HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/01/22 (9)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: EIR-91-03, Salt Creek Ranch
A. BACKGROUND
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared
for the City of Chula Vista to evaluate the proposed Salt Creek Ranch
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. This document is a supplement to the
Sa lt Creek Ranch Annexat ion/Genera 1 Development Plan Pre-Zone EIR (EIR
89-3, certified in September 1990).
The Cal ifornia Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA) of 1970 requires the
preparation of an EIR or other CEQA environmental document for any
discretionary action under consideration by the City of Chula Vista. The
purpose of an EIR is to inform the publ ic and the decision makers about
the nature of a project being considered and the extent and kinds of
impacts the project would have on the environment if the project were to
be implemented.
This SEIR addresses potential environmental consequences of the Salt
Creek Ranch SPA Plan, currently under consideration by the City of Chula
Vista. The SEIR covers effects on the environment which are peculiar to
the current Salt Creek Ranch SPA Pl an and associ ated offs ite facil it i es,
as well as impacts that require an updated analysis and/or were not
previously addressed in detail.
The City of Chul a Vi sta is the lead Agency for the project and wi 11 be
responsible for action on the project. Other responsible agencies
include the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, the Cal ifornia
Department of Health Services, local Area Formation Commission (lAFCO),
California Department of Fish and Game, United States Fish Wildlife
Service, Otay Water District, San Diego Gas and Electric, Sweetwater High
School District and Chula Vista Unified School District.
This Draft SEIR was circulated to the State Clearinghouse in a timely
fashion for the Planning Commission hearing. However, the State did not
distribute or begin their 45-day review until several days after
receiving the document. And because state law requires that local review
extend longer than the State review period a continuance will be
necessary as our local regulations provide that the public review period
ends at the close of the public hearing.
However, we can 1 imit the purpose of the continued publ ic hearing to
receiving only comments from the State Clearinghouse. The Commission
coul d then proceed wi th a staff presentat i on and full publ i c heari ng as
scheduled.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the publ ic hearing, take any testimony relevant to the Draft SEIR
and cont i nue the heari ng unt i 1 February 12, 1992 for the purpose of
receiving comments from the State Clearinghouse.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page 2
The principal components of the Salt Creek Ranch plan (see location maps)
includes 2,817 residential units (773.1 acres), neighborhood parks (31.0
acres), two elementary school sites (24 acres), a fire station site (1.3
acre), two community purpose facility sites (7 acres), natural open space
and major roads. A habitat enhancement plan, contained in Appendi x A,
has been prepared for the project to mitigate impacts to biological
resources as required by the EIR for the GDP and the conditions of the
California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement.
The Salt Creek Ranch project is divided into three planning sub-areas.
Each sub-area would contain one or more individual neighborhoods.
Sub-area 1
Thi s area cons i sts of the 380-acre area west of Salt Creek, north and
south of East H Street. East H Street and lane Avenue would provide the
primary access to the low medium and medium density residential areas
within Sub-area 1 (see sub-area map, attached). Residential projects
include both attached and detached housing. Densities vary from 4 in the
single-family neighborhoods to 15.5 dwelling units per acre in the
multi-family area. lot sizes in the single-famiy neighborhoods range
from an average of 5,800 to 8,000 square feet. Transitional buffers
would be provided between residential housing units within Sub-area 1 and
the EastLake Technology Park to the south. A 10-acre school and 7-acre
park site in the western portion of the sub-area would be connected to
the rest of the community by a trail system. This trail system is
incorporated into an open space greenbelt which sets Sub-area 1 back from
the southerly employment area from 20 to 150 feet.
There are three neighborhoods within Sub-area 1. Neighborhood 4a will be
developed with apartments in the 15.5 dwell ing units per acre range.
Neighborhood 5 and 6 will be developed as a townhome neighborhoods at 8.6
dwelling units per gross acre.
Sub-area 2
This area consists of the 241-acre area east of the Salt Creek and west
of the Otay lakes drainage basin. East H Street and Hunte Parkway would
provide primary access to the low and 1 ow-medi um densi ty res i dent i a 1
areas located within Sub-area 2. Sub-area 2 is planned as a transitional
area between higher density uses west of Salt Creek and larger lot areas
in the eastern portion of the project. Sub-area 2 contains two low
density neighborhoods of single family homes (Neighborhoods 7b and 8) and
a 1 ow-medi um dens i ty nei ghborhood along the northern edge (Neighborhood
7a). Sub-area 2 (Neighborhoods 7b and 8) contains lot sizes which
average 10,170 to 12,670 square feet. Neighborhood 8 is proposed as a
private-gated community. Sub-area 2 also contains the Salt Creek
greenbelt, a 23-acre community park, 10-acre school site, and trails.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Sub-area 3
Page 3
Sub-area 3 consists of 584-acre area in the eastern portion of Salt Creek
Ranch and contains much of the hillside and valley terrain on the
property. Primary access to the low density residential areas is to be
provided by East H Street. Access to properties north and east of
Sub-area 3 will be provided through Neighborhood 11. Single-family
detached units on large lots are proposed. The lot si zes range from
15,000 square feet to more than one acre in size. An equestrian trail
would run along the eastern-most drainage.
D. ISSUES FOUND NOT TO REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSES
Those issues areas considered not to require further analyses beyond that
discussed in the General Development Plan EIR-89-3 listed below:
Conversion of Agricultural land (addressed in EIR-89-3)
Geology/Soils (addressed in EIR-89-3)
Air Quality (addressed in EIR-89-3)
Fiscal Analysis (addressed in EIR-89-3)
Public Services/Utilities (addressed in EIR-89-3)
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Schools
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Gas, Electricity, Energy
Publ ic Transit
library Facilities
Solid Waste Disposal
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE SEIR
Each of the issues areas/sections 1 isted below were identified by the
City of Chula Vista as potentially significant impacts requiring an
updated analysis and/or new analysis beyond that discussed in EIR-89-3.
