HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 1998/05/06
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chula Vista, California
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday. May 6. 1998
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL MINUTES:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting of April 8, 1998
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed rhree minutes.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PCS-98-07/PCM-98-33: Request for a Tentative
Subdivision Map with 28 single family detached units and
an amendment to the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan
to allow a reduction in current development standards for a
project located on the south side of East 'J' Street between
River Ash Drive and the present terminus of Wild Oak
Drive at Paseo Ladera, within the PC Zone - Western
Pacific Housing
PCM-98-1O: Request to amend the General Development
Plan, Site Utilization Plan and Land Use Map for Rancho
Del Rey Specific Planning Area (SPA) III in order Co change
designation on subject parcel from CPF (Community
Purpose Facility) to OS-3 (Open Space) to allow the primary
use of the site to be used for a "for-profit" day care -
Rancho del Rey Investors, L.P.
Planning Commission Agenda
- 2 -
May 6, 1998
3. Consideration of dinner tickets to Beautification Awards Banquet.
4. Update on Council Items.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, May 13,
1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service to request such accommodation at least/arty-eight hours in advance for
meetings andjive days in advancefor scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Argas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619)
585-5647. California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 1
Meeting Date 5/6/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCS 98-07/PCM 98-33; Request for a Tentative
Subdivision Map with 28 single family detached units and an amendment
to the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan to allow a reduction in
current development standards for a project located on the south side of
East "J" Street between River Ash Drive and the present terminus of Wild
Oak Drive at Paseo Ladera, within the PC Zone - Western Pacific Housing.
BACKGROUND
The adoption of the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan in 1980 set forth specific land
use regulations and designations for property located within the SPA boundaries. Included in this
plan was a 10 acre parcel identified as the Bennett property. It was not included in the EI Rancho
Del Rey Master Tentative Map, in that it remained under separate ownership. In October of
1985, a subdivision map was recorded which allowed the division of 1.4 at the westerly end of
the Bennett site to be divided into nine zero lot line single family residential lots . This was known
as EI Rancho Del Rey 6E (Chula Vista Tract 85-10). On July 20, 1991, a condition of final map
approval for Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III, required the extension of East
"J' Street through the Bennett site. These improvements were subsequently made. On November
10, 1997, an application was filed to split the remaining 8.6 acres into two parcels, to be divided
at the centerline of East J Street. On December 18, 1997, the applicant for this project filed an
application requesting to subdivide the southernmost 5.25 acre parcel into twenty eight single
family lots. At the time of the writing of this report, the 8.6 acre property is still being
processed through the Engineering Department in order to create two parcels, one north and one
south of East "J" Street.
An Initial Study, IS 98-23, of possible significant environmental impacts has been conduced by
the Environmental Review Coordinator. A finding of no significant impact has been made in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Public Forums
Two separate public forums were held to discuss the proposed project with the surrounding
residents. The first of these was held on March 26, 1998. Based upon input received, an
alternative plan was presented at a follow-up forum held on April 14, 1998. A more detailed
account of the issues raised at these two forums is presented under "Public Input" in the body of
this agenda statement.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 2
Meeting Date 5/6/98
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: PCM 98-10; Request to amend the General Development
Plan, Site Utilization Plan and Land Use Map for Rancho Del Rey Specific
Planning Area (SPA) III in order to change designation on subject parcel
from CPF (Community Purpose Facility) to OS-3 (Open Space) to allow the
primary use of the site to be used for a "for-profit" day care- Rancho del
Rey Investors, L.P.
BACKGROUND
The Project Site (1.8 acres gross) is located northeast of the intersection of Paseo Ladera and
Paseo Entrada, one block north of Telegraph Canyon Road. The current CPF Land Use
Designation allows the site to be used only for "non profit" Community Purpose Facilities which
are ancillary to another permitted use (ie. church). In 1985, the site was being considered by use
as a park. Later, the City determined the site was too small and wanted a larger park site
(resulting in 10 acre Voyager Park). Following this, the site has been marketed primarily as a
church site. The applicant has since learned that the site is too small to meet the size requirements
of today's church's, which generally require a 5 acre minimum parcel size. Therefore, the
applicant is now requesting an amendment to the SPA II Plan in order to change the land use
designation from CPF to OS-3. At the present time, the applicant wishes to market the site for
a "for profit" day care facility as the primary use of the site (an allowable use in the OS-3 zone).
An Initial Study, IS 98-11, of possible significant environmental impacts has been conducted by
the Environmental Review Coordinator resulting in the preparation of an addendum to previously
certified EIR 89-10, Rancho del Rey, SPA III, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Public Forum
On March 16, 1998 a public forum was held to present to proposed project to the residents of the
area and solicit their comments. Issues discussed included: concern over hours of operation of
a proposed day care use; placing limitations on the number of children who will attend the day
care facility; traffic concerns along the collector street and other potential uses if day care facility
is not constructed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 98-10 recommending the City Council
consider the addendum prepared for the previously certified EIR for SPA III (EIR89-1O) and
Page 2, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/6//98
Resource Conservation Conunission
On March 30, 1998 the Resource Conservation Conunission considered the Negative Declaration
based on IS 98-23 and voted 5-0-0-1 not to reconunend the adoption of the Negative Declaration.
The Conunission claimed there was insufficient information regarding paleontological,
archeological resources, insufficient time to review the Habitat Conservation Plan and Biological
report, insufficient infonnation regarding the location and size of the Coastal sage scrub mitigation
site and the City of Chula Vita has utilized its allocation of Coastal sage loss (see staff response
under "Biology" section of this report).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Conunission adopt Resolution PCS 98-07 and PCM 98-33 reconunending the
City Council conditionally approve a proposed division of 5.25 acres into twenty eight single
family lots ranging in size from 5000-7500 square feet and amending the Rancher Specific Plan
to modify the required development standards affecting single family detached residential lots.
MAIN ISSUES:
1. Based upon the outcome of two public forums held with residents of the area of the, the
consensus of the residents to a desire for no project to be built on the site. However, if
that is not possible, they prefer the dual cul-de-sac alternative rather than having the thru
street design.
2. The biology on-site has been identified as a significant concern of the public attending the
series of public forums regarding this proposed project. However, staff does not concur
that this is of significant concern, as discussed in this report under "Biology".
3. Staff recommends the project be reduced by one lot and lot sizes adjusted to provide more
transition of lot sizes, especially with existing residents to the east. A resulting 27 lot
proposal with through street to East "J" Street is preferred by staff over the double cul-de-
sac design. However, both design solutions are acceptable.
Site Characteristics
The site consists of 5.25 acres located on the south side of East "J' Street. It surrounded by
existing residential developed to the west, south and east.
