HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/07/22 (6)
city Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Imcact Recort EIR 91-05
Teleqrach Canyon Estates SUbdivision
A. BACKGROUND
The Baldwin Company is proposing a 350-unit single-family
residential subdivision on a 112-acre site located on the north
side of Telegraph Canyon Road (Otay Lakes Road), immediately west
of the proposed future extension of state Route 125.
The project includes an Annexation, Chula vista Sphere of Influence
Amendment, Amendment to the Eastlake General Development Plan
(GDP) , Eastlake sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment,
Eastlake Planned Community District (PCD) Regulations Amendment,
and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM).
The proposed 350 single-family lots on 82 acres, yields a net
project density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Two private park
areas and two community purpose facility sites will be provided.
Approximately 30.2 acres of the site will be in open space.
The Telegraph Canyon Estates site is presently vacant. It is not
currently within the city of Chula vista, but is designated as a
"Special Study" area on the Chula vista General Plan. The site was
originally part of the otay Ranch, but because it is physically
separated from the Otay Ranch property by Telegraph Canyon Road, it
is now being processed separately.
B. PUBLIC REVIEW
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been circulated
through the state Clearinghouse for the 45-day public review from
March 21, 1992 to July 6, 1992. The city of Chula vista local
review period ends at the close of the July 22, 1992 Planning
commission public hearing.
Comment letters received to-date on the project include the Chula
Vista Elementary School District; Sweetwater Union High School
District; Chula vista Fire Department; Chula vista City
Attorney's Office; Chula vista Engineering Department; Department
of Fish and Game; Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); The
Baldwin company (project applicant); veronica sissons (local
resident); Office of Planning and Research; and the Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS). Copies of these comment letters are
included in Attachment "A".
City Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 2
The Planning Department held a public forum on June 18, 1992 to
meet with area residents and inform them about the project and city
processing requirements. This was an informational meeting, only,
and approximately ten local residents were in attendance.
The Resource Conservation commission (RCC) reviewed the DEIR at
their June 22, 1992 meeting. The RCC unanimously recommended that
the Planning commission certify the EIR. A copy of the June 22,
1992 Minutes of the RCC are included in Attachment "B".
C. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission conduct the public
hearing and take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and
close the public review period on EIR (91-05).
D. ANALYSIS
1.
Geology/soils/Paleontology
significant, But Mitigable
Impact:
The project site is associated with potentially compressive
and expansive soils from the underlying Sweetwater and otay
Formations. These underlying geological formations have a
high potential for geological hazards, as well as
paleontological (fossil) resources.
There are no known, active faults on or immediately adjacent
to the site, however, the potentially active La Nacion fault
zone is approximately 3 miles to the west.
Mitiqation:
Geology/soils and paleontology impacts are considered to be
less than significant with implementation of standard
geotechnical measures during grading and project construction.
These mitigation measures are outlined on Pages 26-28 of the
DEIR.
One additional mitigation measure will be added to Page 28 of
the EIR, based upon staff comments, to reduce potential
paleontology impacts. The following language will be added to
clarify that if paleontological resources are found, it will
be the applicant's responsibility to provide adequate
mitigation.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 3
"The Developer shall authorize the deposit of any resources
found on the project site in an institution staffed by
qualified paleontologists, such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum."
2.
Hydrology/Water Quality
significant, But Mitigable
Impact:
The site has two primary, parallel drainages which flow in a
north to south direction into Telegraph Canyon Creek, an
earthen channel with drop structures that transects the
southern project boundary. A lesser drainage serves the
southwestern corner of the site. Runoff from an existing 36-
inch storm drain and open concrete channel at the base of the
fill slope on the northern project boundary delivers 129.2 cfs
to Telegraph Canyon Creek during a 50-year storm. This
drainage infrastructure also serves adjacent residential
development to the north.
Short-term grading and construction activities will increase
soil erosion potential. Development of the site will replace
natural vegetation with man-made surfaces, such as hardscape
which will create the potential for increased runoff and
resultant water quality impacts. Water quality impacts could
also occur with vehicle maintenance and landscape maintenance
activities by future project residents.
Mitiqation:
Water quality impacts are deemed to be below a level of
significance. The project is required to comply with standard
engineering practices, as outlined on Pages 37 - 38 of the
DEIR, which include compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit guidelines,
submittal of an erosion control plan, and submittal of a storm
drain plan.
3.
Landform/Alteration
significant, But Mitigable
Impact:
The project will require the movement of 830,000 cubic yards
of cut and fill. Dominant site landforms include two north to
south trending knolls on the east and west of the project
site. The deepest cut will be 45 feet on the eastern knoll
and 40 feet in the central swale area. Proximity to Telegraph
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 4
Canyon Road, a designated Scenic Highway on the Chula vista
General Plan, is associated with potential aesthetic impacts.
Mitiqation:
Significant, but mitigable landform/alteration impacts and
aesthetic impacts will be reduced to below a level of
significance through compliance with the guidelines of the
Chula vista General Plan Land Use Policies, the Eastlake
Design Manual guidelines, and the Scenic Highway criteria.
The utilization of contour grading techniques, as well as the
setback of future residences a minimum of 200 feet from
Telegraph Canyon Road will mitigate landform alteration and
aesthetic impacts. Architectural design, height, and siting
of structures will comply with the Scenic Highway criteria and
will further ensure aesthetic compatibility with the scenic
corridor.
4.
Air Quality
cumulatively significant and unmitigable
ImDact:
Short-term air quality impacts will be created during grading
and construction activities. Long-term, project phase impacts
are associated with pollutants from the additional 3,500
Average Daily Trips (ADT), as well as household emissions from
future residences.
Mitiqation:
Short-term air quality impacts will be reduced to below a
level of significance through standard city dust control
measures, such as regular watering of the site during grading.
Long-term air quality impacts are considered significant and
unmitigable on a cumulative, region-wide basis since San Diego
is in a non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter.
5.
Biological Resources
significant, But Mitigable
ImDact:
The project site contains 2.0 acres of Disturbed/Ruderal; 1.8
acres of Disturbed/Ornamental, and approximately 0.9 acres of
Freshwater Marsh vegetation. Loss of the Freshwater Marsh
vegetation on site is considered to be significant, since it
meets both the federal and state definition of a "wetland".
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 5
Mitiqation:
Loss of the wetland habitat will be mitigated by compliance
with the "no net loss" policy of the Department of Fish and
Game. As outlined in the comment letter received by Fish and
Game (June 23, 1992), the Department is requiring that prior
to certification of the Final EIR, identification of the
mitigation site and acquisition of the parcel would be
required, otherwise wetland impacts shall be mitigated at a
higher ratio,. such as 3: 1 instead of 1: I, as stated in the
EIR.
The City's recommendation is that prior to or concurrent to
the recordation of the final map, an open space lot or
easement be recorded. The issue of complying with Fish and
Game requirements is currently being negotiated and additional
information will be forthcoming with the Final EIR.