The SEIR revi ews in suffi ci ent detail these potential issues associ ated
with implementation of the project, constituting the scope of this SEIR:
land Use
landform/Aesthetics
Hydrology
Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Transportation and Circulation
Noise
Public Services and Utilities (Water and Wastewater)
Offsite Areas of Impact
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page 4
F. IMPACT ANALYSIS
As is noted below in this summary, the direct project related impacts can
be mitigated to a level below significant, however, there would be
cumulatively significant impacts in the following areas:
Aesthetic/landform Alteration
Water Supply
Coastal Sage Habitat loss
Summarv
1. land Use
Potential compatibility impacts would exist with adjacent properties
and developments.
The SPA Pl an proposes speci fi c techni ques to ensure compat i bil ity
with adjacent land uses. This EIR identifies sensitive surrounding
area and specifies mitigation to provide adequate buffer and design
at those boundaries/areas to ensure compatibility.
Incons i stenci es with the General Pl an i nvo 1 ve the res ident i a 1
densities and the provision of affordable housing. Measures include
the provision of affordable housing as determined by the 1991/92
Housing Element revisions to be adopted by City Council.
2. landform/Aesthetics
Urbanization will permanently alter existing topography, views to
the site and aesthetic character of the area. Measures require
detail ed Open Space and landscape Pl an; sensit i ve gradi ng, des i gn
standards; natural open space preservation; greenbelt and scenic
highway view treatments; and extensive buffer treatments to be
created at the SPA Plan and subsequent stages (see Section 13 below).
3. HvdroloQV
The increase
project will
downstream.
in impervi ous surface as a result of the proposed
change drainage courses and increase flow rates
Additional hydrologic analysis is required prior to final map
approval to specify facilities (size, dimension, etc.) necessary to
handl eons ite and downstream flows after development no s i gni fi cant
impacts are forecast.
4. Water Oualitv
The proposed project would create potential water qual ity impacts
due to short-term impacts from construction activity as well as the
long-term effects of urban development.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page 5
The project shall be subject to revi ew and approval by the State
Department of Health Services (DHS). The project shall implement
mitigation measures as set by DHS prior to issuance of any grading
permit. Other measures incl ude the preparation and approval of a
diversion ditch plan (or acceptable plan), an onsite mitigation
monitoring program, an erosion control plan, and a storm drain plan.
5. BioloQical Resources
Project development will significantly and directly impact riparian
wetlands, coastal sage scrub, native grassland habitats, and the
California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, both sensitive species. The
additional SPA impact to riparian habitat is 0.2 acre.
To mitigate additional SPA impacts to 0.2 acre of riparian habitat,
ERCE recommends creation/enhancement of riparian habitat.
Construct ion pract ices and long-term urban act i vi ties present
secondary threats to adjacent and/or sensitive non-development
areas. Impact mitigation includes construction activity limitations
to protect resource preservation areas; revegetation with native
species in fire break and cut slope areas; clearing and trimming
restri ct ions; fenci ng and 1 andscape bufferi ng around natural open
space areas; and long-term protection of natural open space areas by
dedication of a natural open space easement (see Section 13 below).
6. Public Services and Utilities
Water:
The project will demand 1,531,531 gpd of potable water and 188,139
gpd of reclaimed water for a total average water demand of 1,719,670
gpd.
Impacts related to water can be adequately offset by requi rements
cited in Section 3.9. Regional cumulative water supply impacts can
be slightly reduced by water conservation mitigation herein.
7. Waste Water
The project will generate approximately 788,800 gpd of waste water.
Mitigation measures include the approval of a Master Plan of
Sewerage for the project and the payment of waste water development
fees. Ultimate capacity of the Telegraph Canyon and Salt Creek
Interceptor wi 11 be determi ned pri or to approval of fi na 1 gradi ng
plans.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
8. TransDortation and Circulation
The project would generate 31,290 daily vehicle trips with 2,777
trips expected during the morning peak hour and 2,986 trips expected
during the afternoon peak hour. Since the project site is currently
vacant, generation of these trips would be additional to those trips
already on the street network.
Page 6
Major improvements to the surrounding roadway networks have been
identified to mitigate the traffic impact of this project.
Improvements necessary as a result of implementation of the SPA Plan
are outlined in Section 3.7 Mitigation.
9. Noise
Traffic-generated and urban noise will result from project
implementation. Onsite future noise levels due to cumulative
traffic will require onsite noise attenuation along various roadways.
For the project to comply with the City of Chul a Vi sta standards,
mitigation and exterior noise impacts must be incorporated into the
project design. An additional interior acoustical analysis will be
required for all multi -family residences located within the 60 dBA
ldn contour.
10. Prehistoric Resources
The potential impacts to prehistoric resources as a result of
implementation of the SPA Plan are identical to those that would
have occurred with implementation of the GDP.
Sixteen if the 18 important sites will be directly impacted by the
project. Portions of six of those sites, and one additional site,
are also at risk of indirect impacts due to phased development of
the project. Also, the site possesses a high potential for the
existence of paleontological resources.
Recommended mit igat ion i ncl udes avoi dance and/or data recovery of
important cultural resources. This involves a complete data
recovery program for cultural resource sites, and pal eonto 1 ogi ca 1
monitori ng duri ng gradi ng and, if necessary, a salvage program for
resources discovered (see Section 13 below).
Offsite Area of ImDact
11. BioloQV
Hunte Parkwav. A total of 13.8 acres of vari ous habi tats woul d be
impacted. Add it i ona 1 impacts from the construction woul d total 19.7
acres. Any proposed impacts to disturbed wetlands would be
considered significant.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page 7
Measures include enhancement of riparian habitat as 1:1 ratio to any
impacted wetlands. Prior to construction a final 1603 Streambed
Alteration Agreement must be obtained from the California Department
of Fish and Game.
East H Street. Approximately 5.0 aces of high quality coastal sage
scrub would be lost. Additional impacts from the construction
corridor would total 6.0 acres of coastal sage scrub. Potential
impacts to coast barrel cactus and California gnatcatcher are
considered significant.
Measures incl ude a strategy of avoidance, habitat enhancement, and
preservation.
Reservoi r/Waterl i ne. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and Cl evel and's
golden star are considered significant.
Measures include a combination of avoidance and habitat enhancement.
12. landform/Aesthetics
Short-term visual impacts will occur during the construction of
Hunte Parkway, East H Street, and the waterl ine/reservoir. Short
term visual impacts are not significant due to their limited
duration and temporary nature. No mitigation is required.