Page 3, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/61198
General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
General Plan
Res (3-6 DUlAC)
Res (3-6 DUlAC)
Res. (3-6 DUlAC)
Res. (3-6 DUlAC)
Res (3-6 DUlAC)
Zoning(SPA Desig)
PC (Sing. Fam. Detached)
PC (Sing. Fam. Detached)
PC (Sing. Fam. 0 Lot Line)
PC (Sing. Fam. 0 Lot Line)
PC (Sing. Fam. 0 Lot Line)
Existin~ Land Use Avg Lot Size
Vacant
Vacant
Sing. Fam. Dwelling 5000 s.f.
Sing. Fam. Dwelling 7000 s.f
Sing. Fam. Dwelling 5000 s.f
Proposal
The proposal is for a tentative subdivision map containing 28 single family detached lots. Lots will
range in size from 5000 square feet to 7000 square feet. This proposal includes extending Wild
Oak Road through to East "J" Street. Also requested is an amendment to the Ranchers Sectional
Planning Area Plan regarding minimum development standards in terms of lot sizes and building
setback requirements.
Sectional Planning Area Compatibility
The 5.25 acres in question was originally a portion of the ten acre "out parcel" which was
excluded form the EI Rancho Del Rey No.6 subdivision (1980) because the property was under
separate ownership and the owner did not want to develop at that time. Nonetheless, the property
is still governed by the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan which was adopted in 1980. This
Plan calls out the density allowed within the different portions of the plan. The "Bennett"
property, as it is identified, was treated as an "out parcel", but subject to the requirements
contained in the SPA plan. However, other than calling out the minimum lot sizes for the various
areas within the plan, there is no particular mention of density ranges. Instead, there is an overall
holding capacity for the entire land area contained within the boundaries of the SPA Plan. Thus,
according to the adopted Plan, the fact that the density of a particular 10 acres may exceed the
"permitted" density for that area (based upon lot size) is of no great concern as long as the overall
loading capacity of the sectional Planning area is observed. The holding capacity of the Ranchero
Sectional Planning area is to be limited to 415 units. There are currently 369 lots within the EI
Rancho Del Rey Development, leaving 46 remaining lots before the holding capacity of 415 units
is realized.
The SPA plan requires that development of the area contained within the proposed project
boundaries be for single family detached residences with development standards be governed
mainly by the provisions of the R-I-7 standards which includes requiring a minimum lot size of
7,000 as well as specific setbacks. The only exceptions to the R-I-7 standards described in the
SPA plan were regarding setbacks for lots adjacent to 0 lot line homes as well as lots fronting
along East "J" Street. Said lots along East "J" Street require a minimum front yard setback of
thirty-five feet. These requirements are delineated in applicable section of the SPA Plan shown
Page 4, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/6//98
on Attachment B.
Land Use Compatibility
Staff has been concerned about the proposed lot size compatibility with the existing adjacent
residential lots, especially to the east. These existing lots to the east are minimum of 7000 sq. ft.
The applicant was originally proposing a minimum 5000 lot size for the proposed subdivision.
Staff requested the applicant to transition the lot sizes to achieve greater compatibility with the
exiting residences. In essence, this would necessitate reducing the lot count from 29 to 27 lots.)
The applicant has been willing to reduce the lot count by one. Thus the current proposal is for
28 lots. Staff still recommends a reduction of one more lot in order to achieve greater
compatibility.
The transition of lot sizes with the existing lots to the west and south is of lesser concern in that
they were built under different development standards which allowed a minimum lot size of 5000
square feet and 0 lot line and said lots are not oriented to interface in such a critical manner as the
lots immediately to the east.
Proposed Amendment to Rancher Specific Plan
The R-I-7 standards that currently apply to this development requires a minimum lot size of7000
sq. ft. However, this does allow a certain percentage of lots to be less than this as long as the
overall average remains at 7000 sq. ft. . The applicant is requesting to greatly reduce the
percentage of lots which must be 7000 sq. ft. and requiring the majority of lots only needing to
maintain a minimum of 5000 square feet. Staff supports the proposed change in allowable lot sizes
as long as the positioning of the lots is such as to allow a favorable transition with the existing
surrounding lot sizes. The following table shows the break down of percentages of lot sizes
allowed under the R-I-7 standard as well as the proposal by the applicant.
R -1- 7 standards proposed standards
7000 sq. ft. minimum 70 % 5 %
6000 sq. ft. minimum 20 % 25 %
5000 sq. ft. minimum 10% 70 %
Other development standards which the applicant is requesting amending include the building
setbacks. The applicant is requesting that the sideyard setbacks be reduced from the required 10
ft and 3 ft to allowing a minimum of five feet on both sides. This will accommodate the product
type being proposed by the developer. In addition, the applicant is proposing to reduce the
required rear yard setbacks for lots fronting along East" J" Street from twenty feet to fifteen feet.
Page 5, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/6//98
This is necessary in order to accommodate the housing type proposed by the applicant. Staff
supports this setback reduction since there is already a thirty five foot front setback required for
these same lots which front along East "J" Street. In terms of side yard setbacks, staff still
prefers maintaining 10 feet and 3 feet, if possible. The applicant has indicated that under the
proposed plan with thru street, these setbacks could be maintained. However, in order to
accommodate the previously developed home plan for the recently developed alternative proposal,
it would be necessary to have setbacks of 5 and 5. While staff will support this proposal if the
dual cui de sac alternative is adopted, staff recommends that if the thru street proposal is adopted,
that the proposed amendment to the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan delete the proposal
for 5 and 5 setbacks.
Complete text of applicants proposal to modify the development standards of the Rancher Specific
Plan are shown on Attachment C.
Public Input
The applicants proposal originally requested for 29 lots with most of the lots ranging in size from
5000 to 6000 square feet, including at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision. Due to staffs
concern over the compatibility of these lot sizes with the existing surrounding development,
especially to the east, it was requested that the developer hold a public forum to discuss their
proposal. The first of these forums was hid on March 26, 1998. While there were only a few
residents in attendance, the consensus of the residents along Wild Oak Road was they did not want
the existing stub street extended through to East "J" Street. They indicated at the time of
purchase of their homes, they had been informed that the temporary cul-de-sac would always be
there. As a result of the input received from the residents, staff requested the developer to
explore the feasibility of an alternative design that might meet the concerns of the residents. As
a result, a dual cul-de-sac alternative was developed and presented to the residents at a second
public forum held on April 14, 1998. At this forum, many more residents were in attendance.
After the developer presented their preferred (now) 28 lot with a through road to East" J" Street
and the dual cul-de-sac alternative, input was received regarding biology concerns on the property.