6.
Cultural Resources
Less Than significant
Impact:
No cultural resources were revealed during the site survey, as
well as the records search which was conducted for the project
site.
Mitiqation:
An archeological/paleontological monitor shall be on site
during grading operations to minimize potential impacts to
cultural or fossil resources.
7.
Transportation
Significant, But Mitigable
Impact:
An additional 3,500 Average Daily Trips (ADT) will be
generated by the proposed project, lowering the Level of
service (LOS) on Telegraph Canyon Road between Otay Lakes Road
and Eastlake Parkway from LOS C to D. Approximately 80
percent of the trips will use Telegraph Canyon Road, 10
percent will go to Rutgers Avenue via Gotham Street, and
another 10 percent will go to Lakeshore Drive via Creekwood
Way.
While the project will lower the LOS on the roadway segment
between otay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway from C to D, the
intersection will still operate at LOS C during the PM peak
City Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 6
hour, which is within the acceptable range set by the city of
Chula vista Threshold Standards.
Mitiqation:
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City
Engineering Department by contributing its fair share to the
area roadway improvements, as determined by the city Traffic
Engineer during its annual review of cumulative projects as
part of the Eastern Chula vista Transportation Phasing Plan.
8.
Noise Impacts
significant, But Mitigable
Impact:
An acoustical analysis conducted for the project analyzed
noise impacts on a short-term and long-term basis.
construction activities will create significant short-term
noise impacts, however, these will be temporary and will
conclude when the project is built out. Long-term noise
impacts are associated with the potential impact to future
residents from proposed state Route 125.
Mitiqation:
Noise impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance
through construction of a 5.6 foot high noise wall along the
rear yard of those lots that fall within the 65 CNEL threshold
contour.
9.
Land Use/General Plan/zoning
Less Than Significant
Impact:
The project is compatible with the existing and planned land
uses for the site and the surrounding properties. The 4.3
dwelling units per acre net density is within the General Plan
designation of 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. There would be
no significant, adverse land use impacts associated with the
proposed project.
Mitiqation:
The project will not result in any significant land use
impacts, however, the applicant shall be required to conform
to the City's Affordable Housing Program.
City Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 7
10. community social Factors
Less Than significant
Impact:
The proposed project will add approximately 1,134 residents to
the City, based upon a project generation factor of 3.24
occupants per dwelling unit. This represents approximately 6
percent of the population growth anticipated by SANDAG by the
year 2010. This population increase is within the General
Plan growth forecasts, therefore, community social factor
impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitiqation:
The project is not expected to create adverse community social
factor impacts, therefore, no mitigation is deemed necessary.
11. community Tax Structure
Less Than Significant
Impact:
The project revenues will exceed expenditures in every year
and will total $878,000 to the City of Chula vista over a 15-
year period. Therefore, socioeconomic impacts associated
with the project are deemed to be less than significant.
However, if Alternative Design B is chosen, the implementation
of a public versus private street system would reduce revenues
to the City (See Page 9).
Mitiqation:
The project is not expected to have an adverse fiscal or
socioeconomic impact, therefore, mitigation is not deemed to
be necessary.
12. parks/Recreation/Open Space
Less Than significant
The project will increase parks and recreation demand by
bringing 1,134 new residents into the city. The project will,
therefore, increase the demand upon parks and recreation by a
total of 3.4 acres.
Mitiqation:
The project site will contain 0.6 acres of private
recreational areas, however, payment of in-lieu park fees for
city Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 8
increasing demand upon public parks will mitigate parks and
recreation impacts to below a level of significance.
13. PUblic services/utilities
School Impacts:
significant,
But
Mitigable
The project will introduce 105 new elementary school and high
school students into the area. Both School Districts have
been operating above permanent capacities, therefore, any
additional students will have a significant impact on school
facilities.
Mitiqation:
The Chula vista Elementary School District previously
responded to the Notice of Preparation on the EIR by stating
that annexation into a new CFD would be required (July 21,
1991) . The most recent comment letter received from the
District (May 22, 1992) states that the creation of a new CFD
will not provide adequate funding in advance or concurrent
with the need to obtain facilities. Therefore, the Elementary
School District is requesting that a financing agreement be
entered into with the applicant to ensure that funds are
available.
The applicant has met with the Chula vista Elementary School
District and is currently determining the appropriate
financing mechanism in order to address the District's
concern. Because the proposed project involves a legislative
action, mitigation measures over and above payment of state-
mandated school fees could be imposed. Mitigation of school
impacts will require further discussion with the District,
however, and additional information will be forthcoming with
the Final EIR.
The Sweetwater Union High School District also commented on
the EIR (May 28, 1992) and is requesting that a new Mello-Roos
CFD be created for this project and the otay Ranch Project.
Water Availabilitv Impacts
significant, But Mitigable
Because Southern California is in its sixth consecutive
critically dry year, new residential development has the
potential for significant water availability impacts. The
project will result in an estimated daily residential water
demand of 210,000 gallons.
City planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 9
Mitiqation:
The County Water Authority is recommending a voluntary 10
percent reduction in water consumption for new development
through the use of low flow fixtures and drought-tolerant
landscaping. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, a
will-serve letter will be required from the otay Water
District to verify that water facilities are available to
serve the project site.
14. PUblic Health
Less Than Significant
Impact:
An existing SDG&E transmission line corridor transects the
eastern project boundary containing twin 230 kV lines. Recent
studies have been conducted regarding the potential health
effects of human exposure to the electric and magnetic fields
(EMF) created by transmission lines. The current status of
the EMF issue is that there is no scientific consensus
regarding whether EMF exposure produces health impacts, and
additional studies are underway.
Mitiqation:
There are currently no City policies limiting public exposure
to EMF. Therefore, the EIR states that the applicant shall
comply with any future EMF policy adopted by the City prior to
consideration of the Final Map.
E. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Like the requirement to describe mitigation measures, the
requirement to set forth project alternatives with an EIR is
critical to CEQA's mandate to avoid significant environmental
effects, where feasible. This EIR describes a IIrange of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of
a project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project", as well as a comparative analysis of the the
merits of these alternatives. The alternatives analysis
contained in the EIR focused on alternatives which were
capable of eliminating significant project impacts or reducing
them to a level of insignficance.
City Planning commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 22, 1992
Page 10
1. No Pro;ect Alternative
No changes would occur to the existing site, which is
presently vacant. No annexation, GDP, SPA, or TSM would
occur, and the si te would remain under County
jurisdiction. If the site were developed according to
the existing land use designations and zoning, a 2.5-acre
minimum lot size would allow for approximately 44 single-
family units on the 112-acre parcel. Impacts to public
services and utilities could directly impact the City,
potentially exceeding ci ty Threshold Standards. No
increase in City revenues would occur with the no project
alternative.