The pad elevation of the reservoir is higher than the elevation of
the project site and would be visible from most of the surrounding
area.
Measures to mitigate the vi sua 1 impact of the reservoi r i ncl ude
landscaping the site and painting the tank an unobtrusive color.
13. Cultural Resources
Hunte Parkwav. Construction of both the proposed interceptor 1 ine
and Hunte Parkway will affect portions of CA-SDi-12,037;
CA-SDi-12,038; and CA-SDi-12,039 and Isolate 1-314.
Mitigation of impacts to important cultural resources can be
achi eved through either avoidance or by conduct i ng a data recovery
program.
East H Street. Construction of both the 10-inch pipeline and
proposed East H Street segment will affect portions of site
CA-SDi-4,530/W-643, which has been tested and determined to be
important pursuant to CEQA criteria.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of January 22, 1992
Page 8
Mitigation of impacts to important cultural resources can be
achi eved through either avoi dance or by conduct i ng a data recovery
program.
Water Reservoir/Waterline. Both direct and indirect impacts of
equipment staging and access may affect cultural resources
CA-SDi-ll,403 locus F; CA-SDi-ll,403 locus G; CA-SDi-ll,415;
CA-SDi-12,030, CA-SDi-12,301; CA-SDi-12,032; CA-SDi-12,03l;
CA-SDi-12,034; CA-SDi-12,035; CA-SDi-12,036; CA-SDi-12,260; and
CA-SDil2,261.
Mitigation of impacts to important cultural resources can be
achieved through either avoidance or by conducting a data recovery
program.
G. FINAL SPA PLAN DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
The Final SPA Plan design (Sec. 5.3) would maintain the same total land
use acreage (1,197.2) as the proposed project. However, the amount of
acreage allotted for residential, open space, and institutional
development would be redistributed. The total number of dwell ing units
(2,662) would be less than the proposed project by 155 dwell ing units.
The residential density for both designs is the same at 3.6 dwelling
units per acre. Open space acreage is 11.4 acres less with the Final SPA
Plan. Public facilities acreage is slightly less than the proposed
project by 1.2 acres. As described in the SEIR, this final design
alternative would have the same or less significant impacts as the
described project in Section 2.0 of the SEIR. The analysis in the EIR
and the summary are adequate for this alternative.
WPC 0080p
a:
''--,\ w >a:
I-a: <-
<- 1-0
30 0>
1-> a:
wa: w
wW (/J
3~ w
a:
wa: .
~~
i
I [t).....
~
[
~
I
"
~~
w
<J
g
118'
-
I=;
I
!il~
~
,:I:
"8
- ~
i~
ul
,.~
,2-g
i
~UJ @ z
i!!n~~~
o ~ ~~ ~~ Iii ~ ~
~~f]G~rn[g
L
.
Co::> '" I ~ Co~ I '
KUW/~ '" ~~~ = J
~ ~II~ ~ ~ ~
-,- r-~' tJ -::: - Q:ZJ~~:: -1~ ./n \ .:' ~'''../ '
IJ . I ~_lrt=' ' c:. ~~ . '
<j: ::::.J/ , - =r::; ~)t-; .:.n.. '[Jill ~Ix-:':. /
'~2\ \ l;;7Jj i<7~~~ r-V;Y~",
'""'" ..J.L" fu '../"'" .' \ (1::::,~'.., _
J. 'I../.._ - ~ . 'f'.~ 0:-- I (
" I _~7<:' ,~,,;j/ i II_
I i f:d:,./ t: r-i iT", So 1 . ..LIT, V ' ....
I <"<iJ,~ r!:: '-"/ - (I) S'9 " ,
~""'!:!' F U, _ !' ,~"'/ '. ';;:;". /'
", -., c 5 l'i-4J]1 co , f,'-'"
", .... "'1::;'" ""f
.. III' ! ,'~~ e. In- ;;~i
N,::&!: :::::.t..~ rf. !.-1~~; J:
: ,:.:c~ \ y ~ ~t:>./<:
.,...~ \ '7'('1:';" "',
~ ,~) 'IH" ~. ~j;)
~;c i 1rb:~~~" ~ /~
~ I YY~N :s ,'~~ Iii
~ ., '.,.,., 01)
i ','~ If ">.. (- .fJ
: y~, , ~-' I, I~,~>rt' rJB v ~
- . j~J ~~, r.; ~ '
- . ~" '-......
l;f~1 '" ~~,\::'b""'.::
:~, ;.c<." ;' :--.~'""""
I '~,I~
I . ,x.; ~.i"'~~I:...,;)':~r Hi
: o!I;"""::::;""J.c.:. ., ~~
, "
I ", . \\
, "
. :: <::
. ',.;.;::...,!!::e _
. ~ ~,!!i g:
'II~\ H _
,';;jI "" :: ~
_I ~"1 0
I ,I 1.--'"
i . \ .... w
~
..
'y
I
U,
I
~{f?
~~::.~
--~-
~~~~
ON OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 16. 1992
TO:
Chair and Members of Planning Commission
Ken lee, Assistant Director of Planning 1;~'~~~~
Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review coordin~
)
VIA:
FROM:
Attached you will find letters from the Chula Vista Elementary
School District, Sweetwater Union High School District and
John O'Neill, an attorney representing property owners in the
vicinity of the Salt Creek Ranch project. These were inadver-
tantly not included in your staff report. They will be
included in the Final Environmental Impact Report along with
an appropriate response.
DDR : j e
Attachments
276 FOURTH AVE/CHUlA VISTA CALIFORNIA 919101(619) 691-5101
-rHE
PYRAMIDS
N COR P 0 RAT E D
Objections to the
Proposed Salt Creek Ranch
Sectional Planning Area Plan Seir 90-03
1. The supplemental environmental impact report does not address the traffic
from the northerly properties. Does the traffic analysis take into account
these properties and is 60 foot wide road adequate?
2, Road Access.
The proposed access by Salt Creek Fig 37 of the Salt Creek Ranch, GDP
depicts this access as Watson McCoy, yet there are twenty other properties
to the north and west of Salt Creek Ranch.
3. This proposed access fails to consider environmental and topographical
problems in using this access to serve properties west of the proposed
access.