It was indicated by the public that the biology on-site is of significant concern and that the
environmental review process that has been conducted by City staff and other outside resource
agencies was inadequate to address the biological sensitivity of the site. Following this, one of
the residents brought up a "third" alterative- no project. The result was that the consensus of the
residents now became one of wanting no development of the property. If that were not possible,
they then agree that the dual cul-de-sac alternative was preferred and in no case would they
consider accepting the extension of the road going all the way through from Wild Oak Road to
East "J" Street.
Alternate Proposal
Based upon concerns expressed by residents surrounding the project area, the applicant developed
Page 6, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/6//98
an alternative proposal in an effort to address these concerns. The plan proposes a dual cul-de-
sac. One of these will be approximately 100 feet west of the existing cul-de-sac. The other will
be at the terminus of proposed road coming off of East "J" Street. The 28 lots proposed contain
lot sizes ranging from 5200-7400 sq. ft. Along the eastern perimeter of the project, lot sizes
between 6500-7000 square feet are proposed. Staff believes this much better matches the existing
lots to the east and is supportive of this alternative without recommending any further reduction
in number lots. Nonetheless, from a planning perspective staff still prefers the original proposal
of having the road extended all the way through from its existing terminus on Wild Oak Drive to
East "J" Street. It is preferable in terms of circulation patterns and is especially impact for
services such as fire and police.
It should be noted that if the Planning Commission recommends the alternative dual cul-de-sac
proposal, the map will be conditioned to reduce the rear yard slope area of Lot 13. This could
be accomplished be a series of retaining walls no higher than 4 feet, which would then provide
up to eight additional feet of usable yard area. As currently configured, the rear yard of said Lot
is very small. Staff also recommends that the front yard of Lot 23 be increased from what is
shown on the proposed lot layout. This front yard area should be increased to thirty feet,
consistent with the proposed setback for Lot 26. This will allow for additional front yard
landscaping as well as provide for more openness to the cul-de-sac design.
Biolo~y
The biology of project site has been previously disturb and revegetated with a mix of both desert
and scrub native species. The dominant plant species are brittlebrush, common encelia,coast
goldenbush, and deer weed. Brittlebrush is native to desert areas east and northeast of coastal
San Diego County and is not a natural component of native vegetation in the coastal area. The
project site contains approximately 50 individual California sagebrush plants are widely scattered
on the site. There are other native and non-native plant species present but are not considered to
be threatened or endangered species. No coastal sage scrub habitat was found on the site.
On September, 1997 a single pair of coastal California gnatcatchers was observed foraging in the
revegetated scrub on-site during a biological survey conducted by RECON. This species is listed
as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and is considered a species of
special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game.
The applicant has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and has recently received an
incidental take permit from the USFWS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. This pennit authorizes the incidental take of one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers
in association with the proposed single family residential development of the project site, subject
to prescribed mitigation measures including off-site habitat replacement. .
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project by the Citys Environmental Review
Page 7, Item: 2
Meeting Date: 5/6//98
Coordinator, reflects the mitigation required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to
develop the property.
Street Names
Should the alternative dual cul-de-sac proposal become the adopted project it will be necessary
to name the cul-de-sac coming off of East "J" Street. The applicants preferred name is "Vista
Oak Court". This name has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Planning Department,
Fire Department, Traffic Engineering and the Chula Vista Post Office. The name for the cul-de-
sac at the terminus of Wild Oak Road will remain unchanged.
CONCLUSION
Attachments
1. Draft Minutes of Resource Conservation Committee
2. Current development standards of Ranchero Specific Plan
3. Proposed development standards of Ranchero Specific Plan
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS 98-23
(II . .jeff\ pcrpt\bennett. wpd
H :\HOME\PLANNING\JEFF\PCRPT\BENNETT. WPD
RESOLUTION NO. PCS-98-07
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO ALLOW
THE SUBDIVISION OF 5.25 ACRES INTO 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN
SIZE FROM 5000 TO 7000 SQUARE FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST "J"
STREET BETWEEN RIVER ASH DRIVE AND THE CURRENT TERMINUS OF
WILD OAK ROAD OFF OF PASEO LADERA.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was submited December 18,
1997 by Western Pacific Housing; and,
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to divide a 5.25 acre parcel into 28 single family
detached lots; and
WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed project will have
no negative impact and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-98-23) shall be issued under CEQA;
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision
map application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within 500 feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely May 6, 1998 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence, and testimony presented at
the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map PCS 98-07 in accordance with the
findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached City Council Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 6th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Patty Davis, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
m:\home\planning\jeft\pcreso\tsm 98-07
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-98-33
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHERO SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA (SPA) PLAN IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR LOTS
1 THRU 28 AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP PCS 98-07.
WHEREAS, a duly verified application, PCM 98-33, for a Miscellaneous Amendment was filed with
the Chula Vista Planning Department on March 16, 1998 by Western Pacific Housing ("Applicant") and
WHEREAS, said application requested an amendment to the development standards for 5.25 acres
designed for single family detached housing units as single family detached housing as shown on Tract Map
PCS 98-07; and
WHEREAS, said amendment will include a reduction in development standards as outlined in
Attachment "B"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said SPA amendment
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and residents within an area greater than
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised. namely May 6, 1998 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for IS 98-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from the facts presented to the Planning
Commission, the Commission has determined that the amendment to the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area
Plan is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan and that the public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practice supports the amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the
City Council adopt a Resolution to amend the development standards for that portion of the Ranchero Specific
Plan described on Exhibit "A".
And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 6th day of May 1998, by the following vote, to-wit:
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 6th day of May,. 1998, by the following Yote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
m: \home\planning\jeft\reso\gat
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF
A TENTATIVE MAP TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 5.25 ACRES INTO .
28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 5000 TO 7000 SQUARE
FEET ON THE SOUTII SIDE OF EAST "J" STREET BETWEEN RIVER ASH
DRIVE AND THE CURRENT TERMINUS OF WILD OAK ROAD OFF OF
P ASEO LADERA.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. and for the purpose of general description herein, the Project consists
of 5.25 acres located on the south side of East "J" Street between River Ash Drive and
the current terminus of Wild Oak Road off of Paseo Ladera ("Project site")
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS, on a duly verified application for a tentative map (PCS 98-07) with
respect to the Project Site was filed with the city of Chula Vista Planning Department
by Western Pacific Housing ("Applicant") on December 18, 1997; and
C. Project Description; Application for Tentative Map/SPA Amendment
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to subdivide 5.25 acres into 28 lots on the
Project Site; and
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an
Initial Study and a Habitat Conservation Plan, such initial study (IS 98-23) was
prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and
circulated for public review; and
E. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the Negative
Declaration based on IS 98- voted xxxx not to recommend adoption of the Negative
Declaration
F. Planning Commission Record on Application
Resolution No.
