
ornamental shrubs and lawns are planted around the buildings. The northern area of the
property is vacant and maintained as a mown field. The property occupies a portion of a
hilltop with the adjacent property to the west slightly higher in elevation and properties to the
north, east and south slightly lower in elevation. Single family residential neighborhoods
surround the project site.
Surveys and technical studies of the project site have determined that there are no significant
resources on the site that will be impacted by the development. Technical surveys and studies
prepared for the project include cultural resources, biology, geotechnical, noise, hazardous
materials, traffic, water quality, drainage, and water and sewer service.
B. Planning Process & Entitlements
The General Plan designation of the property is Low Medium Residential (RLM) and the
Zoning designation is R-I-7. The property is proposed to be developed with new residences
and rezoned to R-I-5 -P. The proposed new zoning will allow the minimum lot size to be
reduced from 7,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. The purpose of a Precise Plan is to allow
diversification in the spatial relationship ofland uses, density, buildings, structures,
landscaping and open spaces, as well as design review of architecture and signs through the
adoption of Precise Plan development standards and guidelines. The location, height, size and
setbacks of buildings or structures, open spaces, signs and other development regulations
indicated in the Precise Plan take precedence over the otherwise applicable regulations of the
underlying zone.
The Oxford Street Precise Plan, Tentative Map, Architectural Plans and Landscape Plans
provided in this document are one solution the development of the project site. The City
Zoning Administrator may approve modifications to the Precise Plan Map to accommodate
alternative architectural plans or other revisions that may be proposed by a future developer.
pa!l81 ,f,f~
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Introduction ..
.
N
"11"
<J>
~
<;?,
~
o
tP
~
MAIN ST.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
paff -2f4 if
December 18, 2007
OXFORlJ STREET PRECISE PLAN
Introduction ..
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph
Pal8.J 1>~
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project lJescription .
ll. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will create a 24-10t, single-family residential subdivision with a density
of6.15 dwelling units/acre, consistenLwith the General Plan. The purpose of this Precise
Plan is to allow the property owner and the city flexibility to achieve an efficient and site
appropriate development within the unique features of the property. The unique features of
this property include a long, narrow shape; the alignment of the project access street with the
existing Monterey Avenue; and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
requirements for clean water treatment on site.
A. Site Plan
The proposed development will provide 24 residential lots of 5000 square feet or larger, as
allowed by the R-I-5-P Zone. The size and shape of the property results in a variety oflot
configurations. Three residential models are proposed to fit the varied lots while maintaining
the City standards for lot coverage and floor area ratio. These models provide for outdoor
living spaces that meet, and in most cases exceed, the City standards for private open space.
The different lot depths in the development provide an opportunity to vary building setbacks
to create a visually pleasing neighborhood. Garages and driveway locations will also be
varied for interest and to provide adequate areas for on-street parking and placement of trash
and recycling containers for pickup. The Precise Plan is illustrated in Figure 3, Precise Plan.
B. Open Space Plan
The provision of community open space is a required component of a Precise Plan. Common
open space in the proposed development includes a Home Owners Association (HOA) lot at
the end of the cul-de-sac access street, the street parkway and the water quality treatment area.
The open space at the end of the cuI-de-sac will be landscaped and defmed by a low wall.
This area provides an entry focal point and may serve as passive recreational space. The
street parkway will provide an attractive community amenity. The water quality treatment
area will be landscaped with trees and shrubs. This area will partially screen views into the
new development and provide an aesthetic element for the surrounding neighborhood.
Additional open space is provided in the form of larger private rear yard areas. Rear yard
setbacks meet or exceed minimum City standards. The project open space is illustrated in
Figure 16, Landscape Concept Plan and details of the HOA open spaces are illustrated in
Figure 18, Landscape Details.
C. Grading and Drainage Plan
The site will be graded to create a cul-de-sac access street aligned to the existing Monterey
Avenue to the south. The access street gradient is proposed to be approximately 4.0% (but
may vary from 2.0% - 5.0 %) in the southern area and approximately 1.0% in the northern
Par:-~"4 60
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Oescription..
area (but may vary from 1.55 - 3.0%). Residential lots will be located on each side ofthe
access street. Residential lot pads will be terraced with pad elevations of approximately 260
feet at East Oxford Street rising to pad elevations of approximately 271 feet at the
northernmost area of the site. Retaining walls with a maximum height of three feet will be
located between several pads to accommodate the grade differential where necessary. The
graded site will maintain the approximate grade differentials with the existing surrounding
properties.
The site will be graded to direct run-off to a water quality basin in the southwest area of the
property next to East Oxford Street. The majority of the residential lots will surface drain to
the landscape easement along the access street that also serves as a water quality treatment
area. A portion of the site will drain to a five-foot wide drainage easement located along the
southeastern boundary of the property, ultimately discharging into Oxford Street.
Off-site grading is not proposed and the grading will strive for a balance of approximately
2,400 cubic yards per acre of cut and fill. The site grading is illustrated in Figure 4, Tentative
Map and Figure 5, Grading Cross Sections.