4. The Baldwin plan does not take into account the Pyramids or other properties
presprictive easement noted in gran~ deeds and clearly established by
continuous use of the property owners. Aeriel photographs of the area
evidence continuous use of the easement.
5, The Seir on figures 1-1, 2-6, 3-1, 3-7 and 5-3 lable our property as open
space. City Planning Department staff admit that is a wrong lable. It
should be changed to vacant land.
5232 Jackson Drive, Suite 205 . La Mesa, CA 92041 . USA
Telex: 181088 BLUE SEAS. Telefax: 619/466-6766 . Telephone: 619/466-6700
" IvI
S,AC.T UeFe-1:
!?AA.JC 1-1
" !
\:::,..\;~~~;:,::..::;::~~:'.
~~f?
~
~~~~
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 26, 1990
Mr. Samir Ghattas
Vice President
THE PYRAMIDS, INC.
5232 Jackson Drive, Suite 205
La Mesa, CA 92041
SUBJECT: Access to Property Identified by Assessor Parcel Nos. 585-091-13,
585-140-11, 17, 585-150-09 and Others North and East of Salt Creek
Ranch
Dear Mr. Ghattas:
As you know, the City of Chula Vista is processing the 1,200-acre Salt Creek
Ranch General Development Plan proposal submitted by the Baldwin Company. The
project is located north and south of Proctor Valley Road, is currently under
the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego pending annexation to the City of
Chula Vista and currently provides easements for access to your property and
others immediately north and east of the proj ect site. Guaranteed continuous
access to property immediately north and east of the project is a concern of
the City of Chula Vista. The City is making every effort in its negotiations
with the Baldwin Company to assure continued access to adjacent parcels of land
so as not to create a land-lock parcel condition. Realizing that some type of
development likely could occur on portions of property in the area north and/or
east of Salt Creek Ranch, the City not only wishes to maintain legal access but
wishes aiso not to create a condition that would constrain appropriate size
access for future potential development.
To reiterate, the City of Chula Vista is, and will continue to make every
effort to maintain access to those parcels of land that currently obtain sole
legal access across the Salt Creek Ranch property from Proctor Valley Road.
D1:e~/~
Senior Planner
xc: Jim Harter
Vernon Hazen
Gordon Howard
Bob Leiter
DEB:llb/6
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5101
',:~ '\~
,~ ,
j'lf:,j'
",... '.
. ._-.""'. ~-.",
The Baldwin Company
Craftsmanship in building since /956
June 27, 1990
Mr. Samir Ghattas
Vice President
THE PYPAMlDS, INC.
5232 Jackson Drive
Suite 205
La Mesa, CA 92041
Dear Mr, Ghattas:
The Baldwin Company (Baldwin Vista Development Company) has a development
management agreement with First Nationwide Bank (F,N, Projects, Inc,) to plan, process and
develop 1,20 I acres known as the Salt Creek Ranch, The Salt Creek Ranch is currently
located in the County of San Diego. However, the property is within the sphere of iniluence
of the City of Chula Vista and an Environmental Impact Report and General Development
Plan (GDP) are being processed with Chula Vista. It is intended that the property will be
annexed to Chula Vista upon approval of the General Development Plan by the City, The
EIR and GDP are currently in the public hearing stage,
The City of Chula Vista has requested that access to properties north of the Salt Creek
Ranch be provided and included in the GDP circuJation plan, We have complied with that
request in our GDP, It is our intent to provide access to properties adjacent to our Salt
Creek Ranch as shown on the attached Circulation Plan of the GDP. It should be
understood that precise locations will be determined at subsequent approval stages
'including tentative and final maps and improvement pJans; access will be through the
dedication of public local roads; and that nothing in this letter should be construed to be a
commitment on our part concerning the timing of construction of those local roads,
Sincerely yours,
~~PANY
0'ames M. Harter
Vice President and Project Manager
Attachment
JMH:mc
11975 EI Camino Real- Suite 200 - San Diego, CA 92130 _ (619) 259,2900
JAN-21-92 TUE 17
"~5 HILL"y.ER&IRL..Jlt-.~
p ~ 1-::::'3
"
.'
, '
.. ", ...,,;
WILLIAM MILLY<<I'I
05CA~ F". IRWIN
NOFlMAN fOI, "'L..Lf;NDV
I-I!:NRV J. KL.IN~~R
.ROWN .. SMITH
JAMtS O. r;1oIL.r.F':5
.,JA,.,.,I!::! t. C"~UMMONO
PCTC~ J. I~~OLITO
OAR'!' $. HA~OKP.:
;.IOWAIOI!) A, AI...LI::N
AOetAT u. ~""NNA
KI::NT W. HIL,ORI!:T...
,jONAT...AN !.. OA~el e:~1
ioOOWAI'IO 1:. SUSMAN
DAVIO III. I"IO"",",I~S
ROeEJ',iT ~. ZAJAC
CHARLI!:$ ..J, IN('J,!'!If.R
MI(:H,A,!:L. "". MI....I!:~ICK
MURFf A.,. T. 9, LI!:WI9
.JOHN C.O'NEI!..!.
eTe;vltN M. )oj1i..L.
CiONA\.!) \.. CUII>IT
MAWt<; O. .UOWIO
HILLYER 8 IRWIN
CURTI5 ...1..Ly.... (IS",..t-liil01]
U;:.sA CHRISTENSON
MA~I'\ O. MAI'ITIN
'3Tl!:v!:N (:. ~AYL.C:R
DI!:~ C. ~r:O~"'~OOTTCR
3TI!:PHtN M. p:)RIOANO!