Page NO.2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
on May 13, 1998 and voted _ adopting Resolution PCS-98-07 and PCM 98-33
recommending that the City Council adopted Negative Declaration IS-98-23, and
approve the tentative map and amendment to the Specific Plan; and
G.
City Council Record of Application
,
WHEREAS, a duly calJed and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 26, 1998 to receive the
recommendation of the RCC and Planning COlTll1lission, and to hear public testimony
with regard to the same.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and alJ evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this Project held on May 6, 1998 and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration issued on IS-98-23.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for Bella
Nevona, Chula Vista Tract 98-07 is in conformance with the Ranchero Sectional
Planning Area Plan, as amended, and the elements of the City's General Plan, based
on the following findings:
1. Land Use
The Ranchero SecCional Planning Area has an overall holding capacity of 415 units.
Currently, there are 369 lots created within the El Rancho Del Rey Development. As
a result, the proposed 28 lots is within the limits of the overall holding capacity. In
addition, the SPA plan is being amended concurrently to allow the development
standards proposed with this Map.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed. The
public streets within the Project will be designed in accordance with the City design
Resolution No.
Page No.3
standards and! or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections
with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
,
The project is an infill project surrounded by residential development and does not
involve any public facilities that would induce any further substantial grown. The
project site does not involve any existing housing that would be displaced. The project
will provide additional housing consistent with the zoning and development patterns
of the neighborhood.
4. Conservation
The developer has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and has received an
incidental take permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to
Section lO(a)(I)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This
permit authorizes the take of 1 pair of coastal gnatcatchers in association with the
proposed single family residential development of the project site.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The developer will be required to pay the Park Acquisition and Development Fee with
the Final Map approval.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic
Element of the General Plan for this site. The main trace of the La Nacion Earthquake
fault, a potentially active fault is 'h miles to the west and would nor directly nor
indirectly impact the project site. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake
Fault Zone.
7. Safety
The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the
proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined
that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
The project is required to meet existing standards for residential development. All
dwelling units must be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and
exterior noise exposure to 65 dBA in accordance with the City's performance standards
and the noise level standards of the Uniform Building Code.
Resolution No.
Page No.4
9.
Scenic Highway
The project is not adjacent to scenic highways.
10. Bicycle Routes
.
No bicycle routes are required with the proposed development. The recently created
parcel map (Tentative Parcel Map 98-05) requires, as a condition of approval, that the
developer of said parcel map provide a bikeway on East "J" Street along project
frontage.
II. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has
considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced
those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal
and environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum
sitting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by
Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all
standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is
approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed
development.
BE IT fURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the
general and special conditions set forth herein.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITIONS CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL
Prior to approval of the final map unless otherwise indicated, the developer shall:
STREETS. RIGHTS-Of-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construct East "J" Street to Class II Collector roadway standards in accordance with City
of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. 94-202 and 94-205.
Resolution No.
Page No.5
2. Provide a Class III Bikeway within East "J" Street. Normally, Class III Bicycle Routes
share the right-most traffic lane with motor vehicles and are posted with "Bike Route"
street signs only.
3.
Enter into an agreement with the Otay Water District for water facility improvements
extending to and connecting with the existing water mains within East" J" Street at the
easterly subdivision boundary and at River Ash Drive. Install new domestic water service.
,
4. Design and construct all public improvements in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Submit improvement plans detailing horizontal
and vertical alignment of said public improvements for the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
5. Said public improvements shall include, but are not limited to, asphalt concrete pavement,
crushed aggregate base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities,
drainage facilities, street lights and signs, street knuckles and fire hydrants.
6. Guarantee, prior to approval of the Final Map, the construction/installation of all
improvements within the subdivision (streets, sewer, drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed
necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision in accordance with City standards.
7. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street name(s) from the Director of
Planning and the City Engineer. SCreet name(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Commission. Dedicate to public use rights-of-way for all streets shown on the
Tentative Map within the subdivision. Approved street name(s) shall be shown on the
Final Map.
8. Relocate the existing street light on East" J" Street near the westerly subdivision boundary
to the north side of East "J" Street at its intersection with the proposed residential street
within the subdivision. All street light locations shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
9. Construct sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed "Americans
with Disabilities Act" standards.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Map, present written verification to the City Engineer from
Otay Water Districc that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long
term water storage facilities.
11. The proposed residential street within the subdivision which intersects East" J" Street must
meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards.
Resolution No.
Page No.6
GRADING Al'.'D DRAINAGE
12. Submit for approval by the City Engineer, a detailed grading plan in accordance wjth the
Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended.
13. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans.
,
14. Prior to approval of the grading plan and the issuance of a grading permit, submit a soils!
geologic report for review by the City Engineer.
15. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations
for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of
downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. Private drainage systems within 1, 2,
and 3 shall be designed to convey 100-year design stonn flows under open channel flow
conditions.
16. Stonn drains shall be designed in accordance with the Subdivision Manual and Chula Vista
Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended.
17. Provide improved access to all stonn drain cleanouts, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
18. Design stonn drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to
minimize non .point source pollution to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Subsequent
owners of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be infonned of, and provided a copy of, the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 regarding non-stonn water discharge prohibitions,
including, but not limited to, the discharge of oil, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, wash
waters, and chlorinated swimming pool water.
19. Lot lines shall be located at the tops of slopes, except as approved by the City Engineer.
Lots shall be graded to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Runoff!
drainage shall not be pennitted to flow over slopes.
20. Ten feet-wide private stonn drain easements shall be granted on the Final Map for the
benefit of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in confonnance with the requirements of Chula Vista Municipal
Code Section 18.20.150. Concrete-lined drainage ditches shall not be constructed over
private stonn drain pipes.
21. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown
on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning
Director.
Resolution No.
Page No.7
22. Prior to approval of Final Map, the developer shall submit a list of proposed lots
indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a ti-ansition between the two
situations.
23. The inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope shall not be steeper than 2: 1
(two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defmed.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both
geological and soil properties. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and
one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5: 1) contingent upon:
a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering
geologist containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and
analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and
engineering geologist to certify that in their professional opinion, the
underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength
characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a
danger to persons or property, and
b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and
irrigation system.
c. A "Minor Slope" is defmed as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical
dimension in either cut or fill, between single family lots and not parallel
to any roadway.
AGREEMENTS
24. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree that the City may withhold
building pennits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan have been reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
25. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to comply with that version
of the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building pennit is issued
26. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to install fire hydrants as
required by the City Fire Marshall. Further, in compliance with Chula Vista Municipal
Resolution No.