D. Site Access
The proposed site access is a new public street (Concordia Place) aligned to the existing
intersection of Monterey Avenue and East Oxford Street. Concordia Place will be
constructed to City standards with a 56-foot right-of-way and 67-foot general utility easement.
The street design will accommodate emergency vehicles and trash/recycling vehicles. The 36-
foot wide street pavement will accommodate two 12-foot wide travel ways with six-foot wide
parking areas on each side. There will be a 5.5-foot wide landscape easement on each side of
the street outside of the right-of-way. Within the right-of-way there will be a 4.5-foot wide
planting and water quality treatment area between the street curb and a 5-foot wide sidewalk.
Two street lights will be located on the access street. The north side of Oxford Street will be
improved with new curbs, gutters, sidewalks and landscaping. The proposed access is
illustrated in the Precise Plan and Figure 6, Street Cross Sections.
E. Utilities
Utilities currently serving the property will be upgraded as necessary to accommodate the
proposed residential development. A water service line located in the project access street
will connect to the existing eight-inch main located in East Oxford Street. Fire hydrants and
fire flows will be provided in accordance with the Chula Vista Fire Departments
requirements. A new eight-inch sewer service line located in the project access street will
connect to the existing eight-inch sewer main located in East Oxford Street. Dry utilities will
be brought into the site from East Oxford Street and located underground within the
development. Utility boxes will be located to be as unobtrusive as possible and surrounded
by shrubs and groundcovers to minimize their appearance. Figure 7, Utility and Drainage
pe;e 14fJ50
December 18, 2007
OXFORJJ STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project pescription .
Detail, illustrates the service provisions to residences and a portion of the southeastern
drainage easement.
F, Walls and Fencing
Wood fencing will be used at residential rear and side yards for privacy. Tubular metal
fencing may be used along the northern'property boundary of the property to promote a sense
of openness in the neighborhood. Split face block walls will be located along Oxford Street
for an attractive neighborhood appearance and to provide street noise attenuation. Walls and
fencing are illustrated in Figure 19, Fence and Wall Plan, of the landscape architecture
section of this document.
G. Trash and Recycling
The access street is designed to City standards and will accommodate trash and recycling
vehicles. Individual residences may store containers in garages, side or rear yards and place
them at the curb for pickup. There is adequate curb area along the street so driveways will not
be blocked by the containers. Figure 8, Trash and Recycling Container Plan,
H. Maintenance
A Homeowner's Association (HOA) will be established to ensure the maintenance of the
development. Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be developed to establish
maintenance standards for buildings and landscaping. Each homeowner will be responsible
for maintaining his/her property in accordance with the CC&Rs. The HOA will be
responsible for maintaining the common areas including the Oxford Street and access street
parkways, the passive open space at the cul-de-sac, and the water quality treatment area.
PagS6..cf4'el
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
~,..,
/
--
/,//::
NOCTURNE COURT
,
,///'/"
, ,
CHLiJ..A WISTA GARDE(lS
I./NIT No.2'
~NO.5l1241
APN< B2q.47o-m TJlIWj24
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
I 40 l
..
--
---
--
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
"
'"
------~----------
i"~~ sa A
--~~im-------'
~ ~" I
~ '
<Xl
I
~
"""
CD
~'I..
~
.
~....
"
''''
~ ~fj.
,
,
,
,
1IJ8j 1f18 J $7
, :
BEA$W ESTATES (.NT 110. 8
I iJApJH}.43111
AP4 tJ8B-8B2-01 tJmJ 10
, ,
, ,
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
1f1tJ! 1116
,
,
:
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
--, \
"-../
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
20
"
$
~
MONTEREY AVE
Project Description
PCM 06-01
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, "'
I '~: fil
i ~~~
I ~ld;i;
: ~r:.~
--------i-------~~lt
i ~ ~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
I
,I
PfIECISE SITe PLAN
OXFORD
CAylllCllLllaVkila,ClIlbda
-
2
M
__"'.........___c-1.__
2
Figure 3 - PrecllJe Plao
'"
'"
MELROSE A VENUE
Page7of30
"4
'"
I'fIEf'NI8liM
II~JP
December 18,2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
- --- f---
,
= CID , , CD I~
C@). CD CD CD CD CD ICD j ,..,... I'
---------------- ,.,,/.1 ,.IID.( -. CD CD _.. I...JII.1 , I'
":III.~ -. -. -. , d
_.. _.. , ,
.. , I'
,
---- , I
---
------~----------
l'S ....~ as . ~
i~~ ...-. CONCORDIA PLACE .
~d~ ;.
-~~~---------- ---
\II tl a1 ----
~ = @ = @ @ QD QD
<ID = = "'..J _.. = -. CID -. ,.m.l -.
,,1/1I.,
...m.O ~. -. """,.' -.
----------------
..
NOCTURNE COURT
~.../....
--
~........................
...... 40
.
.
.
///~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
, ,
GJJL/UIVJSTA~S
/.lNITHa 2 I
J./.4PNa 6824 I
APJoJ< 821470-19 THRUl26
I I
41 I I
: ..4!, l
, :
..