N...NCY .,). ~KOV,",O~'T
IAO St.,.,.. F'A~ZtN
Jj,MI:;S M, CADY
IOiOO!;RI .J. L.O"'O~ItN
~ANOA M, TRA~~
!:V!l:I..'1N R. WIOOINS
1"IMOTHY.). NA~H
LINDA ,"" HAMMACIoIER
,.O~NIt R. PO\..O(.I'l
C~.o..IO A" IClIOIOWN
RQt')IN ,.,." ,Yr:MI!:N
OAVIO 1'). 8(R(";oul~j
A F>ROrESSIONA\.- CORF>O~A'T'ION
ATTOR.NEYS AT LAW
550 WEST C STREET, 16TH flOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-3540
TI!I...!'P>I-4QNC (eIQ) :O:.3."ej~1
r,li,x (eID) I~Ui/l~H312
January 21, 1992
R, OA'vIO MUL.CAHY
OI"'C;CT~'" 0'" "'O""INI.TIII...TION
IN R~Pl.Y H~F~R TO
OUR ~ILe::
9302.1
Mr. Bob Leiter
Planning Department
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 91910
Re:
Proposed Salt Creek Ranch
Access to Property Identified by Assessor Parcel
585-091-13, 585-140-11, 585-140-17, 585-150-09
Others North and East of Salt Creek Ranch
Nos.
and
Dear Mr. I.eiter:
Please consider my letter to you dated January 13, 1992, a
formal protest to the Environmental Impact Report submitted by
The Baldwin company for the proposed Salt Creek Ranch Sectional
Planning Area Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
JO'N:ccl
HILLYER & IRWIN~. _
\(1'1 c, UYH
JOh\ C. O'Neill
--)
c: Duane E. Bazzel
Richard L. Cruzen
samir Ghattas
The Baldwin Company
"
L' l,..,it"r 1/21
WILLIAM HILLYER
OSCAR 1'". IRWIN
NORMAN R. ALLEN BY
HENRY .J. KLINKER
BROWN B. SMITH
.JAMES G. EHLERS
.JAMES E. DRUMMOND
PETER .J. IPPOLITO
GARY S. HARDKE
HOWAR D A. ALLEN
ROSERT .J. HANNA
KENT W. HILDRETH
.JONATHAN 5. DASSIERI
HOWARD E. SUSMAN
DAVID B. HOPKINS
ROBERT 1... ZA.JAC
CHARLES .J. INGBER
MICHAEL 1'". MILLERICK
MURRAY T. S. LEWIS
.JOHN C. O'NEILL
STEVEN M. HILL
DONALD L. CUPIT
MARK G. BUDWIG
HILLYER Ii\ IRWIN
CUO'ITIS "'"LLVE 0:1 (t87Z'19!51)
A PROI'"ESSIONAL CORPORATION
LESA CHI'1ISTENSON
MARK O. MARTIN
STEVEN C. SAYLER
DEB C. PEDERSDOTTER
STEPI-iEN M. BRIGANDI
NANCY.J. SKOVHOLT
TAD SETH PARZEN
.JAMES M. CADY
ROBERT .J. LOFGREN
RANDA M. TRAPP
EVELYN R. WIGGINS
TIMOTHY.). NASH
UNOA K. HAMMACHER
LORNE R. POLGER
CRAIG A. BROWN
ROBIN M. STEMEN
DAVID B. BERGOUIST
ATTOR.NEYS AT LAW
550 WEST C STREET, 16TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-3540
TELEPHONE (619) 234+6121
FAX (619) 595-1313
January 13, 1992
R. DAVID MULCAHY
DIO'IECTOR OF AQMINISTO'IATION
IN REPLY REFER TO
OUR FILE
9302.1
Mr. Bob Leiter
Planning Department
city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re:
Proposed Salt Creek Ranch
Access to Property Identified by Assessor Parcel
585-091-13, 585-140-11, 585-140-17, 585-150-09
Others North and East of Salt Creek Ranch
Nos.
and
Dear Mr. Leiter:
This law firm represents The Pyramids,
owns four separate parcels of property north
and east of the Otay Municipal Water District
Inc. The Pyramids
of Salt Creek Ranch
property.
As you know, the City of Chula vista is processing a 1,201
acre Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan proposal submitted
by The Baldwin Company. The project is located north and south
of Proctor Valley Road, and currently provides easements for
access to The Pyramids' property and the property of others
immediately north and east of the project site.
By letter dated June 26, 1990, to The Pyramids, Senior
Planner Duane Bazze1 expressed the concern of the City that
access to the property immediately north and east of the project
be guaranteed. Mr. Bazzel expressed the City's desire to
maintain legal access and to avoid creating "a condition that
would constrain appropriate size access for future potential
development. " The plan proposed by Baldwin does not provide
adequate access to those properties to the north and east of the
project site, and threatens to hamper or make impossible
altogether the development of those parcels.
HILLYER 8 IRWI\!
A PROFESSIONAc. CORPORA-'C"-
Mr. Bob Leiter
January 13, 1992
Page 2
The Baldwin plan proposes a single access for all properties
to the north located in the eastern third of their north property
line. This access is adequate to serve the most northerly
Pyramids parcel, parcel no. 585-091-13. However, this access is
totally unsuitable for three other parcels owned by The Pyramids
(parcel nos. 585-150-09, 5850140-11, and 585-140-17) and
properties owned by others to the west of the proposed access.
The access is inadequate for at least the following reasons:
1. Environmental Concerns. To reach the three westerly
Pyramids parcels and other parcels north of the Baldwin property
from the proposed Baldwin north-south access, it will be
necessary to develop access in a westerly direction. Baldwin's
plan recognizes this. However, Baldwin's plan fails to consider
the environmental problems created by the westerly access.
Specifically, that access must cross a wet creek. The problems
are exacerbated by the designation of part of the land over which
the access to the west is planned as "open space." The Pyramids
will provide separately to your department an analysis of the
environmental problems which will result from that access.
2. Prescriptive Easement. The Baldwin plan fails to
recognize that The Pyramids has a prescriptive easement running
directly south from its westerly properties. This easement is
noted in grant deeds to the property. It is clearly established
by the continuous use of the easement by The Pyramids and its
predecessors-in-interest, Aerial photographs of the area
evidence continuous and open use of the easement.
Whether or not the proposed Baldwin access is feasible from
the environmental standpoint, The Pyramids has an enforceable
legal right to access directly north through the Baldwin
property. The Baldwin plan must allow for this access. As
currently configured, it does not.
3. Inadequacy of Proposed Road. Aside from the location
of the access proposed by Baldwin, the actual proposed roadway is
inadequate to service the properties to the north. The Baldwin
plan rests on the assumption that the 400 acres of the properties
north of Salt Creek Ranch would accommodate 100 units. In fact,
the 186 acres owned by The Pyramids alone will accommodate
approximately 100 lots. Baldwin's plan is apparently based on
the erroneous premise that four-acre lots will be required on the
northern properties. Conversely, Baldwin's plan envisions
approximately 2.5 lots per acre in its development. Baldwin also
has failed to perform a slope analysis of the northern
properties, and fails to take into account additional permissible
HILLYER [) IR\X;[i'\
A ",qOFESSIQ,'JAL COqPO;:;A-'CN
Mr. Bob Leiter
January 13, 1992
Page 3
lots resulting from the dedication of open space on those
properties.