Page No.8
Code Section 15.36.030, the developer shall agree to install, test and operate all fire
hydrants prior to the delivery of any combustible materia]s.
27. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to prepare, submit and obtain
approval by the Director of Planning of a construction phasing plan.
28.. Prior to approval of the Fina] Map, the developer shall agree to comply with all applicab]e
sections of the Chula Vista Municipa] Code.
29. Prior to appro va] of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void
or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City
Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this
subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly
notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that
the City fully cooperates in the defense.
30. Prior to approval of the Fina] Map, the developer shall agree to hold the City harmless
from any ]iability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this
project.
31. Prior to approval of the Fina] Map, the developer shall agree to ensure that all franchised
cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict
access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and
remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are
in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have
been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
32. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall provide security to guarantee the
construction/installation of full public street improvements for East <<J" Street and the
residential street within the subdivision.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSME]'I,'TS
33. Prior to approval of the Final Map, agree to an increase of assessments imposed pursuant
to Open Space District No. 10 and agree to complete all requirements of Proposition 218
as it relates to imposing an increase for such assessments.
34. Prior to approval of the Fina] Map, submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure
fonns for the approval of the City Engineer.
Resolution No.
Page No.9
35. The developer shall be responsible for installation of street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones shall be included
where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewa~ and
rights-of-way.
EASEMENTS
.
36. Grant on the Final Map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula Vista for
construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities within Lot 4.
37. Grant on the Final Map a 5.5 feet-wide street tree planting and maintenance easement
along all public streets within the subdivision to the City. Said easement shall extend from
the property line and shall contain no slope steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical ratio),
unless otherwise shown on the Tentative Map.
MISCELLANEOUS
38. Submit copies of Final Maps, improvement plans and grading plans in a digital format
such as (DXF) graphic me prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide Computer Aided
Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations
and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal
in duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks. Submit as-built improvement and grading
plans in digital format. Provide security to guarantee the ultimate submittal of
improvements and grading digital files. Update electronic files after any construction pen
and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and resubmit to the City.
39. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI (1983).
40. Submit a revised map for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator reducing the
current number of lots from 28 to 27 in order to show a greater transitiOlring of lot sizes
between the larger existing lots east of the project, and the smaller existing lots to the south
and west of the project.
41. Submit a comprehensive fencing plan to the Planning Department for review and approval by
the Director of Planning.
42. Submit a comprehensive street tree plan to the Planning Department for review and approval
by the Director of Planning.
43. Submit to the Director of Planning a copy of the proposed CC&R' s for the project for review
an approval by the Director of Planning. Said CC&R's shall include: a) prohibition of external
Resolution No.
Page No.lO
television antennas; b) prohibition against garage conversions and c) require a gate be installed
for any fence constructed at the top of slope in the rear of Lots 1-3 in order to provide access
to the rear of the property.
44. Obtain for submittal to the City, from all corresponding school districts a "will serve" letter
or make other arrangements approved by the school district.
45. . Comply with all mitigation measures as outlined in the mitigation monitoring program iussed
for Negative Declaration prepared for IS 98-23, incorporated herein by reference.
46. Submit site plan and architectural elevations of the proposed single family dwelling units to
the Planning Department for review and approval to ensure the product will conform to all the
required development standards and be architecturally compatible with the surrounding
development
47. Pay applicable park fees per PDO (Parkland Dedication Ordinance)
CODE REOUlREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval:
48. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
49. All utilities serving the subject subdivision and existing utilities located within or adjacent
to the subdivision shall be underground in accordance with City Code requirements.
Further, all new utilities serving the subdivision shall be underground prior to the issuance
of Building Permits.
50. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
d. SR-125 impact fee.
e. Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin Fee (Prior to the approval of the Final Map).
f. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Fee.
51. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations,
including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all
Resolution No.
Page No.ll
required testing and documentation to demonstration said compliance as required by the
City Engineer.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenns, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditons fail to be implemented
and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify
all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building
permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditons or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that nay one or more terms, provisions, or conditons are detennined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall
be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
E ~J"" B rr
"~
,-
.I
\
\
/ \
'>~ \
\ ""
/ ""1
\ '"
'\~~/,
/ /\~y
~~ , '.
~~~\O~
\~~ 0-
~"'- "s~'2 /1
\\ ,. ,/ ,/ ,
:\ ~ 'I I'
"f-S ,.' "I
.... ,/ ,>
'/ /.'
/
./
/
, /
1/1
, /
I
/,
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
'I
;...--
,
I
/
'--
.
~\
/ /
./ "",-
. I
....r'
/
/
\~
I '------;-
\ 1
II ~ !
i 1
\
/
t1/i
\~
;'~
\ ~--~-/
iH
1'----,
I. , I
, I~d ~
\ /}/ U
,-,-,1 I
C/;) ;
.
~
,
L-
.....~I
,
/
/
/
,
\ \
/ \%
I~\~\
/ .. .-'. "P \
I , \,
/r:- '0 ~
~~\\,'
/ \ \ \ \, \
?/'\\\'. \ '\:
/ \ .I \' ", \ \
.I " '\ \'
. ,
" . \
\ \ \ \,
\ \ '-.
\ ..
\ \
/' /\
,/
I. .
~---....:.
Ii
, '--.(
/ j
, I
I I
~
r-----
I
r:-
I .
, ,
I
...
...
ca
'"
'"
I-
-
ca
-
:I:
><
W
~
~.
-.i~i?d- --
f'
Q/
~!
',i
~/ ,:
3',' ,
<51 .
!
fl'
+
'.
'.,
..v"'o -
(J.lH
F
-- ---..."
~;,
"
crJ'
,~
~
II!
.,
,
';-11
,
"
,
,
,
, r
i,'"
t :"
!! "
'1
i-,I
'"
r
--11
--:;."
i
G1
, ,
, ,
, ,
,[ 'y 'y
.,,-
'"
II
II
'II "
II . 't
~.
I
Ii
I
,
I
'_____ I.
~~~~:- ~
.~'-
'------.-------1___
i
J;"
, :'1
I .
- -- :
L_
1:-'
"
~- ~~ ----=---.c---=----.,,-_ 3AlHO
----ii:'------'
Hsr
H3AIH
(
--- ----~-
~
._.~
'1
:(
-----------
"-
'"
~~
~Oj
;S~
~'-
<.>"
~
" ~ ,
i~\ j
~
'i ~ ~ --
,.
';,
~
,
,
i -
~ -
"
,
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I,
I
,
~
!