2. Alternative Desiqn A
This alternative is a reduced density alternative, which
would allow the construction of 280 homes on the site on
approximately 70 acres, resulting in a lesser density of
4.0 dwelling units per acre. Open space will increase to
31.6 acres on site. Impacts to landform alteration and
aesthetics, air quality, traffic, parks/recreation/open
space, and public services and utilities would be less
with the reduced density alternative. This alternative
would generate less revenues for the City.
3. Alternative Desiqn B
This alternative is identical to the proposed project,
however the proposed street system would be public rather
than private. Project impacts would be identical to the
proposed project, except that community Tax structure
impacts will change. Project revenues would decrease
from $878,000 to $454,718, resulting in an overall
decrease of $372,325.
OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
A number of off-site alternatives were evaluated to determine
whether significant project impacts could be reduced by
developing the project in other locations. This is a standard
CEQA requirement.
sites evaluated included the Otay Ranch Alternative
Otay Mesa Alternative Site, and Eastlake vistas and
detailed discussion of each of the alternative
locations is found on Pages 183 to 196 of the DEIR.
Site, the
Woods. A
off-site
ATTACHMENT A
TE OF CALIFORNIA
PETE WilSON, Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Jul 06, 1992
@".':"~:.'"
:. ;;j
, .~
::~~~:~~-- .
!
MARYANN MILLER
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 92010
RECE\VEP
J"L ~, 1991
\J \
Subject: TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD EIR
SCH # 91071033
PLANNING
Dear MARYANN MILLER:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review.
The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding
agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion ~orm
you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have
commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your
comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to
the project's eight-digit state Clearinghouse number so that we may
respond promptly.
Please note that section 21104 of the California Public Resources
Code required that:
lOa responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or
which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support
their comments with specific documentation. These comments. are forwarded
for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more
information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency(ies).
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the state
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact
Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
--/.
A:~~
Christine Kinne
Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
l_~
'---
, . '-'''':
It. .r Cold.,nja
Business, TranspOrlatlon and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To:
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Attention: T. Loftus
1 \1. '-
Dale: July 3, 1992
File: 11.80-125
7.3
from: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Clatrlcl t 1 Planning
Subj,cl: DEIR TeleQraph Canyon Estates - SCH 9107103~
Caltrans District 11 comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DE/R)
for the 112 acre Telegraph Canyon Estates residential development to be located
immediately west of proposed State Route 125 (SR-125) are as follows:
. The proposed project will contribute to the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan (ECVTPP). The ECVTPP should take into account the additional
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) this project will contribute to State Route 125 (SR-
125). Therefore, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should show the
amount of traffic generated from the proposed project which would use SR.125.
· The FEIR should evaluate the Impact the proposed project's ADT will have on
both Interstate 805 (1.805) and State Route 54 (SR-54). ,
. Caltrans supports the incorporation of noise barriers into the development prior to
construction of future SR-125. However,the final barrier design should take into
account the traffic that will be using future S~-125. This Information will be
available within the next few months.
· Caltrans will continue to coordinate with the City regarding future SR-125 and
proposed adjacent land uses. We are expectant the City shares our concern that
proposed SR-125 will not substantially impair the 'active use park' shown in the
northeast portion of this development.
Our contact person for the above comments is Tim Vasquez, Chief, Environmenta!
Analysis Branch 'A', (619) 688-3384.
- ~;y:-/). //
____l5f4 ~j~~~_
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
'---~
I
G
The Baldwin Company
Craftsmanship in building since 1956
F?l2Cl2IVl20
flJ
July 2, 1992
Pl.A.NNIN
G
Maryann Miller
Environmental Review Coordinator
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, CA 92010
RE: DEIR 91-05; SCH #91071033
Telegraph Canyon Estates
Dear Maryann:
Enclosed are my comments on the above referenced DEIR.
comments are editorial in nature. Overall, I found the
be a complete and accurate analysis of the project.
are:
Most of my
document to
My comments
1.
Pg. S-l,
contains
facility.
proj ect Description, paragraph
two community purpose facility
2 - the proj ect
sites, not one
2. Pg. S-2, Landform Alteration/Aesthetics - to be consistent,
the text should use 840,000 CY, not 830,000.
3. Pg. S-4, Parks/Recreation/Open Space, paragraph 2 the
project is proposing to pay PAD impact fees. There will be no
credit given for private facilities on site.
4. Pg. S-4, is repeated.
5. Pg. S-5, Public Services and utilities - paragraph 2 needs to
be updated. The EastLake fire station will not be open until
July/August of 1992. Paragraph 4 - CFD formation meetings
have occurred for schools. The project proposes to form CFD
#7 with Salt Creek Ranch through the Sweetwater Union High
School District, and to form a new CFD with Salt Creek Ranch
through the Chula vista Elementary School District. Both of
these CFD I s will be in place prior to the first final map
being recorded. Paragraph 5, Police service - the PFFP for
Telegraph Canyon Estates shows a positive fiscal impact on the
city of Chula vista operations and maintenance programs.
However, the project cannot provide police officers. It can
11975 EI Camino Real' Suite 200 . San Diego. CA 92130 . (619) 259-2900
Maryann Miller
- 2 -
July 2, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------
only provide the funding to the city. The city must affirma-
tively act to provide the hiring of the police officers.
6. Pg. S-6, summary of Impact, Landform Alteration/Aesthetics -
use 840,000 CY's, not 830,000.
7. Pg. 7, General Development Plan, paragraph 2 - the project
contains two community purpose facility sites. Paragraph 5 -
the GDP reserves two parcels totaling 1.5 acres for develop-
ment as community purpose facility sites. The uses include
churches, ... .
8 . Pg. 8, Sectional Plan Area, paragraph 2 - the SPA Plan has 114
lots in Neighborhood 1, 85 lots in Neighborhood 2 and 143 lots
in Neighborhood 3 (total is 342 for SPA; 350 for GDP).
9. Pg. 12, Figure 5, Legend - same issues as above (see comment
#8.) .
lO.
Pg. 13, Tentative
last sentence "
aDen s'Dace."
Subdivision Map, paragraph 5 - add to the
will provide a trail area and/or landscaped
ll. Pg. 14, last paragraph - 840,000 CY'S, not 830,000. For
consistency refer to Neiqhborhood 1 and Neiqhborhood 3, not
Unit 1 and Unit 12.
12. Pg. 16, Figure 6 - add street names (Gotham, Creekwood,
Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes) and other descriptions (SDG&E
easement, proposed future SR-125, SDCWA easement, existing
water tank).
13. Pg. 20, Figure 7 - change "otay Ranch Proposed Residential M"
to "EastLake proposed Residential M". Change "EastLake Future
Residential FR(OS)" to "EastLake Future Hiqh School". Show
"Proposed Future SR-125 Corridor" along easterly project
boundary.