-
..
-
..
co
I
~
-.
-,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
- ~~
,
,
,
,
,
18jl 198! 197
SEA~ ESTATES ~ NO, S
I MAP'7Ili'42111 MiI-.
APlt 6a11-882-01 tHRU 10
I :
Cl'1
o
""
.....~~t
ROO
~""
~
MELROSE AVENUE
........". M
........"'............
-~-~~...
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~......-... \
-.........l
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
$
-
PCS 07-07
...
~
~
OJ
MONTEREY AVE
,
,
:
-,
il '"
I ~~~
! ~ld~
I ~I"=~
--------i-------~~1f
l ~ t:
f ~ ~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
: I
, ,
TENTATIVE MAP
OXFORD
CIlyrilClJ..u.........C8IllclfrU,
-
4
~
5
Figure 4 - Tentative Map
Page8of30
December 18,2007
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\\,
\ ..iL
,
\
"
..
--.:1"
.,...--
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
--::r-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
i91i ~
,
,
,
,
,
,
r
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
198 I
,
,
,
,
,
,
'"
..
plla'Nla)lIY;
III~~
_.._~-
---
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
300-
250-
200_
300-
250-
200-
00
I
~
en
~
300-
250-
200-
__ __~~~aM____. ~_=-~~~
-~--Ni2oij-,.o<-t: !'Nll"': _....~ ~......-. _ ~ '"""......
,
, ,
-.-------------~~"-~r---===----.---..iiiio'iRiT-iCiiiOAi~--.-- ------------
SLOPE PROFILE 'A-A'
R:<U; -. ,.....
lPIl ,.....
KSlElil:r
~_. --~n'j~,;~=mm-u==...m -~:-..F".==
I -~ a'
- ----
_S-rr_. _~rr~..!:__==-___.
SLOPE PROFILE 'B-B'
lI'<I.I>_,.....
lflI~ r_
-.........,
____________..lM:_______
_300
=--~-~ ,-,,,. -..,
.=~~~~..~--._'s-~~~------------.
_250
_200
SLOPE PROFilE 'c.c'
KlU:lOILr_
...~ ,"-oQ'
Page9of30
. HUN'^"'"
~~?S
----
-= :::::":--...
E. o.uoED STlIEET
SECTION MAP
~1"'1IrT
TENTATIVE MAP SHEET
OXFORD 3
0'
Clty of Chula VIlita, Call1omla 5
Project Description
Figure S - Grading CroSJ Sections
December lB, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project!Jescription'
R/W
LAJJDSCAPE: '" \
MAINTENANCE
E:ASEME:NT
~~+
'11,:1;
~.'
10'
"
.'
56' PUBllC R/W
28' 28'
12' 12'
R/W
.'
70'
5' 5'
r LANDSCAPE ct
MAINIDIANCE:
EASEAlENT
Ii" "
,
..a
,
t
.l.!..
~
,....._..._............_.__........_...m..
.....-......- ..--...-. .......-............- ....--.
4- pee
SlDE:WALK
rrPE: "0" CUR
'" GUTlER
AC. PAISIENT
MD BASE
CONCORDIA PLACE
PUBUC RESIDENTIAL STREET
""'7D~
PORTIONS OF CURB. GUTTER. ANO SIDEWALK TO BEt EXlS7JNG fMPROVEJ,lfNTS TO REMAIN
RafO\ED AND REPfJ,CCD AS SHOWN ON PLAN
34' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT (HOA UA/NTAJNfiJ)
R/W
60' PUBUC R/W
R/W
LOT 24
6' spur FACE.
BLOCK WALL
20'
20'
g'
5.8" .2':r
30'
30'
GRASSY 'WAILE:\
7..
~1~~E: ~ / /
5:'SL~
... PCC SIDEWAU<
LOCATED TO MATCH
DOS7JNG SIDEWALKS
ON IJ)JACE:NT SITES
3' I
3'
"
-ZlL
-a
.._.......'..___...m......__".-.._..............n'....
...'.-......,-...........-.................,.........
...............,.... .....
TYPE MGM CUR
'" OUTlER
A.C. PAl,6JENT
Nil} 8ASC
OXFORD STREET (EXISTING)
NCJTWSC4I.E
Figure 6 - Street Cross Sections
I&ge-JIg 2f30
December 18, 2007
'\. ~~, IV 1/ :J I L W O'l-L.
50' 51 .11<> ::>.pt=;:> =>i="/:;:::>
I I r'_
I ~ I ~ I
: /'. ~''': /--~ . ..." :,r'" ~." :
: I II f I :r ~'II
~ inOll.I,' ~ ~:II ~~V}'X/; ~:I ~:
~ _II ~ flj /~; /~~'~ :I,all) II' 5'l/IN. ,. ~ Or:
~ : P=268. 6 , I,;m :' I, 0< 0-." . I
,-: II 1:1 rzj; // i II ~ :0 i :
~J II IplRI ~,^ Iii ~Yj~ jij7/.1 i :I} ~ I
~ ~Pl' 5' l/IN L ~ T ~I ~ I': i ". II
~ I"": I"" . I
~ I: ~ . S I' ~: I <
'" II ~ ,kol--:" 1 tI 1::: ~f-~ I Ii ~ ~ II ~
-....;: 1I1::S: Sl ~ --~ - C\l
+- f~ ., S{' , 1-- --;;~iS"'~ -.-!'--!'2 50' -- -.1--
::'.. ". '0.. 'j .. . ..... " ...." "0 .... ....,. Q . .. .1...