.
i "
,~ ~,:
gfi
,
,
"
i
It
,I
"
L
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE RANCHERO SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN IN ORDER TO
CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR LOTS 1 THRU 28 AS SHOWN ON TRACT
MAP PCS 98-07.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the properties which are the subject matter of this Resolution are
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A and B, ("Project Site")
B. Project; Application for Discrecionary Approval
Whereas, on March 16, 1998, Western Pacific Housing ("Applicant") filed an application for
an amendment to the Ranchero Specific Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the SPA PLAN consist of changes to the development
standards applicable to single family detached lots; and
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
D. Planning Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on
May 6, 1998 and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based
upon the findings listed below; and,
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista on May 26, 1998 on the Project, received the recommendations of the
Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to the same.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing
on this project held on May 6, 1998, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record on this proceeding.
III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined
that the Project required the preparation of an Initial Study and a Habitat Conservation Plan, such inital
study (IS 98-23) was prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
preprared and circulated for public review; and
IV. SPA FINDINGS
A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN.
The reduction of minimum lot sizes proposed under this SPA amendment will allow for
transitioning of lots sizes in order to acheive greater compatibility with existing surrounding
residential development. In addition, the EI Rancho del Rey Specific Plan does not specificy
actual development standards, other than calling out specific density ranges.
B. THE RANCHERO SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL
PROMOTE THE SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA.
The proposed amendment to the development standards applicable to TSM 98-07 will allow
for the transitioning of lot sizes in order to achieve compatibility with the existing surrounding
residential development. There are existing lots with minimum lot size of 5000 sq. ft. to the
west and south and with minimum lot size of 7000 sq. ft. to the east.
C. THE RANCHERO SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT,
CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The proposed amendment to the development standards applicable to TSM 98-07 will allow
for the transitioning of lot sizes in order to achieve compatibility with the existing surrounding
residential development. There are existing lots with minimum lot size of 5000 sq. ft. to the
west and south and with minimum lot size of 7000 sq. ft. to the east.
V. COUNCIL DIRECTION
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby directs that the development standards for single
family detached lots within the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area be amended, as shown on Exhibit
"C",
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION
This amendment to the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan shall take effect and be in full force
the thirtieth day from its adoption.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
EXHIBIT "f.-~
c-
~/l!
/' :
/
!
/
,~
/ ,/
/ I,.
~
\ "
'--
"-
.....
/',
'--
!
;
'. I
,
!
I
/ ~~ ",. '\
PJ'OJ~ \~d
. ATlON /-1?~
\
\
-/
/
\/
i
I I
I-----
I !
I
I , i---"
I
I I I
I
I
i
"'1
I
/
/' I. \ \. \ ~\
I~~
/' \~\
I~: . .(/\~-i,
, :;..,-'
I ( y,
j/ \ . \
I \ \ \ \ I
11\ / \ \ " \ \ \ '; \
/ I I \ 1\
I ", \ \ \ '" \ \ !:
" \ \ \ I
\ \' '
\
,
\
'.
I
I
'-
----.:..
/
/
I
/
\ \ \
\ \ .
\ \ \
I, i
,
/
(T
~
EXH'B'T "E'~
~':\.
~
~~
'S!,..
~~
::$"" "
~"
~ ~
.\~
,
,
!JU
.,
,.
,-
',J
~
,
,
~ I
, I
; 1
It
,
..\
iii
,~! '
c,.!
,
,
!
"I,
".\ ~i ;
'f
,
"I
1t1,
~:
~ I
I
"'+ i .<}
II " 'e.
I
,,-,-?"'. [
i
\
.
,
\
\
1- ~
\ '
~-L-1~
\/~8'
____ ~'>I
J.:JYlrl . - -~~O '. - .*i"
<13If '
, :
i
I
I
..._L__
~
"
,.,
~-~ -
>;'
,<',
"~I
,
o
,
I
~
I
-,
~') _,:: 1'---
_........;..~~_ .) I
I ~
"'
.,
'"
c: ,~
'[f
~
1:-----
\ " ..
k,
I ;~:
If
\
\
,
"
~
.
"
"
"
i'C\
--:;.
i=~
,-~
J
.
.~
"
"
~
.
"
\~,'-
,
__ _.--r-
- ~. \,--
. ,.l
"L~r
.,...
If
l~~~
""
)'I
,
\:, '"', ':~,
'-,
i I
.;.;
I
N
iI' .........
I [
I
~
I
.~ I
I
I
I
I
I
'10. .f
I .'
I
~ ;,
~:-
" ."
",I< >:
- .,...
r~.----f
~ :-,-
"j '.: ?~ ~
_1-
"I f~~r ~
:\\j
~
,
"-
,-.J
,
I I
r'
I
I
[
I
I
I
I
1<,
I
" I
I
I.
Ii
I.
I"~ .l~_ '
("it ...~.".
.--:---
-
1--./
i
!~~~
'-
~~~ ~ O-T-:~'
y----~--,,-~...
-1
'=' .==---~__f-
\ 'r- I
i
I
i
'_1\' s!'W I
.,
t,."
"'''-r
l
~. ,-'-
"i
,!i
i i,"\/(
, ~.
__3/)iNfJ - -
_ __ _HS'I
i
i
--,...- \
:'r---":J.1IIf~ .~-----:~
,\1, / -
(~'"
i
t;'~,.
_.~
Bb~CHEROSECTIONALPL~GAr~APLAN
ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ST ANL. .RDS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: DETACHED
All lots proposed for detached single family residences shall adbere to the following standards:
1. Within the RaIJchero Sectional Planning Area:
a. A maximum of 70 percent of the total lots may have a
nUIrimum lot Width of 50 feet, miniroum lot area of 5000
square feet.
b. A maximum of 25 percent of the total lots may have a
minimum lot width of 50 feet, miniroum lot area of 6000
square feet.
c. A minimum of 5 percent of the total lots will have a
minimum lot width of 50 feet, minimum lot area of 7000
square feet.
2. The sideyards will be subject to a minimum of 5 feet setback
from each side of the home to the property line.
3. The following yard areas will be maintained along East "J'
Street:
a. For lots fronting on that portion of "f' Street having
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a minimum front yard of 35
feet.
b. For lots fronting on that portion of 'T' Street having a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a back yard minim11IIl
average of 15 feet.
c. For lots siding on that portion of "J" Street having a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a minimum side yard of 20
feet.
4. In addition, lots abutting the side lot lines oflots to be developed
for zero lot line units may have a minimum lot width of 58 feet,
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.
EXHIBIT "c"
RESOLUTION NO.
(ALT)
A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF . .
A TENTATIVE MAP TO ALLOW TIIE SUBDIVISION OF 5.25 ACRES INTO
28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 5000 TO 7000 SQUARE
FEET ON TIIE SOUTH OF EAST "J" STREET BETWEEN RIVER ASH
DRIVE AND THE CURRENT TERMINUS OF WILD OAK ROAD OFF OF
PASEO LADERA.