14. Pg. 30 - "this page intentionally left blank"?
15. Pg. 37, water Quality, paragraph 3 - the line "If the state
does not require developments like the proposed project to
comply with the construction permit process" is repeated.
l6. Pg. 42, top of page - the creek is an improved, naturallY
lined channel. Delete "partially" and "concrete".
17. Pgs. 53-62, Figures 4.3-5 through 4.3-9 - each of these
figures has two page numbers on it -- one on the page, one on
the fold. This creates confusion and mis-pagination through
the balance of the document.
Maryann Miller
- 3 -
July 2, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Pg. 57/58, Figure 4.3-7 on Section F - show trees outside of
120' SDCWA easement; on Section I show property line (PL) 10
feet south of the top of slope. This is a special condition
which will require coordination by City Planning and Engineer-
ing Departments.
19. Pg. 66 - "this page intentionally left blank"?
20. Pg. 88, Figure 4.7-1 - East "H" Street has been extended as a
4-lane major to the future proposed SR-125 alignment, and from
that point to Proctor Valley Road/San Miguel Road as a 6 lane
prime arterial.
2l. Pg. 114, Proposed land use, paragraph 1 - number of lots per
neighborhood -- see comment #8.
22. Pg. 119, paragraph 3 - insert "churches" as an approved
Community Purpose Facility site use.
23. Pg. 152, paragraphs 3 & 4 regarding school facilities - see
comment #5 for discussion of CFD and timing.
24. Pg. l69, Fire and EMS, paragraph 2 - see comment #5 for timing
issue.
25. Pg. 172 - Sewer, paragraph 2 - "... the proposed project will
be constructed earlY in Phase li", not late in Phase III.
26. Pg. 177, Alternatives, paragraph 1 - add to last sentence,
".. . Alternative Design B and the Offsite proiect Alterna-
tives."
27. Pg. 183, Alternative Design A - there is no conclusion as to
environmental sensitivity of this alternative. The analysis
identifies differences in Biological Resources, Transporta-
tion, Community Tax Structure, Parks/Recreation and Open
Space, and Public Health. These changes may not be "signifi-
cant". If this is accurate, the conclusion would be the
alternative is not more or less environmentally sensitive.
28. Pg. 198, first paragraph, second line - need a space between
"II" and "is"; second paragraph - delete "Residential" as the
first word in the second sentence.
29. Pg. 201, second paragraph - the reference should be to Salt
Creek Ranch, not Salt Creek I. In the third sentence, delete
" ... by dedication of park land and ...", as this project
will not dedicate park land, it will only pay PAD fees.
30. Pg. 204 - "this page intentionally left blank"?
.
Maryann Miller
- 4 -
July 2, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Pg. 206 - see comment #30.
32. Pg. 2ll, Water Quality - paragraph 3 is incomplete; see page
37 for complete text.
33. Pg. 218, Public services and utilities, Schools - should read
". .. prior to approval of final maps". Police Services - last
sentence should read "this may be financed ...". The alloca-
tion of money is a city Council prerogative. Water - change
paragraph 2 to "the project mav also ...". This is a water
district question which will be resolved in the future.
Paragraph numbering is duplicative -- renumber. Paragraph 3
should read "... plan to which mav be drip ...". This is an
alternative we are discussing with Parks and Recreation
Department.
34. Pg. 222, Mitigation Measure No. 6 - time frame should be the
same as No.5 - "prior to issuance of grading permit ...".
Mitigation Measure No. 8 - the responsibility for verification
should be the City Engineering Department.
35. Pg. 225, Mitigation Measure No.3, Water Quality - see comment
#32.
36. Pg. 226, Mitigation Measure No. la., Air Quality, Fugitive
Dust - delete and replace with "a. Dust control through
regular watering of the site during grading operations will be
required as a fugitive dust abatement measure to reduce
emissions during grading." (see pg. 75.)
37. Pg. 227, Mitigation Measure No.2, Air Quality, Project Phase
Impacts - this mitigation measure is not part of the text (see
pages 77 & 78) and does not appear to be contextual with Air
Quality analysis -- delete.
38. Pg. 228, Mitigation Measure No.1, Transportation - the first
sentence should be one mitigation measure which reads "Condi-
tion to provide the project's contribution of funds toward
roadway improvements called out in the ECVTPP." Time frame -
issuance of building permits; responsibility for verification
- Building Department.
39. Pgs. 228-229, Mitigation Measure No.1, 2, & 3, Noise, Long
Term Impacts - time frame should be "Prior to Occupancy".
Construction cannot occur prior to approval of TSM.
40. Pg. 229, Mitigation Measure No.1, Land Use - time frame
should be FM (final map).
-
Maryann Miller
- 5 -
July 2, 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Pg. 229, Mitigation Measure No.1, Parks, Recreation and Open
Space - time frame should be Final Map (PM).
42. Pg. 230, Mitigation Measure No.2, Parks, Recreation and Open
Space - delete -- it is repetitive of Mitigation Measure No.
1 on pg. 229.
43. Pg. 230, Mitigation Measure No.1, Schools - should read "Form
a new CFD or annex into an existing CFD for provision of
school facilities."
44. Pg. 230, Mitigation Measure No.2, Water - should read "the
project may also be required ...".
45. Pg. 231, Mitigation Measure No.1, Public Health - insert as
shown - "The project applicant shall comply with any future
policy reqardinq EMF adopted by...".
This concludes my comments on the DEIR for Telegraph Canyon
Estates. If there are any questions regarding my comments, please
call me at 259-2900.
Sincerely,
j/r"p [17'
ste~'en P. DO~
vice President
SPD:csb
cc: Marcia Gross, AFFINIS
Leslie Freeman, FORMA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENC'r
PETE WILSON, Go~rno,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 900802
(310) 590-5113
IY~Cl2JVl2/:)
J(;tv>
'"
','-('of.
June 23, 1992
PLAtvtVING
Ms. Maryann Miller
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Street
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Ms. Miller:
A Department biologist familiar with the project area has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
Telegraph Canyon Estates project (SCH 91071033). The 112.4 acre
site is located north of Telegraph Canyon Road and immediately
west of state Route 125 in southeastern San Diego County within
the Eastern Territories Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista.
Our comments on this project are the following:
1. Mitigation for the loss of .9 acre of wetland habitat at a
ratio of l:l is acceptable to the Department. However,
mere preservation of existing wetland habitat through
acquisi tion of off-s,i te wetland habitat cannot be regarded
as mitigation for the destruction of on-site wetland
habitat. The Department's Wetland Policy requires us to
object to projects that will result in a net loss of wetland
acreage or values due to development or project construction
activities.
We recommend that new wetland habitat be created adjacent to
a larger off-cite wetland area through conversion of .9 acre
of upland habitat. The creation and/or expansion of wetland
habitat should occur within the otay Ranch development area
prior to the destruction of on-site wetland habitat,
otherwise wetland should be replaced at a higher ratio of
3:1. Also, for such mitigation to be considered feasible,
the identification of the proposed site and acquisition of
the parcel should be completed prior to project approval and
certification of the Final EIR.