I / '\ I 1\1 '\ /
I 1 L5.5' I.ANDSCAPE & I 'I D;) OS:
MAINTENANCE ESMT Cl ..I - "-
.. I ' ~I I - ,.:;;.
I t ~ ~ ----
~O~D1AlvPLA9E:,_v__ ~tv____J...m._vt<)~. v--
:0 FUTURE DEDICA nON J -.,
\1 1/ \J 1/ \I 1/0\1
'.' .j.'.1 .~. t;.:.. I.... .'T:' . , .:. .... '.1 . "' 'I' . '.1 " '. . 1 .
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project!Jescription .
'\.
.Y.. .
TYPICAL DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND SETBACK DETAIL
sc:..uD f".Bf
Figure 7 - Utility and Drainage Design
~~53'f30
December 18, 2007
;
E (
)
~
~
~
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
/
/
I
I
I
\
\
,\
~-- =:::3.- _-'::A..- =- -:K- ,2C- -
00 I r".
I
~ I I
U1 I I
.;. I I
I I
I I
1150 I
F I
I
MELROSE A VENUE
-rrzt [2<J [2<J
WW
TRASH CART DETAIL
-,.,.,..
~....
/'fII!PARElJII'i:
.~!B
--
-..-..-
---
PCM 08-01
h
~
~
fJl
MONTE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRASH ENCLOSURE EXHIBIT
OXFORD
CltIllCl'lllll.......CilIlIDrl*I
Figure 8 - Trash aud Recycllng CODtainer Plan
Page 12 000
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
III. PRECISE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The proposed project will create 24 single-family residences accessed from East Oxford
Street. The site design is intended to create an intimate neighborhood that is compatible with
the surrounding residential community. The project design adheres to the City's Design
Manual with varied placement of building to create interest, building orientation for privacy,
and varied garage and parking setbacks.
A. Site Plan
The variety oflot sizes will be complemented by a variety of residential designs. Up to three
distinct residences will be utilized to provide a range of home styles and sizes. The residences
will be sited with varied setbacks from the street to create interest and maximize useable open
space surrounding the homes. The floor plans may be reversed, resulting in additional
residential types. The proposed development standards for the Oxford project are provided in
Table I below.
TABLE 1
Oxford Street Precise Plan Development Standards
Type Standard
Lot Size . 5,000 SQ ft. minimum
Lot Width 50 ft minimum, exceot 35 ft. for cul-de-sac
Building Coverage 40% maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (including garage) 50% Maximum
Front Yard Building Setback:
(all setbacks measured from property line
except where noted)
. To Building (living area) 15 ft.
. To Porch 10 ft.; Width of porch shall not exceed 1/3 width of house
. To Garage 22 ft. from closest edge of sidewalk to face of garage
Rear Yard Building Setback: 20 ft, with the following exception:
Up to 1/3 of the width of the first story of any house may
encroach 5 ft. into the required 20 ft. rear yard setback, as long
as the second story meets the main 20 ft. setback.
Interior Side Yard Building Setback 5 ft.
Exterior Side Yard Building Setback 10 ft.
Building Height: 28 ft. / 2 stories
(Measured to mean height level between eave and ridge - per
CVMC 19.04.038)
Fencing: Decorative stucco, split-face block walls, rail (view) or wood
privacy fencing is required.
Maximum height is 6 feet from adiacent grade level.
Garage Maximum 400 square foot, 2 car garage with minimum interior
dimension of 20 feet.
(Continued on Pg. 14)
P(I}!e Hi<8' 30
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
Notes:
a. Minor modifications tu Precise Plan map are permitted pursuant to approval of
a Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Zoning Administrator, per CYMC
19.14.420. Amendments to the Precise Plan Map shall comply with the Precise
Plan Development Standards. All other Precise Plan amendments shall comply
with Precise Plan Modification requirements per CYMC 19.14.577.
b. Uses and Development standards not addressed in this Precise Plan shall
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, CYMC Title 19.
c. Accessory Uses and Structures shall comply with requirements of CYMC
19.24.030, with the following exceptions:
(1) The first 300 square feet of any attached or detached open structure, such
as a patio cover or gazebo, which are open on 2 or more sides, are exempt from
the Floor Area Ratio requirements.
(2) The first 100 square feet of detached enclosed buildings such as a pool,
storage, or garden building is exempt for the floor are ratio requirement.
(3) A 5-foot rear and side yard setback is required for any accessory structure
in the required rear or side yard area.