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, and for the purpose of general descripcion herein, the Project consists
of 5.25 acres located on the south side of East "J" Street between River Ash Drive and
the current terminus of Wild Oak Road off of Paseo Ladera ("Project site")
B. Project Applicant
WHEREAS. on a duly verified application for a tentative map (PCS 98-07) with
respect to the Project Site was filed with the city of Chula Vista Planning Department
by Western Pacific Housing ("Applicant") on December 18, 1998; and
C. Project Description; Application for TentaCive Map/SPA Amendment
WHEREAS, Applicant requests permission to subdivide 5.25 acres into 28 lots on the
Project Site; and
D. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Environmental
Review Coordinator has determined that the Project requires the preparation of an
Initial Study and a Habitat Conservation Plan, such initial study (IS 98-23) was
prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and
circulated for public review; and
E. Resource Conservation Commission Record on Application
WHEREAS, the Resource Conservation Commission considered the Negative
Declaration based on IS 98- voted xxxx not to recommend adoption of the Negative
Declaration
F. Planning Commission Record on Application
Resolution No._
Page No.2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised p\jblic hearing on the Project
on May 13, 1998 and voted _ adopting Resolution PCS-98-07 and PCM 98-33
recommending that the City Council adopted Negative Declaration IS-98-23, and
approve the tentative map and amendment to the Specific Plan; and
G. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 26, 1998 Co receive the
recommendation of the RCC and Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony
with regard to the same.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission
at their public hearing on this Project held on May 6, 1998 and the minutes and resolution
resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
III. COMPUANCE WITH CEQA
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated
Negative Declaration issued on IS-98-23.
IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for Bella
Nevona, Chula Vista Tract 98-07 is in conformance with the Ranchero Sectional
Planning Area Plan, as amended, and the elements of the City's General Plan, based
on the following findings:
1. Land Use
The Ranchero Sectional Planning Area has an overall holding capacity of 415 units.
Currently, there are 369 lots created within the EI Rancho Del Rey Development. As
a result, the proposed 28 lots is within the limits of the overall holding capacity. In
addition, the SPA plan is being amended concurrently to allow the development
standards proposed with this Map.
2. Circulation
All of the on-site streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed. The
public streets within the Project will be designed in accordance with the City design
Resolution No.
Page No.3
standards and/or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections
with adjacent streets.
3. Housing
.
The project is an infill project surrounded by residential development and does not
involve any public facilities that would induce any further substantial grown. The
project site does not involve any existing housing that would be displaced. The project
will provide additional housing consistent with the zoning and development patterns
of the neighborhood.
4. Conservation
The developer has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and has received an
incidental take pennit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to
Section lO(a)(I)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This
pennit authorizes the take of 1 pair of coastal gnatcatchers in association with the
proposed single family residential development of the project site.
5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space
The developer will be required to pay the Park Acquisition and Development Fee with
the Final Map approval.
6. Seismic Safety
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic
Element of the General Plan for this site. The main trace of the La Nacion Earthquake
fault, a potentially active fault is Ih miles to the west and would nor directly nor
indirectly impact the project site. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake
Fault Zone.
7. Safety
The Fire Deparnnent and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the
proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined
that the proposal meets the City Threshold Standards for emergency services.
8. Noise
The project is required to meet existing standards for residential development. All
dwelling units must be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA and
exterior noise exposure to 65 dBA in accordance with the City's performance standards
and the noise level standards of the Uniform Building Code.
Resolution No._ Page No.4
9. Scenic Highway
The project is not adjacent to scenic highways.
10. Bicycle Routes
.
No bicycle routes are required with the proposed development. The recently created
parcel map (Tentative Parcel Map 98-05) requires, as a condition of approval, that the
developer of said parcel map provide a bikeway on East "J" Street along project
frontage.
11. Public Buildings
No public buildings are proposed on the project site.
B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has
considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced
those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal
and environmental resources.
C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum
sitting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by
Government Code Section 66473.1.
D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all
standards established by the City for such projects.
E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is
approximately proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed
development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the
general and special conditions set forth herein.
V. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Prior to approval of the final map unless otherwise indicated, the developer shall:
STREETS. RIGHTS-OF-WAY. AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construct East "J" Street to Class II Collector roadway standards in accordance with City
of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. 94-202 and 94-205.
Resolution No._
Page No.5
2. Provide a Class III Bikeway within East "J" Street. Normally, Class III Bicycle Routes
share the right-most traffic lane with motor vehicles and are posted with "Bike Route~
street signs only.
3. Enter into an agreement with the Gtay Water District for water facility improvements
extending to and connecting with the existing water mains within East "J" Street at the
, easterly subdivision boundary and at River Ash Drive. Install new domestic water service.
4. Design and construct all public improvements in accordance with Chula Vista Design
Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the chula Vista Subdivision Manual, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Submit improvement plans detailing horizontal
and vertical alignment of said public improvements for the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
5. Said public improvements shall include, but are not limited to, asphalt concrete pavement,
crushed aggregate base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities,
drainage facilities, street lights and signs, street knuckles and fire hydrants.
6. Guarantee, prior to approval of the Final Map, the construction/installation of all
improvements within the subdivision (streets, sewer, drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed
necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision in accordance with City standards.
7. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street name(s) from the Director of
Planning and the City Engineer. Street name(s) shall be subject to approval by the
Planning Commission. Dedicate to public use rights-of-way for all streets shown on the
Tentative Map within the subdivision. Approved street name(s) shall be shown on the
Final Map.
8. Relocate the existing street light on East "J" Street near the westerly subdivision boundary
to the north side of East" J" Street at its intersection with the proposed residential street
within the subdivision. Add an additional street light at property line 4/5. All street light
locations shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
9. Construct sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed "Americans
with Disabilities Act" standards.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Map, present written verification to the City Engineer from
Gtay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long
term water storage facilities.
11. The proposed residential street within the subdivision which intersects East "J~ Street must
meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards.
Resolution No.
Page No.6
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
12. Submit for approval by the City Engineer, a detailed grading plan in accordance with the
Chula Vista Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended.
13. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans.
14. Prior to approval of the grading plan and the issuance of a grading pennit, submit a soils/
geologic report for review by the City Engineer.
15. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations
for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of
downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. Private drainage systems within 1, 2,
and 3 shall be designed to convey lOO-year design storm flows under open channel flow
conditions.
16. Storm drains shall be designed in accordance with the Subdivision Manual and Chula Vista
Grading Ordinance No. 1797, as amended.