2. A revegetation and monitoring plan for the new wetland
habitat should be submitted to the Department identifying
the types of plant species to be planted, container size of
plantings, and number of each species to be used in the
revegetation program. Monitoring should be for a period
five years to assure at least 80 percent survival of the
plants at the end of the five-year period.
'"
Ms. Maryann Miller
Page Two
June 22, 1992
3. Diversion, obstruction of the natural flow, or changes in
the bed, channel, or bank of any river or stream will
require notification to the Department as called for in
Fish and Game Code sections 1601-1603. This notification
and subsequent agreement must be completed prior to
initiating any such streambed alterations.
4. Mitigation measures number 2, 3, and 4 listed on page 83 of
the draft document should be fully implemented to further
protect wetland habitat and associated wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Krishan
Lal, Environmental Specialist at the letterhead address or
telephone at (310) 590-4844.
red Worthley
egional Manager
Region 5
~
cc: Mr. Randy Botta
/
Veronica E. 8issons
813 Creekwood Way
Chula Visla, CA 91913-2386
R12C12l1 ,-_
.iliA:.! t
- "
June 21, 1992
Tel: 482-9648
f'l..ANNlfiG
(
Mary Ann Miller
Chula Vista Planning Department
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vis t8" CA 91910
Re: Proposed extension of Creekwood Way and
erection of 300 homes beyond it.
Dear Ms. Miller,
We are residents of EastLake and members in good standing of
EastLake I Community Association. Our home is on the corner of
Creekwood Way and Crosscreek Road, and is certain to be impacted
by the proposed extension of Creekwood Way and the building of
300 residences on the empty land beyond and to the rear of the
homes on Crosscreek Road.
We moved here for our retirement, baited by "Town Close and
Country Quiet", and up to now have enjoyed reasonable quiet and
reasonably clean air. Extension of the roadway on Creekwood Way
to provide access to the proposed 300 homes is obviously for the
use of automobiles, which means noise and atmospheric pollution,
the two items we had sought to avoid in our final years.
The cul-de-sac at the end of Creekwood Way has served as a
safe play area for many local children, out of the dangers of
passing vehicular traffic. There is no other playground nearby
that boasts a safety factor.
In addition to the prospect of automobile fumes and noise
resulting from the extension, we are informed that two small
parcels of land adjacent to and on each side of the extension are
to be used for "Public Facility Areas" or some such nomenclature,
meaning that they are for non-profit public use of the
surrounding residents. A church was suggested at the meeting of
June 18 at the EastLake School, for one of the parcels, and a
day-care center for the other. Perhaps that was only a 'top of
the head' suggestion, but it would be incompatible with
residential quiet if indeed a church would be considered. Or a
day-care center. A church would mean many, many cars parked all
over our streets (yet as residents we are not allowed to park our
cars on the streets). Automobile noise, exhaust fumes and
physical presence of automobiles would ruin the peace and quiet,
and clean air quality for all of us in this area.
Ii the road has to go through as the plan ?utlines, the
only good purpose for the two parcels of land is'to make grassy
swards of them - one perhaps a play area for little children and
the other for residents to enjoy as a tiny park.
Personally I would suggest that one parcel be grassed down
for use as a dog exercise area. Many of us have large or working
dogs that need more exercise off-leash than a yard or leashed
walk can provide. An environmental advantage would be that
people could enjoy walking around our lake without stepping in
piles of dog poop, which is presently the case. The area could
be restricted to dogs for only certain prescribed blocs of time,
say 6pm to 9pm daily, and more on weekends. Owners responsible
for cleaning up. The area would need to be fenced, at least on
the roadsides.
The final and perhaps most important issue militating
against the prospective 300 homes coming in is our lack of water.
It is to be expected that developers will respond to our
concerns with assurances that adequate water will be available.
However, we have been on short water rations now for almost a
year, and we can foresee a greater demand and drain on our
present resources. We are told that a much larger pipe will
replace the present water pipeline to our area - but what good is
a larger pipe if there is less water to carry?
We request that the issues as above stated be considered in
EIR evaluation.
We thank you for your courtesy and consideration.
Very.truly
If .
~~,,,;..
yours,
t:J~
Ron & Veronica E. Sissons
VES/me
LAFCO
Chairperson
Mark J. Loscher
Councilman. Cilr of
San Marco~
Members
1600 Pacific Highway' Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 . (619) 531-5400
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
T'\c:.C~/,V~O
June 12, 1992
Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator
PJ~nning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
PL4NIV/rvG
Bri.an P. Bilhn\-
Coum y Bu.ard or
Supt'T\"j..or. SUBJECf:
Dr. Lillian Keller Child~
Hdix \\all:r Di..trkt
Lint'lI Fromm
Public MemtK-r
John MacDonald
CounlY B02fd of
SuprT\'i~or,.
John Sas~o
Pn-sidt'nt. Bor~gu
~31t'r Di",riCl
Joan Shoemaker
Mayor. City' of
EI Cajon
Abbe \\'olf!Oheimer
Councilmt'mhc>r. (in- of
San Diego .
Alternate Membcrs
\'a(('rie Su.llin~s
CouncilmC'mbt'r. (in" of
San Diego .
Ernest Komik
San Miguel Consolid:lllt'd
Fi~ Prott'ction District
Leonard M. Moore
Councilman. Cin' of
Chula \'ina .
Da\'id A. Perkins
Public Member
Leon L. \X'ilIiams
Counly' Board of
Suprn"isors
. Executh'c Officer
.
Jane P. Merrill
Counsel
Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr.
Telegraph Canyon Estates Draft EIR (91-05)
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Telegraph Canyon Estates Draft EIR.
As you know, lAFCO will be a responsible agency for this project and will
utilize the EIR for the related annexation and sphere of influence
amendment. The EIR is easy to follow and well written. However, we would
like to point out that the annexation boundaries, as proposed, would create
an unincorporated island. The island area is located northwest of the
annexation site and appears to be owned by the Otay Water District.
Because lAFCO is prohibited from creating islands, our Commission will
consider modifying the annexation proposal to include the island territory
(Government Code Section 56109). In order for lAFCO to utilize the EIR
as responsible agency, the document must address this boundary modification.
The EIR must also indicate the respective county and city general plan and
zoningjprezoning designations for the territory. lAFCO requires that
annexation territory be prezoned and included in the affected city's general
plan.
If I can provide further information, please call me at 531-5400.