In view of the actual number of lots that are likely to be
developed on the properties north of the Baldwin property, it is
clear the 60-foot wide road proposed by Baldwin is inadequate.
In summary Baldwin's plan fails to take into account the
environmental problems resulting from its proposed access,
ignores The Pyramids' easement by prescription for a more direct
access, and proposes an access roadway design which is inadequate
to serve anticipated development.
We appreciate the City's concerns regarding access to the
properties north of Salt Creek Ranch. The Pyramids requests that
the City critically examine the Baldwin plan in light of the
issues raised in this letter.
On a related issue, The Pyramids objects to that portion of
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Salt Creek Ranch sectional Planning Area Plan insofar as it
incorrectly designates portions of The Pyramids' property as open
space. Those erroneous designations appear on figures 1-1, 1-6,
3-1, 3-7 and 5-3 of the SEIR. Again, The Pyramids requests that
it be included in the comprehensive LAFCO Sphere Plan Update for
Chula vista scheduled for initiation in 1992.
The Pyramids will provide additional information concerning
these matters before and at the hearing on January 22, 1992, and
will be pleased to respond to any requests for information from
your department.
JO'N:mfm
Very truly yours,
C, ~
O'Neill
cc: Duane E. Bazzel
Richard L. Cruzen
Samir Ghattas
The Baldwin Company
-~'"
Jan 17,92 13: 07 ALBA L,~INEERING
p, 0 c:
ALBA ENGINEERING, INC.
PLANNING . ENGINEERING . SURVEYING
January 16, 1992
Mr. Samir Ghattas
The Pyramids, Inc.
5232 Jackson Drive,
La Mesa, California
Ste. 205
92041
REI SALT CREEX RANCH
Dear Mr. Ghattas:
At your request we have reviewed various access options for your
property. This review included site visits, Review of title
reports, Aerial photographs, and Proposed development of adjacent
properties.
Salt Creek Ranch proposes a single access point in the Eastern one
third of their North property line for all properties to the North.
This access is appropriate and adequate for the Eastern portion of
the 120 ac. Assessor Parcel 585-091-13. This access point can also
serve McCoy and Otay Ranch.
However, to serve Hicks, Sevel, Anderson, Offvti, Dy, Lee, Nauman,
De Guzman, and your parcels 585-150-09, 585-140-11 and 585-140-17,
a future road across the McCoy property will need to be built.
This road would cross a major drainage course (100 Year Q greater
than 1400 cubic feet per Sec.) and a Wet Land area. In addition
there are Topographic problems with a road running East to West
-along the common property line between your property and Salt Creek
Ranch. This common property line is approximately 450 feet long
with a 135 foot difference in elevation.
Attached are two exhibits. One is an Aerial Photo of Salt Creek
Ranch along with ownership to the North. This exhibit shows three
existing access points to the North of Salt Creek. One point is in
the Hicks property; one at about the mid point, and one in the
vicinity of Salt Creek Ranch's proposed access point.
The Second exhibit shows the Northern portion of Salt Creek Ranch
proposed plan, along with the ownership to the north.
We would recommend that, in addition to the proposed access point,
a second access point be provided to serve your property and those
to the west of you.
Jan 17,92 13:08 ALBA E~uINEERING
P.O"
Mr. Samir Ghattas
The pyramida, Inc.
PAGE 2.
By providing two access points to the North, Salt Creek Ranch can
serve most, if not all its neighbors, limit crossings of the major
drainage basin, and limit the amount of Grading required to serve
all the parcels.
Respectfully,
E~::.1! ~'---
Alba Engineering, Inc.
RLC/as
Enclosure:
Aerial Photos
,
, I
'-~r
!
~ ,J J !,.
::0 ~ Q J -. L.
\; ~~{~ t
~Q."Z~\Q~ Q~
~~~~ ~t ME
: \i){Q",1::~,
. '< \,J''\' \J!i
;' ~ \) ~ ~ "'r.
" ::, -J 'v "" "
\; J '" t ~
~~~,,~ {<Vi
,~~--;.~ ~<~,
.\.:' ,....' .... ~ \"J --- .... .
co." .
~~~
:" ,1
Iii
\ .:: \ "'II
. ,
~ I .::.'
:1\"' ~~
Xii ~~
"
/' ""
"
"-
.... ~ .......,
,,'":.' ~~'
, "
, ,\ ~
.~
..',. \;!~
" ~a;
, ex:
.\
'.
,.
m
---- '.
.oor;
""\
'- /
,
BOARC OF ECUCA nON
JOSEPH C, CUMMINGS, PI1,C,
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GilES
PATRICK A, JUDD
GREG R, SANDOVAL
SUPER'NTENCENT
JOHN F, VUGRIN, Ph,D,
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCH()(JL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
r:-, ----.:-
, '\ \ ro (c" r rJ \ Ci ~; 0
! '
December 18, 1991
JAN
? 19'1 J..
--'~"---'--
Mr. Duane Bazze1
Associate Planner
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
- --------
RE: Salt Creek Ranch Draft Supplemental EIR-91-03
Dear Mr. Bazzel:
Thank you for providing a copy of the Draft Supplemental
EIR for the Salt Creek Project. In an earlier letter,
dated December 5, 1991, I stated it was not possible to
review the Public Facilities section dealing with schools
since a copy of the Public Facilities Financing Plan was not
provided. As stated previously, it is essential that we
fully review this document relative to how school facilities
will be provided.
The Draft Supplemental ErR states that schools do not
require further analysis beyond that discussed in EIR 89-3.
The District had many comments on the Schools section of ErR
89-3 which are summarized on the attached copy. To my
knowledge, these questions have not been resolved, nor has
the very significant issue of when financing for schools
must be secured. This was discussed in my December 5 letter
(copy attached).