PSg.e1l58f30
December 18,2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
The Tentative Map provides a plan for grading, lot layout, access, utilities and water quality
treatment. The Precise Site Plan provides for preliminary plotting and setbacks as well as
establishing coverage's and floor area ratio requirements. Table 2 provides a summary of the
Precise Site Plan lot specific development standards to illustrate compliance with the Precise
Plan Development Standards.
TABLE 2
Oxford Street Precise Plan Development Lot Summary
LOT SUMMARY
RES LOT PLAN TOTAL FLOOR TOTAL
RES. LOT AREA TYPES FLOOR AREA FOOTPRINT LOT
NO. (SF) ON LOT AREA RATIO' AREA COVERAGE"
1 5,651 2 2,420 42.8% 1,452 25.7%
2 5,070 2 2,420 47.7% 1,452 28.6%
3 5,006 1 1,982 39.6% 1,982 39.6%
4 5,177 2 2,420 46.7% 1,452 28.0%
5 5,358 3 2,676 49.9% 1,580 29.5%
6 5,359 . 1 1,982 37.0% 1,982 37.0%
7 5,360 3 2,676 49.9% 1,580 29.5%
8 5,236 1 1,982 37.9% 1,982 37.9%
9 5,362 3 2,676 49.9% 1,580 29.5%
10 5,146 1 1,982 38.5% 1,982 38.5%
11 5,019 2 2,420 48.2% 1,452 28.9%
12 5,523 3 2,676 48.5% 1,580 28.6%
13 5,417 1 1,982 36.6% 1,982 36.6%
14 5,007 2 2,420 48.3% 1,452 29.0%
15 5,068 1 1,982 39.1% 1,982 39.1%
16 5,187 2 2,420 46.7% 1,452 28.0%
17 5,191 1 1,982 38.2% 1,982 38.2%
18 5,195 2 2,420 46.6% 1,452 27.9%
19 5,198 1 1,982 38.1% 1,982 38.1%
20 5,202 2 2,420 46.5% 1,452 27.9%
21 5,237 1 1,982 37.8% 1,982 37.8%
22 5,488 3 2,676 48.8% 1,580 28.8%
23 5,794 1 1,982 34.2% 1,982 34.2%
24 6,249 3 2,676 42.8% 1,580 25.3%
TOTAL 127,500
AVERAGE 5,313 43.4% 32.2%
MAX. 6,249 49.9% 39.6%
MIN. 5,006 34.2% 25.3%
. FI.OlJl NO RATIO III1LlES LI VIII: NO. GAlWOES. PATIOS, IHl Ntr MXrS'1R! SlR.CIIIlES PER CllI: 11.24.180.
.. LOT CllYEIlN;E IEFIIED ~ TIE PERCENT IF TIE TOTAL SITE NO 00IIEIlED ~ SlR.CIIIlES PER CllI: 11.04.0lIO.
PSge Hi qf 30
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Project Description
B. Architecture
The project proposes architecture that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding
neighborhood. A variety of styles, including both single and two story residences, will be
provided. All sides of the buildings will be articulated and special attention will be given to
building walls that are visible from East Oxford Street. Appropriate building materials will be
used for each architectural style and doors, windows and garage doors will be selected to
complement the style of the buildings.
The project will be integrated into the existing older neighborhood through the use of
traditional architectural styles:
. Spanish architecture will be expressed through the use of stucco walls in light and
neutral colors, tile roofs, and arch forms. Wood and iron trim and tile accents may be
used.
. Craftsman architecture will be expressed through the use of stucco walls, shingle roofs
and siding, exposed rafter tails, and wood details on gables and porches. Accent
materials may include tile, brick, stone, copper and wood. Earth tones and deep color
accents are appropriate for this style.
. California Eclectic architecture draws inspiration from traditional popular styles such as
Cape Cod and Spanish, but relies on strong building forms and minimal ornamentation to
create a contemporary style. Building materials include stucco walls, tile or shake roofs
and raised foam trim. Colors and accent materials should be similar or compatible with
the Spanish and Craftsman architecture to unify the three styles in the neighborhood.
Conceptual elevations and floor plans of the proposed residences are provided in the
following pages. These elevations and floor plans are examples ofthe proposed architectural
styles and the final, built elevations and floor plans may vary from these illustrations.
P8Je 1I!i'lf 3 0
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
Front Elevation - Plan 1A California Eclectic
00
I
~
(11
CO
Rear Elevation - Plan 1A California Eclectic
Front Elevation - Plan 18 Spanish
Rear Elevation - Plan 1 B Spanish
Elevations depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed elevations may vary slightly from what Is shown.
Figure 9
Odord Plan 1 - ElevatloBII
Page 17 ono
December 18.2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
t!QQ!S..
D
'1 r;pR I";ARftGE
BEDRM 2
00
I
~
'1 C..Il,R GAR.4.GE
BEDRM. J
~
~
a>
o
PORCH
BEDRM. 3
~
E.QRQi
Floor Plan - Plan 1A
California Eclectic
Floor Plan - Plan 18 Spanish
Floor Plans depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed floor plans may vary slightly from what Is shown.