~
T C L D. 0
Assistant Executive Officer
MDO:ih
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chura Vista, California 91911.2896
(619) 691.55DO
Division of Planning and Facilities
May 28, 1992
RECEIVED
".1'
PLANN/lIJG
Ms. Maryann MiIler
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. MiIler:
Be: Tekgraph Canyon Road - Draft Environmental Impact Report
(D.E.I.R.-91-05) SCH. No. 9071033
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Telegraph Canyon Road Project. The document conforms to the Sweetwater Union
High School District's initial comments concerning this project. To mitigate school impacts,
the district requests that a new Mello-Roos Community Facilities District be created for this
project. Additionally, it should be tailored so that the Otay Ranch Project SPA Plans can be
annexed into it as they are approved. In other words, the tax rate and Btructure of the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the Telegraph Canyon Road Project should be
flexible enough so that it can accommodate the proposed Otay Ranch Project.
The report proposes that this financing mechanism be established prior to the issuance of
building permits, This is unacceptable, The Mello-Roos Community Facilities District
should be established prior to the recordation of the final map. Additionally, page 160 of the
document indicates that payment of fees through annexation will mitigate this project's
impact, This statement is confusing. Is this a reference to payment of developer fees or of
those fees required to establish the MeJlo-Roos Community Facilities District? This should
be clarified.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and request the city direct the
consultants to make the recommended changes and clarifications.
Sincerely,
~~
Thomas Silva
Assistant Director of Planning
TSlml
cc: Kate Shurson, Chula Vista City Schools
Karl Kadie, Municipal Finance
RECE:IVF.:D
May 21, 1992
From:
PL4NNIIV
Maryann Miller, Environmental Consultant '. (-
~. Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
To:
Re:
Draft EIR on Telegraph canyon Estates
You have requested our comments on the Draft EIR for the Telegraph
Canyon Estates project. The following comments relate mostly to
the matter set forth in the Executive Summary, but would apply with
equal force to the more full discussion of a particular topic in
the text of the Draft EIR itself.
In the Executive Summary, Project Description, Paragraph 2,
reference is made to the discretionary approvals involved in the
project. The first sentence should make reference to annexation,
a Chula vista General Plan Sphere of Influence Amendment, and
EastLake General Development Plan Amendment, EastLake sectional
Planning Area Plan Amendment, EastLake Planned Community District
Regulations Amendment and a Tentative Subdivision Map.
At the end of the third paragraph, under Project Description, the
reference should be to "amendments" rather than "an amendment" i and
the EastLake Community "Policy" Plan.
On Page S-2, Paleontological Sensitivity, the first sentence
indicates that there is a high potential for significant fossils on
site. The last sentence says that project construction will be
temporarily halted if necessary to allow recovery of fossil
resources. However, the summary statement does not indicate who
will pay for the recovery of those fossil resources and what
arrangements have been made for post-recovery maintenance and
maintenance costs, in the event significant fossils are found.
Should these provisions be part of the ErR discussion and/or the
Mitigation Monitoring Program?
On Page S-3, Paragraph 7, Transportation, the last sentence refers
to the kinds of things that would be the applicant's fair share of
area improvements, as determined by the Engineering Department
during its review of cumulative impacts of all projects in the
Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP). My
understanding is that the ECVTPP currently exists and we should be
able to look at the Plan at this time and determine what the
applicant's fair share of area transportation improvements are so
that they can be included in the analysis and Mitigation Monitoring
Program and placed as conditions on the tentative map.
There are two pages S-4. In Paragraph 9, reference is again made
to the EastLake "Policy" Plan rather than the EastLake Community
Plan.
Maryann Miller
May 21, 1992
Page Two
Paragraph 11 states that there are no significant impacts to the
Community Tax structure and no mitigation is required. The brief
statement is not clear whether a financial analysis concludes that
there will be in fact no negative financial impact on the City's
treasury, or rather that there will be but that through provisions
in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that negative impact
will be mitigated below a level of significance. This should be
clarified.
In Paragraph 12, one page, 8-4 says there are 30.2 acres (27%) to
be dedicated for parks; the other page S-4, says there are 25.9
acres (25%) to be dedicated for parks, recreational areas and open
space. Which Page S-4 is correct?
In the chart following Page S-5 presenting a summary of impacts,
the column headed "impact" is not always clear as to whether there
is a significant or insignificant impact. The fact that there is
mitigation stated in the column head "mitigation" implies that the
impact was found to be significant, but this is not necessarily the
case. The chart should be clarified so that matters of mitigation
which are truly required can be followed through on for placement
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and/or made conditions of the
tentative map or otherwise dealt with.
Thank you for this opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the
Telegraph Canyon Estates.
DRR: 19k
C:\lt\TCE EIR
RECEIVED
)i
June 2, 1992
File No. YE-055
PLANNING
TO:
Maryann Miller, Environmental Consultant
ctk
FROM:
Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director/
Engineer
Roger L. Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer~~
William A. Ullrich, Senior Civil Engineer~
Harold Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer ~
VIA:
SUBJECT: Review of Telegraph Canyon Road Subdivision Draft
Environmental Impact Report 91-05
The Engineering division has reviewed the sUbject document and
presents the following comments:
1. The Transportation Section of the subject Draft EIR is
adequate, except for the proposed traffic signal at Telegraph
Canyon Road.
The Draft EIR must indicate that the proposed traffic signal
does not meet the State Signal Warrants and, therefore, the
applicant will not receive Traffic Signal Fee credit for its
installation.
2. The seventh paragraph of page 34 indicates:
"Conversion of the site would terminate agricultural
practices. This would have the beneficial impact of
eliminating fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides associated
with the agriculture, and would improve the quality of
runoff."
Although we agree that conversion of the site would eliminate
the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides associated
with aqricultural uses, it has not been demonstrated that
urbanization will improve the quality of runoff. Urban runoff
may contain the above constituents as well as a number of
additional pollutants/contaminants.
3. Delete the last sentence and the incomplete sentence before it
on page 37. The State will require developments like the
proposed project to comply with the N.P.D.E.S. construction
permit process because more than five acres will be disturbed.
Maryann Miller
Page 2
June 2, 1992
4. On page 38, under "Mitigation/Monitoring: Drainaqe", the EIR
must indicate that payment of the Telegraph Canyon Drainage
fee is necessary.
5. Figure 4.3-5 on pages 53 and 54 shows decorative paving and a
gate at the project's entry.
Decorative paving and the gate will not be allowed in the
public right-of-way. If the applicant intends for the streets
to be private, then a second gated entrance will be required
on Gotham Street, at the northwestern portion of the project.
In addition, the developer must obtain approval from the Fire
Department for the gated entries, with respect to
configuration and access.
However, be aware that the Department of Public Works is
opposed to private streets for this development.
If the streets are made public (rather than private as
mentioned above), Section E shown on Figure 4.3-6 (pages 55
and 56) must be revised to reflect City street section
standards with respect monolithic sidewalks.
6. The first paragraph under "Sewer Service" on page 148 must be
changed in the following manner:
a. The first sentence in this paragraph must be changed to
read:
"Residences within the proposed Telegraph Canyon Estates
project will generate an estimated average sewerage flow
of 98,000 gallons per day (gpd), based upon a generation
factor of 280 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/DU)
multiplied by 350 single family dwelling units."
b. Delete the entire sentence which starts with "This 250
gpd/du is based on the results.,..".
c. Recalculate the total peak wet weather flow based on the
above changes.