The Draft Supplemental ErR states a total of 2817 dwelling
units are proposed; the notice of community forum gives this
number as 2662. This needs to be clarified.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
\-ZcJ'i ~\>--~ ~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Tom Meade
Carl Kadie
BOARO OF EDUCA 110N
JOSEPH 0, CUMMINGS, Ph,O,
SHARON GI\.ES
PATRICK A, JUDO
JUDY SCHUlENBERG
FRANK A. TARANTINO
SUPERINTENDENT
.l:JHN F, VUGRN, Ph,O,
CHULA '. iSTA CITY SCHOOL ..JISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA ViSTA, CALIFORNiA 92010 . 619425-9600
EACH CHILD is AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
April 10, 1990
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No. EIR-89-3
Salt Creek Ranch - Annexation/General Development Plan
Pre-Zone Draft EIR (ECI/CIR 89-3)
Dear Mr. Reid:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft General
Development Plan (GDP) and Draft EIR for Salt Creek Ranch.
In reviewing the document relative to elementary schools, I note that the
data presented regarding elementary facilities is quite out of date and/or
incorrect. My comments follow.
Page 3-110 - Chula Vista City School District is comprised of 32
elementary schools, not 29, with current enrollment at 17,287.
Parkview, Rogers and Kellogg, schools cited as being near the project,
are nowhere near the site. All three are located south of Telegraph
Canyon, and Kellogg is west of the 805. The closest existing schools
are Eastlake Elementary, Tiffany and Sunnysipe, all of which are at
capacity or projected to be prior to any construction on Salt Creek
Ranch.
The new facility described as planned on Hillside Drive is nearly
complete (Eastlake Elementary) and scheduled to open in 1990. The
District's next school is in the Terra Nova neighborhood, not in Rancho
Del Rey. Its opening is anticipated in September, 1991.
The school located on Buena Vista Way is named Chula Vista Hills,
and has a current enrollment of 506.
The District has added 25, not 19, new relocatab]e classrooms and
several trailers over the past few years to accommodate growth.
The discussion on funding elementary facilities incorrectly references
Sweetwater Union High School District instead of Chula Vista City
School District. In addition, developer fees allovled by State law
were established at $1.50 per square foot in 1987. They have been
increased three times since then and are currently at $1.58. Chula
Vista City School District's share is $ .70, This section is much
too weak on how elementary facilities are to be financed. In numerous
",
correspondences. the District has stated that fees are inadequate
and there are no existing facilities to serve the project, Alternative
financing mechanisms, such as formation of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District. are required in order to provide elementary
facilities.
The impacts section utilizes an incorrect student generation factor,
The District utilizes a .3 student/dwelling unit rate. Using this
figure yields a total of 1093 elementary students at buildout, 20
percent short of two full schools. In addition, no facilities were
provided for Salt Creek I, and it has been understood by the District
and the developer that children from these 550 units will be
accommodated at schools wi,thin Salt Creek Ranch.
The General Development Plan shows the wrong location for one of the
elementary sites (Table 2-5, not 2-4 as cited). The location shown
was initially proposed and rejected. Discussions with the developer
are ongoing, with one school proposed to be located in the southwest
area of the project, south of East H and West of lane Avenue. The
second school is proposed to be north of East H. in the residential
area east of Hunte Parkway. This map appears to be very outdated.
The Baldwin Company should be contacted for current information.
This document needs revision to provide correct data. It's inadequate
in terms of elementary schools in its present form.
If you have any questions. please contact me.
Sincerely.
M.~~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
Jim Harter
CHUlA VISTA crtY SCHOOL DISTRlr~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 1990
TO:
Doug Reid
Kate Shurson ~~
FROM:
RE: Case No. EIR-89-3
Salt Creek Ranch - Annexation/General Development Plan
Pre-Zone Draft EIR (ECI/CIR 89-3)
Please note that in my letter to you dated April 10, 1990, the third
paragraph states that the ".....Chula Vista City School District is
comprised of 32 elementary schools, not 29, with current enrollment at
17,287." This paragraph should read ".....Chula Vista City School District
is comprised of 31 elementary schools....."
I inadvertantly included one of our special education schools in the
total count. Sorry for the inconvenience this might have caused you.
KS:dp
cc: Tom Sil va
Jim Harter
A100 (6)6-88
BOARD OF EDlJCA roN
JOSEPH 0, CUMMINGS, Ai,D,
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GilES
PATRICK A, JUDO
GREG R, 3ANOOVAl
SUPERINTENDENT
.kJHN F, VUGAN, AiD,
CHULA VI,~TA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425-9600
EACH CHiLD IS AN INDiViDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
December 5) 1991
Mr. Duane Bazzel
Associate Planner
city of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan (PCM-91-04)
Dear Mr. Bazzel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
Salt Creek Ranch SPA Plan.
Section 7.6 of the
mentions schools, and
Public Facilities and
provided at this time.
Based on the information presented, I offer the following
comments:
Public Facilities Section briefly
defers detailed discussion to the
Financing Plan which has not been
The estimated number of elementary students, 719, is
incorrect. The District-wide generation rate is 0.3
students per dwelling unit, or 799 students.
The report proposes two elementary school sites of
approximately 10 acres each. The District's standards
require ten net usable acres.
In addition, the City's Growth Management Program requires
that financing for needed school sites and facilities be
secured at the SPA Plan level. The District has recommended
participation in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
to provide necessary funding. These proceedings must be
initiated by the project applicant. We have had no recent
contact with the Baldwin Company in this regard.
I am looking' forward to receiving
Plan, hopefully in time to permit
comments may be incorporated into the
Commission.
the Public Facilities
full review so that
report to the Planning
Sincerely,
~~~
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Tom Silva
6: screek-spa
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91911-2896
(619) 691-5500
Division of Planning and Facilities
December 16, 1991
Ir~C~!Vf:"
Df'o ,',
...( p.
.,
PL..Ij
NIV/f,i,
Mr.Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Coordinator
City ofChula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: Salt Creek Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
EIR 90-03
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed Salt Creek Ranch project. Although our
concerns were made known when reviewing the Salt Creek Ranch
Annexation/General Development Plan Pre-zone Environmental Impact
Report (E.I.R. 89-3), it is appropriate to reiterate them at this time.