Figure 10
Oxford Plan 1 - Floor Plan
Page lSoflO
December 18,2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
Front Elevation - Plan 2A California Eclectic
Front Elevation - Plan 28 Craftsman
00
I
~
~i"i:~i"'; 11""1"
-,.,,:.::': '-:A" -i\~i "'qu:-i';
,'- ','::'-;,,{.Yf :;\'1;~,;
,It." ..,. ,
: "" ".',',", ",",
-
m
~
ETI
D
~~ ~~
Rear Elevation - Plan 2A California Eclectic
Rear Elevation - Plan 28 Craftsman
Elevations depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed elevations may vary slightly from what Is shown.
Figure 11
Oxford Plan 2 - ElevatioD.
Page 19 uf]O
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
FAMILY
DININiS
f)'(i
\
\
\
\
: KITCHEN
\
\
\.
"
\.
o
:2~~AR 6AAMe
C'l
I'.)
I.lVcN6
i
.
,
",,==1 =======:l.I!raH6:==::;:====
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
J
::::1
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
",
"
"
"
.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
,"oyeR
00
I
~
PO~H
,
,
,--------
[::::
First Floor Plan - Plan 2A
California Eclectic
First Floor Plan - Plan 28 Craftsman
Floor Plans depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed floor plans may vary slighUy from what Is shown.
Figure 12
Oxford Plan 2 - Floor Plan
Page 20 of30
Octcmbcr 11,2007
1
I
I
I
I I
- I I
I I I
~--------------1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1___________1___1
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
r--------
BePROOOol ~
OolA~T~~
BIl!DfltOOM
OM&TIl.
~ATH
o
o
BeOROOM3
00
I
~
m
(.0)
Development Standards
--,
LAlI.
LO~T I
OI'T.e"~.4
"
"
::
"
"
"--
.
..........
~
"'.
T.
~'OOOOM' t;I z U' , 'LLf - - ~:::-_'O
~ ~llll
I III
I I IJI
L______________, I III
I I 1[1
~=d r-~-~-~
I I III
I I III
I I III
I III
~-----------J III
II III
II II'
c- --,g,.-r-.::--.:::--.=-.=-.=-=-:-;-.=--.=-=-=-.=-= ~_-:....:J
Second Floor Plan - Plan 2A California Eclectic
Second Floor Plan - Plan 28 Craftsman
Floor Plans depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed floor plans may vary slightly from what Is shown.
Figure 12
O~ford Plan 2 - Floor Plan
Page 21 0()0
December 18,2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
Front Elevation - Plan 3A Spanish
front Elevation - Plan 38 California Eclectic
~.'.'.." 11€1...."
DO
~"..~.,.'"
:h,~;..~",'.
"'r,':,.';',.
~".~"!l!'" ~.
',;.,~,'",.)'.!!,..."... ..r'Pi,.,.,....
'., ,
00
I
~
m''''''''..
, '".,.,.,'"....',"..'...,'" '.
,'.' ''':>~:: :};;,,'
;;.. ,:'
fl,',' .",' ~.,., g'\!i,","','
. ; ,l;:,;~ ''":';;:' .<-;Hi\'
.' . ',..
. ,
en
"'"
Rear Elevation - Plan 3A Spanish
R~ar Elevation - Plan 36 California Eclectic
Elevations depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed elevations may vary slightly from what Is shown.
Figure 13
Oxford Plan 3 - Elentlons
hge22onO
December 18, 2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
~~HItf,
______...J
L_______
2 CAR GARAGE
co
I
~
r-m--------------mm
I
!
,
I
I
'"
U1
------~
!
,
i
NOOK
"
"
"
"
D
KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
II II
II PORCH II
II-II
~ ---11!1
First Floor Plan - Plan 3A
Spanish
Development Standards
L
I
2 CAR GARAGE
1111
'"
1111
'"
,...~__u_________________~_w~___ __~
, ,
! !
I I
! !
LIVING
"
"
"
II PORCH II
II II
0=============16
First Floor Plan - Plan 38 California Eclectic
Floor Plans depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed floor plans may vary slightly from what is shown.
Figure 14
Oxford Plan 3 - Floor Plan
Page 23 000
December 18,2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
~t!r~b~"
~E<O~~RUT
BEDROOM jJ
CD
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l___________________
~PEN
U~NG
j::.., P OSFT LlI U
BFDROOt..l ..
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 9PEN
l___________________
L~NG
-" , "
, "
" "
L.,.!-------~ "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
=[}c"""" ::::::==:[]
a>
a>
._~ I
l rL-------, :
fi ti
" II
I' II
I' II
1-, "
, .,
l_~_=__=__::_=__=__::-=-_=_JJ
Second Floor Plan - Plan 3A Spanish
Second Floor Plan - Plan 38 California Eclectic
Floor Plans depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed floor plans may vary slightly from what is shown. _
Figure 14
Odord Plan 3 - Floor Plan
Page 24 000
December 18.2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
(Xl
I
~
m
......