7. On page 160, delete the following statement under the "Sewer
Service" section:
"As recommended by the Willdan Report, monitoring of the
project development will determine whether or not mitigation
is required. If the Telegraph Canyon Estates project is
developed while there is available existing sewer capacity,
there will be no adverse impacts and no mitigation or further
monitoring is required. However, if monitoring determines
. ,.
Maryann Miller
Page 3
June 2, 1992
inadequate sewer capacity within the larger drainage basin,
then mitigation will be required of projects outside of the
Telegraph Canyon basin and will consist of implementing the
necessary supplemental capacity improvements."
KPA/kpa
cc: Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Engineer
Zoubir Ouadah, Civil Engineer
[YE-055.002J
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS. Ph.D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A JUDD
GREG R. SANDOVAL
SUPERINTENDENT
JOHN F. VUGRIN, Ph.D.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET . CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 . 619425.9600
EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
May 19, 1992
Ir/2C12/v
12/:)
Ms. Maryann Miller
Environmental Review section
City of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
PL."!
/VIV//V
G
RE: DEIR-91-05 / FB-067 / DP-849
Telegraph Canyon project - 350 unit Subdivision
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for
Draft EIR for
Road and Future
the opportunity to review and comment
the 350 unit subdivision on Telegraph
SR 125.
on the
Canyon
The DEIR correctly finds that payment of State-authorized
developer fees alone will not mitigate the direct and
immediate impacts this project will have on elementary
facilities. Recommended mitigation is in the form of creation
of a new community facilities district (CFD) to be formed for
the otay Ranch project, within which this project will be
incorporated. However, the District identified several
problems inherent in this financing mechanism in previous
comments including: I) project impacts will be direct and
immediate, and there are no existing facilities to serve
children from this project. CFD financing does not provide
money in advance or concurrent with need to obtain facilities
for these children. provisions must be made in the financing
agreement to ensure that funds are available at the time of
need. This could be in the form of a tax on raw land, payment
of a portion of the special tax by the developer at the time
permits are issued, etc.; and 2) creation of a new CFD for a
project the magnitude of otay Ranch could be a lengthy
process. This process is in its infancy, and is not likely
to be concluded by the time this project seeks approval of
its Tentative Map. In addition to advance funds for
facilities, a binding agreement must be in place, guaranteeing
this project's participation in the new CFD.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~~~6\
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning & Facilities
KS:dp
cc: Carl Kadie
Tom Silva
John Linn
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Telegraph Canyon Road
Address Estates Plan File No.
Checker VanBibber Date OS/21/92
Type Constr. N/A
Occupancy 350 S.F.R.No. Stories N/A Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
1. Fire flow for residential (single family dwellings) is 1,000 gpm.
2. Fire hydrants are required every 500 feet in residential areas and
must be operational prior to the delivery of any combustible construction
materials.
3. Water main pressure shall not exceed 150 psi.
4. Maximum street grade shall not exceed 15%.
5. All Fire Threshold Standards shall be met.
6. Adequate access for fire apparatus shall be provided.
7. Some lots may require residential fire sprinkler systems due to access
requirements.
FPB-29
ATTACHMENT B
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m.
Monday, June 22,1992
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: Meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by
Chairperson Hall. City Staff Environmental Review Coordinator Doug Reid called roll. Present:
Commissioners Fox, Kracha and Ghougassian. Absent: Ray. [Commissioner Johnson arrived
at 6:10 p.m.]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of May 18, 1992 were not approved due to lack of
quorum present from that meeting.
1. Public Hearing on the Historic District Study PCM-88-08. Martin Miller presented a
brief outline of the study. He noted the action to be taken by the commission would be to
accept the study as presented, modify the study as presented, or take no action. Patrick
Crowley, the author of the study, was introduced to answer questions of the commission.
Mr. Crowley's slide presentation was of historic buildings. He answered questions on creation
of historic districts versus preservation of historic sites. The staff report included five
alternatives; recommendation by staff was the Historic District Study of February 1992.
Discussion was held on the economic and market value impact to the surrounding properties
and to its property owners.
The public hearing was opened by Chairperson Hall at 6:57 p.m.
Hector Diez de Bonilla, 621 Del Mar, is against the plan for redistricting. More homes from
2nd Street north to National City and 4th Avenue between I & K exceed the standards for
historical designation. Noted that those owners have restored their own homes without
government influence.
Bob Ford, owner of property at 666 and 668 Del Mar since 1940 - questioned the feasibility
of a 20 ft. alley betv'v'een I &. J Streets so that deep !cts ~re scp3:'~tcd from busir:e$s lots and
available for access through those lots.
Berta Alicia Gonzales owns a Spanish house at 629 Del Mar, where three generations were
raised in that home. Part of the land behind her property has been acquired by a business on
2nd Avenue for parking purposes. Ghougassian questioned her fear of loss of ownership to
the government. Mr. Crowley noted that historic designation would mean major changes
cannot be made without approval by site board. City acts as an agent to protect the owner
and would control the exterior of building to keep in conformance with historic district.
Paul Goya's home, 682 2nd Ave., is designated potential. He is against the study because
he doesn't want to go through government control. Sees no benefit in historical districting.
Frank Williams spoke for his daughter living at 647 Del Mar. The house was bought with
intention to build another home on the large lot. He suggested selected homes be chosen for
historical designation throughout area, but not to designate a whole block area.
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 2
Kracha asked if the residents who received the Historic District Study were within the
proposed blocked area. Notice was sent to those within 1000 feet of proposed area.
AI Belmontez, 681 Del Mar suggested the Task Force also determine which homes are in need
of repair. He also questioned who would pay for the restoration. Invasion of privacy would
be disturbed if the quiet neighborhood is open to public viewing. Some residents have made
improvements on their homes but now don't qualify for designation because of renovations.
Gabriela Bonilla, 629 Del Mar - multi-generations of families in that home. Expressed lack of
privacy with historical designation.
John Yamata, 690 Del Mar, related homeowners are already taking care of own properties.
Corinne McColl, 642 2nd Ave., lives in the historic Harris & Frank Home, which was moved
to its present location to preserve the home. She spoke in favor of the historic districting.
Janet Griffin, 647 Del Mar, takes care of her own property. She presented a list of attendees
to a meeting of residents affected by this study.