For a project of this size, approximately 772 new students should enter into
district classrooms. The following is a breakdown of the student yield by
grade level.
Housing Units
Student Yield
High Sch. (9-12)
0.10 Students I Unit
Junior High (7-8) Total
0.19 Students I Unit 0.29 Students I Unit
2662 Units
266 Students
506 Students
772 Students
In reviewing the general development plans for both Salt Creek Ranch and
San Miguel Ranch; the district had identified a need for a new 50 acre high
school site in the northern part of the eastern territories. The Baldwin
Company responded by pledging to provide classroom space in the Otay
Ranch project commensurate to the need caused by the Salt Creek Ranch
project.
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
Page 2
The cost of a new high school is $37,975,000 and the cost for a new junior
high is $16,688,00; of course, Salt Creek Ranch would be responsible for it's
pro-rata share of the costs of the schools. Traditionally, the district has
established the financing via the implementation of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District as well as requiring the developer/builder to provide the
district with a prepared site. The same terms shall be applied to the Baldwin
agreements.
To mitigate the impact Salt Creek Ranch will have on district classroom
space, I am requesting that the city condition any project approval subject to
the following:
· That Baldwin's commitment to provide actual classroom space in
the Otay Mesa western parcel be upheld.
· That the Salt Creek Ranch Project establish and participate in a
school facility financing plan which is acceptable to the Sweetwater
Union High School District.
I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions,
please feel free to call me at 691-5553.
Sincerely,
Thomas Silva
Assistant Director of Planning
TS/ml
Enclosure
cc: Kate Shurson - Chula Vista City Schools
i.'.~
one "klwln c..JIU.)'
Cr./~ III buJld~ .un I9J6
May 21. 1990
Mr. Andrew B. CampbeD
SWEE1WATER UNION H1GH SCHOOL DIS'IRlCl'
I J30 P1f\h Avenue
Chula V.fa, CA 920n
...
Dear Mr. CampbdJ:
It II our understanding thaI future development or P"!Iects within the Sweetwatu Vnlun
HIgh School DIstr1ct and In the Eastern TmttoJ1ea area or ChuJa VJsla. excludlD,l! the Olay
Ranch prqfect, could generate .tudents In CItt'eSS of the capaCIty or high achool ladJJlIes
pasung and under construcuon, The aceaa .Iudellt d........... tor high lIChooJs couJd be up
(0 +/-'100 .tudenl. or approximately 0.1 of a high achool of 2.400 students. Included In
the demand from those new Prqfects . .Iudent generaUOn from the proposed Salt Creek
Ranch P"!Iect.
In lieu m the deaignaUon of. 50 acre high achool site withIn Salt Creek Ranch. The
Baldwin Company i8 wWJng to InCOJPOrate the +/-200 ~5 .tudcnts Within The School
...c:JJttlea Plannl", of the Otay Ranch P"!lect. 'Ibis wID asaurt the Schoo) District thaI
adequate fadbtJes will be prcMded for thoee Itudcnts.
Pursuant to dJscuutons wJth the Sweetwater High Schoo) Dl5trlct. It Is our underalan(Ung
that all p"!fecl8 contributing to the Deed for thoSe lac1J1l1ea wfll partJc1pate In a falr-abare
east of the slle acqulslUon and lacOIlfc8 0nancIng, It sa aJ80 our understanding that you
w1IIl8sue a Jetter to the City or Chula VIsta Ir...llrel.tng that the potenUa1 achoof Jmpact from
the Salt Creek Ranch Is m1Ugaled wnh this measure aJong w!th m1t.IgaUons in the Sah
Creek Ranch General Development Plan and EIR.
UJ'B.
.
~.
,
,
-- .
./ .'
(
.
GTS:mc
."
"
11975 EI CamIno Itd, · Suht 200 . 1m Dicto. CII 92i30 . (619) 259,2900
le !EJt:Id
9800-Z6l.-61913l
AN:'dm NIMCn:e 1!1000 eos;:S1 86, lZ I'i.W
_~A~~22-92 WED 14 31
~ EastLake Devel~pment
January 22, 1992
Mr. Doug Reid
CITY OF cHULA VISTA
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91912
~E: Salt Creek Ranch EIR
Dear Mr. Reid:
We have reviewed the draft EIR for Salt creek Ranoh
and nppreoiate the opportunity to coroment. While
these oomments may be more appropriately addressed
in the SPA Plan, we would like you to consider the
following:
1. The adopted EastLake I PC District regulations
allow a number of uses in the EastLake
Business Center such as manufacturing, auto
services, etc. Our ability to market and sell
the Business Canter parcels should not be
impacted by Salt Creek Ranch. Our land use
entitlements should not be jeopardized by the
proposed project. we therefore recommend the
following:
A. A sound study be conducted at the time of
tentative map. but only for those areas
where Salt Creek Ranch's proposed
residential development abuts EastLake's
approved industrial uses. The study and
required mitigation will be the
responsibility of the Salt Creek Ranch
developer at the time either party
processes a tentative map.
B. Wo recommend that prior to the sale of
units in neighborhoods 5 and 6, sales
disclosure documents be required which
identify the allowable uses in the
EastLake Business Center.
2.
A 20" reclaimed water line servicing EastLake
Greens traverses the project. If the line
must be relocatcd due solely to construction
of the Salt Creek Ranch project, then Baldwin
should be responsible for the actual costs of
relocating that line without interruption of
5ervice.
P.02
Jh,,~ J
Ajj~
~irG.
..
.
EASTLAKE
~l~ENT
r,()() lonO Avonl,JO
SUit" 100
ChUIQ Vi.">, C^ 91914
~b1Q) <I21-Q127
F/IX (619) ~21-1e30
~t:-I-22-92
WED
14-32
EastLak..
Develo....ment
Mr. Doug Reid
January 22, 1992
Page 2
3. ht this time we have not had the opportunity
to review the PFFP for the project. We must
reserve comments on facility-related issues
pending our receipt and review of the above
document.
Thank you for yon,.. considE"r.ation.
sincorely,
E^ST~KE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
~Yf.~
Project Manager, Community Development
KW:td
cc: Ms. Claudia Troisi, The Baldwin Company
Mr. Duane Ba~~el, otay Ranch Project Office
P.03