M
D
~ ~
~)q
~-~y,
;'.'
m m
Side Elevation - Plan 2A California Eclectic
Development Standards
~ ~m
~
Side Elevation - Plan 3A SpanIsh
Elevations depicted reflect typical examples of architectural styles, however, final constructed elevations may vary slightly from what Is shown.
FIgure IS
Oxford Plan 3 - Enhanced Side Elevations
Page 25 ofJO
DecernberlB.2007
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
C. Landscape Architecture
The proj ect landscape architecture is an important component in integrating the new
development into the existing neighborhood. The "traditional" landscape theme utilizes trees
that have been popular in southern California since the turn of the century. Stately theme
trees including magnolia and sycamore have been selected to create a sense of permanence
and integrate the new development into the surrounding neighborhood. The landscape plan
for the project is illustrated in Figure 16, Landscape Concept Plan.
The north side of Oxford Street will be planted with ground covers and California sycamore
street trees as illustrated in Figure 17, Landscape Street Elevations. The water quality
treatment area draws inspiration from California riparian areas so it will be landscaped with
boulders, grasses, shrubs, groundcovers and sycamore trees. A section view of the water
quality treatment area is provided in Figure 18, Landscape Details. .
The interior streets cape will include a sidewalk separated from the street by a parkway
planted with magnolia trees and sod. The sidewalk will be contiguous to the curb at the cul-
de-sac and the parkway landscape will be located between the sidewalk and residential
property line.
The open space lot at the end of the access street will be designed for passive recreation with
elements such as lawn, seating walls, accent lighting, and a table with seating. Magnolia trees
will frame the use area and create a focal point view from Oxford Street. Metal view fencing
is proposed along the northern boundary to create a sense of openness. A detail of this area is
shown in Figure 18, Landscape Details.
The front yard landscapes will be installed by the developer. The front yard landscapes will
include lawns, groundcover and shrub planting areas, and an accent tree. Wood fencing will
be used at residential rear and side yards for privacy. Six-foot high split face block walls will
be located along Oxford Street for an attractive neighborhood appearance and to provide
street noise attenuation. Walls and fencing are illustrated in Figure 19, Fence and Wall Plan.
The development's HOA will maintain the streetscapes, water quality treatment area and open
space lot at the cul-de-sac. The proposed project will be designed in conformance with the
City's Landscape Manual. The selection of landscape materials and irrigation will adhere to
the City's requirements for water conservation.
parg2~ 'If~o
December 18, 2007
.;
..
-il
"
.a
""
~
:i
e
~
";l
..
"
q
u'
"
I
"
':1
,"; ~
";1
'i i~
,\:11;
"-II'
"
,".
~(
~-
,r
C,_
:<:;
~
el
\j
~
....,
~
...
""
ril
~
~
0~ .
... i
b h h i i
. , .
.... ,'II: I
l>l I "!
l! II !n I
! I I 1 I I ! I
. .
! I I i I I!
I I I I !
I ! II! ~ I I ! I
l
I illl
>
! I! ~~~1l~1l~:i:i1l:i~
..1.. ..................."'..
.. .
Iii
;; ~ ~
I i I
II!
I I !
Idi
! I!!
,"
.}f
"'d
".:0"
". i-~~'
:I'i
.$.
.';
-; 1t
" i
-~
"
L\
z
w
oj)
I1J
..J
!z _""
.( . .
..J 9 ,,: 91
IL ~ .., 1
8-169
i ~ ~ ... I
.
.
I
Hil
~ cr:
~ ~ f
. cr: ~
~ 0 ,
au..
~ 5 0
, '!
! Ii
I I'
Ii
. II
i 1 /
Ill!l
!l!ij
'I'l
.! li!l.
i: i i~
Iqi!
111I!!l
! ~l : ! I
I I idl i i ii il
"quo....
11111 Illl
I i nll!!iI
.lll i L
IIUII!!llll
'" .
~ .
~a::
.~
....
~ 1j
=
.
u
.
:i'
"
.;;
.
.
..J
~
o
o
N
,,;
~
~
Il
~
o
~
N
.
~
~
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
Development Standards
DRG 05-01
L.OT5~F'l....AN6
L.OT 4 - PLAN 2:
L.OTa~PL.ANI
CONCORDIA PLACE ELEVATION
00
I
~
-.J
C)
CONCORDIA PLACE
OXFORD STREET ELEVATION
. ~ .
PREI'ARlSDIY:
STAEETELEYATlONS
...,
CIf\r"'Cl:LMVioIa,~
~ I
4 .
I
OXFORD STREET
Figure 17
Landscaped Street Elevation,
PIl.gc28of30
December 18, 2001
"'..
~-
. l!
. .
i'.'" ~
~ s ~ l1i
~ . ~
{l .
.a .
" --- . ~
,!! , . e
'" I OJ ~ ..,. I ... 8
1; ,... . <'!
~ () .
E ,
'"
:s. ()
- ~ ~ Iii
~ ;
~ D . "'
l:l ~ a:
1 ~ i
! c ~
I . a:
. l! .