Maggie Helm, 162 Mankato, is within 1000 feet of the study. 1) not all Q!Q homes are
historical; 2) don't deny owners of control; 3) increase in traffic for an R-1 zoned
neighborhood. The difference is in their large lots; 4) worked to save orchard houses; 5) not
much is left on 3rd Ave. of historical value, although it should have been saved; 6) on Del Mar
towards J Street, homes are not much older and not a family home. Her home is not as old
as the others; 7) E & F Streets and 2nd & 3rd St. are really historical (built in the 20's and
30's) but they're small; 8) don't do an historical district as the area is not that big. Further
questions by Ms. Helm included: 1) cost to the city to maintain historical district? 2)
Restrictions to keep it historic? 3) The Money home on 2nd Ave. has a modern home in front;
how to deal with that?
Dick Schuller, 650 Del Mar, opposes the study.
Nancy Parks, lives at 124 Hi!ltop and owns the property at 220 I Street. Her home is not
historical, although it is in the study.
Frances Carvajal, 633 Del Mar, home built around 1926. Will lack privacy.
Corinne McCall noted her home was built around 1896 and still remains to be a family home.
Marjorie Wheeling Watrons, 646 Del Mar Ave., against government control. This study is
untimely introduced due to the falling economy. City should not take control.
J.L. Craig, 630 2nd Ave., wanted to know if residents will know the outcome of the vote.
Informed it would be voted on this evening.
The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Hall at 8:00 p.m.
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 3
Discussion by Commission included the following:
· Kracha - The first presentation of this study was heard over three months ago,
including the alternatives. Noted it was not presented the same way this evening as
it was then. He originally supported option #4, but now supports #3.
· Ghougassian will vote in support of the public heard tonight.
· Johnson - questioned who pays for renovations already made. Individuals are not now
required to make any changes.
· Fox - noted his support for the people and expressed concern that a plan of this
magnitude but be forced on the residents. Support option #3.
. Johnson asked Crowley to look at alternatives to preserve Chula Vista. He said that
this was just a study, not a proposal.
· Hall voiced her objection to historical districting.
. Fox - noted p. 611, the wording of major advantage not to seek consent of property
owners, and his objection to such wording. Favors option #3.
· Kracha - regardless of decision and recommendation of RCC, the issue is still going to
Planning Commission. Residents were advised to attend all public hearings held
regarding this issue.
After discussion, it was then moved and seconded (Kracha/Fox) to forward the Historical
District Study to the Planning Commission, recommending Alternative #3, no formal public
participation. Further discussion by Fox - on p. 6-14, no listing of criteria with addition of
historical site. Mr. Crowley noted Alternative #3 will undo the current duties of RCC,
however, Doug Reid corrected that voting for no formal districts would not affect RCC's
duties. Mr. Johnson supports #3 and encouraged residents to give value and significance to
their opinions. The motion was unanimously carried, 5-0.
Following the motion, Mr. Fox asked when the "$125,000 over 4 years" was to take effect.
Mr. Crowley answered the criteria for historical sites needs to first be established; money not
yet spent. It was then MSUP (Fox/Kracha) under RCC's stated duties to correct a sentence
to read, "Recommend to Planning Commission and Council that RCC establish or review its
current criteria for historical site designation", deleting the wording, "if there are any"; motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
[A five minute recess was taken.]
2. MaryAnn Miller reviewed EIR 91-05, Telegraph Canyon Estates (Baldwin). Discussion
and questions from Commission included the following:
· Ghougassian - noise impacts from 125 could be a future impact.
. Kracha - p. 5-5, proposed project will precede the Otay Ranch project. What would
happen if they do not become a part of Chula Vista? What happens to funding of
Chula Vista schools? Steve Doyle of Baldwin, 11975 EI Camino Real, clarified.
. Kracha - Ouestioned air quality, park, recreation and open space. Park fees were
collected and distributed within districts. It is noted Mello Roos is proposed for
schools only. Builder fees pay for the public services.
· Hall - Discussed fiscal impact study; profitable balance in Eastlake High School,
considering elementary schools are going in the red. Auto license fees collected.
Effect of tax money collected. Effect of traffic on 125 if it becomes a toll road. Subir
Wada, City Engineer & Traffic discussed the toll road.
Resource Conservation Commission
Page 4
· Ghougassian - air pollution and traffic.
· Hall - exclusive mobile homes needs to be rezoned by council. Storage for water and
water line to be built; until then, it's under permit allocation program from Otay Water.
Following discussion, it was MSUP (Ghougassian/Fox) to recommend certification of the EIR
91-05, motion carried unanimously, 5-0. It was further moved and seconded (Kracha/Fox)
to forward RCC's comment and concern of air pollution, cumulative unmitigated issues to the
region; motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
3. Items for the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting of June 24, 1992 were
reviewed and included the following:
1). Concerning lack of open space at Date-Palm Villas previously reviewed, Doug
Reid reported they did increase open space but did not delete number of units.
2). Consideration of SPA Amendment/Kaiser Permanent, EIR-92-01 - air quality
improvement plan to be reviewed later.
3). Eastlake SPA Plan Amendment, EIR-92-01, air quality improvement plan to be
reviewed later.
4). GPA 92-02 - already reviewed EIR. Council and all cities in San Diego approved
the plan; it is now back for implementation.
5). ZAV 92-12 - Continued to next agenda.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Ghougassian - issue on use of clean fuel on busses and other public transportation for Chula
Vista; Doug Reid reported transportation coordinator is reviewing. Other cities have done it.
Doug Reid reported that with the budget crisis there will be major cuts in RCC's budget.
Kracha - Mayor wants to start Earth Day Commission; meeting to be held July 9th.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Hall at 9:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EXPRESS SECRETARIAL SERVICES
~aA_UU~
Barbara Taylor
J~/
THE cn JF CHUU VISTA PARTY DISCLC RE STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions. on aH matte'
which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission. and all oth!
official bodies. The foHowing information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of aH persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contracto;
subcontractor, material supplier.
Baldwin Vista Associates, L.P., a California Limited Partnership
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of ai
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnershJI
interest in the partnership.
James P. Baldwin
Alfred E. Baldwin
Gregory T. Sm1th
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the name,'
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary 01
trustor of the trust.
N/A
-
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_
No~ If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Stephen P. Dcyle
Paul Gaff
Lesl1e ~'reeman
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $],000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ ]f yes. slate which
Councilmember(s ):
Person is defined as: "Any indi.'idual, firm, co.partners/Ilp, loilll "enrllre. associal/on, socw! club, jrmema/ o'/ian/ZmlUn, corporal/on,
CSI(1/C, trus~ receiver, syndicale, lhis and any oIlier COlin If', CIty and collnrry, CIty, mllllicipalllf', disrricl or olher polll/cn! ,l'/IbdmslUn.
or flIl)' other group or conrbinmion acting as (l unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
~ / '.' '1"/
Date: . ( (,. / ( !,
.
,,/il T' /;,/,
SigrnllUje of contractor/applicant
~ /)
I".J U.\:DISCLOSE,TX11
Stephen P. Dcyle, Vice President
Print or Ivpe name of contracror/ilpplicanl
1j{~'VI)'l'd: I L'JU,'J(J)
- .-----...-