I < 6
! ~ )(
c
lfI
L II
III
~
~
~
ti
~
'"'
~
'"'
'"
~
~
~
>- l
.. 1
~
>-
'"
"
----It
~ ~
0
~
I N
.
~
'I .
~
I,
.(
,
I .(
%
()
I i=
"
..
~
<(
8-171
OXFORD STREET PRECISE PLAN
. ,. '_..!~'.~_ J"\,'~',:-,
. .
_,i::::;.;,,....~-.>
. ,.
~ - ~
"12 ..L () (j]D .
"";"Q f.,1Jfo.~( ~",.
""M []7] AA[llJ
- ~'-1i-,- 2, idfJ
:--'~. ~.' ". .;;1 ~--'
~,':, '. Ii? "
!tiG. 0'
0,c':i)
~26g.1 p..268.6
M ""'M
~
;t ,~
...r- ~
W ~CD~
.!:3!',o 0 I ,.,,,... ~4 Y
M em ;;,tM M rm Iff ~ ~
, :f~+~ """ -:-, ~:>t g
~. ~
0',.
'A
~ --..---..
~f.'; . '-=::::.---
~,--/'
(~ :~, ~", ---1s;:--: ~-'!M:W 'I\~rwt ~'?C W
<T'P;J -'ff ~:.; ~!r-" ~ ~::J ~ ~~" 12
"'271.0.4 L.......,rm L-.....!5!!!!.I L-"r ~
_ L.,1HI ~ ~ L-- ~ L-..,[HJ
~
,
CONCORDIA PLACE ..
,," .,'.. ''''is..'O'-e. ,',_ _. .... '~,T""o....
I'
~T..=:;;:;:.=:;r.::=-:;:
;--:;;S';J;T ~:;T~;;~{'---;';; "-_-T7~T-*~;~~h ,T:~A~--~~ -~-=.~:~~-= -~:~~tL~:
T=:A~::::;'~
(X)
I
~
I
-'-_ '~,;,.,.,~;";::;,.,,.'::c;;:~ :1 1 .
.,
"".,t ~
; ;;':,,: :1 '-~ -';
-
.....~r__-...u<.........
__I
.1
...........'--",..........
Jo'lA1-1- 1-E<50END
-.J
'"
~_0I'\lf'J<;1!"""-" .u..~~.....
,._III'U..OQOaDO!<........ ----
"'_:lI'\.n'"'4""':_1H'tl. -
..--"'" -
.._..u.a_~""", _
...._w.u.w__ _
"""""""-"'"' -
1~'_..u.'_"""''''''''1II< .
.,..-........-................ .
~_.......,-lIlQcl<-- .
J!:
-~
Development Standards
DRe 05-01
I, tc,
,
. ~-
r : '-+1 :,.;k-J 'hi. ~..'
-- : --..:-. J .; I "
CD '2i I~IJ.O; I J
""., Pi M', : ^"'~:. Ji'l
cm-m- H-- [jO ~[ J ~ \\ 1:-, l I
. M i '..~ +.i '=l. t! ,-,'
-C I:, === I" ~.~J:'I
/~ - 11 .. _",,_ ~
".., 'i! '~B~l...j
- /;::-'L,,,: . ,=".:q-
..-.__"f.---.::c .".i ,ur
'I" "-\- '\1)"j'. ,
I __I' ,- ~~~n:
~) f/ (i::' ; I ,p:r ~" ".
'= l) ~!r1' rflmJ;:>. .,~:.,
00 .4 1'-262.3 I ~r.2 i' 'r~'
~... 'i~?~ I~~i..;
" 11U~-' ~
~~-lS:;':':T ;;-;~~T=- - - - ~~.
I" ;~ .;;;
. -~ .-...,
"
.-
'~:,,--_.
Ii"""""'"
!j I' -_.._
- --
-
~
2 I
~
4 .
,
.._...-.
FENCE AND WALL fIt..m
OXFORD STREET
~"'ChoiIio""""CdkImII.
Figure 19
Fence and Wall Plan
Page30of30
Deccmbel" 18, 2007
Richard Zumwalt
-L'1€'t--t ~ 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Harold Phelps
Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:03 PM
Richard Zumwalt
Steve Power
FW: tonights planning meeting...please forward
Importance:
High
Rich:
This resident of Windingwalk (Otay Ranch Village 11) would like you to provide this e-mail
to the City Council before tonights public hearing on Concordia's subdivision.
Thanks,
Harold
;~~~~O~inal Message-----
-
Sent: uesday, January 08,
To: Harold Phelps
Subject: tonights planning
,
2008 4:46 PM
---~~ J
meeting...please forward
Harold:
I read in the newspaper today the planning meeting for the Concordia Church.
It would appear this meeting is 'putting the cart before the horse'!
I question the city allowing a hearing on this proceeding when the Church and Brookfield
homes has already been turned down on their previous request for the moving of the Town
Square area to allow for the church campus in my neighborhood.
I realize the church is appealing the previous decision. At the previous meeting, the
church and Brookfield representatives were already complaining about the cost that had
already gone into this project. I can only assume, by spending more money, and city staff
time, that this project is a forgone conclusion (?)
1