17. Provide improved access to all storm drain cleanouts, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
18. Design storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to
minimize non-point source pollution to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Subsequent
owners of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be informed of, and provided a copy of, the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 regarding non-storm water discharge prohibitions,
including, but not limited to, the discharge of oil, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, wash
waters, and chlorinated swimming pool water.
19. Lot lines shall be located at the tops of slopes, except as approved by the City Engineer.
. Lots shall be graded to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Runoff!
drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes.
20. Ten feet-wide private storm drain easements shall be granted on the Final Map for the
benefit of Lots 1, 2, and 3 in conformance with the requirements of chula Vista Municipal
Code Section 18.20.150. Concrete-lined drainage ditches shall not be constructed over
private storm drain pipes.
21. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown
on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning
Director.
Resolution No.
Page No.7
22. Prior to approval of Final Map, the developer shall submit a list of proposed lots
indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut, or a transition between the two
situations.
23. The inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope shall not be steeper than 2:1
(two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defmed.
All constructed minor slopes shall be designed for proper stability considering both
geological and soil properties. A minor sJope may be constructed no steeper than one and
one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5:1) contingent upon:
a. Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering
geologist containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and
analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and
engineering geologist to certify that in their professional opinion, the
underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength
characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a
danger to persons or property, and
b. The installation of an approved special slope planting program and
irrigation system.
c. A "Minor Slope" is defmed as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical
dimension in either cut or fill, between single family lots and not parallel
to any roadway.
AGREEMENTS
24. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree that the City may withhold
building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur:
a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan have been reached.
b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the
adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management
Ordinance.
25. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to comply with that version
of the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is issued
26. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to install fire hydrants as
required by the City Fire Marshall. Further, in compliance with Chula Vista Municipal
Resolution No._ Page No.8
Code Section 15.36.030, the developer shall agree to install, test and operate all fire
hydrants prior to the delivery of any combustible materials.
27. Prior to approval of the Pinal Map, the developer shall agree to prepare, submit and obtain
approval by the Director of Planning of a construction phasing plan.
28. , Prior to approval of the Pinal Map, the developer shall agree to comply with all applicable
sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
29. Prior to approval of the Pinal Map, the developer shall agree to defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void
or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City
Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this
subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly
notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that
the City fully cooperates in the defense.
30. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to hold the City harmless
from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this
project.
31. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall agree to ensure that all franchised
cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place
conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict
access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and
remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are
in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures
regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have
been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista.
32. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall provide security to guarantee the
construction/installation of full public street improvements for East" J" Street and the
residential street within the subdivision.
OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS
33. Prior to approval of the Pinal Map, agree to an increase of assessments imposed pursuant
to Open Space District No. 10 and agree to complete all requirements of Proposition 218
as it relates to imposing an increase for such assessments.
34. Prior to approval of the Final Map, submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure
forms for the approval of the City Engineer.
Resolution No.
Page NO.9
35. The developer shall be responsible for installation of street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones shall be included
where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewalks and
rights-of-way.
EASEMENTS
36. Grant on the Final Map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula Vista for
construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities within Lots 4, 11 & 24.
37. Grant on the Final Map a 5.5 feet-wide street tree planting and maintenance easement
along all public streets within the subdivision to the City. Said easement shall extend from
the property line and shall contain no slope steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical ratio),
unless otherwise shown on the Tentative Map.
MISCELLANEOUS
38. Submit copies of Final Maps, improvement plans and grading plans in a digital format
such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide Computer Aided
Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations
and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal
in duplicate on 5-1/4" HD or 3-1/2" disks. Submit as-built improvement and grading
plans in digital format. Provide security to guarantee the ultimate submittal of
improvements and grading digital files. Update electronic files after any construction pen
and ink changes to the grading or improvement plans and resubmit to the City.
39. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI (1983).
40. In order to provide more usable area, the rear yard of Lot 13 shall be increased by up to
eight feet through the use of retaining walls no higher than four feet in height.
41. In order for consistency with the front yard of Lot 26, and to provide more openness to
the cul-de-sac design, the front yard setback for Lot 23 shall be thirty feet from the front
property line.
42. Submit a comprehensive fencing plan to the Planning Department for review and approval
by the Director of Planning.
43. Submit a comprehensive street tree plan to the Planning Department for review and
approval by the Director of Planning.
44. Submit to the Director of Planning a copy of the proposed CC & R's for the project for
review and approval by the Director of Planning. Said CC & R's shall include
Resolution No.
Page No.lO
a)prohibition of external television antennas; b) prohibition againsc garage conversions and
c) require a gate be installed for any fence constructed at the top of slope in the rear of
Lots 1-3 in order to provide access to the rear of the property.
45. Obtain for submittal to the City, from all corresponding school districts, a "will serve"
letter or make other arrangements approved by the school districts.
,
46. Comply with all mitigation measures as outlined in the mitigation monitoring program
issued for Negative Declaration prepared for IS 98-23, incorporated herein by reference.
47. Submit site plan and architectural elevations of the proposed single family dwelling units
to the Planning Department for review and approval to ensure the product will conform
to all the required development standards and be architecturally compatible with the
surrounding development.
48. Pay applicable park fees per PDO (park Dedication Ordinance)
CODE REOUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Chula Vista Municipal Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval:
49. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of
the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual.
50. All utilities serving the subject subdivision and existing utilities located within or adjacent
to the subdivision shall be underground in accordance with City Code requirements.
Further, all new utilities serving the subdivision shall be underground prior to the issuance
of Building Permits.
51. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy:
a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees.
b. Signal Participation Fees.
c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees.
d. SR-125 impact fee.
e. Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin Fee (Prior to the approval of the Final Map).
f. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Fee.
52. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations,
including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all
required testing and documentation to demonstration said compliance as required by the
City Engineer.
Resolution No.
Page No. 11
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their tenns, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be implemented
and maintained according to their tenns, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify
all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building
pennits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the
authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are
gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
the enforceability of each and every tenn, provision and condition herein stated; and that
in the event that nay one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are detennined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall
be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
Presented by
Robert Leiter
Director of Planning
John M. Kaheny
City Attorney
/ / '
j//
f
/
/
/
-----,
,
,
,.
...-' --,
/
/
I
I,
I
,',
I,
,!/ ,
~ / \ \
;' \/ \ \\ \ "..
.I " "\ \
" \
" .
/
!
I
/
I
I
/
, I
i /
I I
/ /
,
,
/
/
I
.I
/
(/
/
\
\
\ "
, ,
\ \
"
',.\
E ~J"" B rT
-
/
/
I \ /
~" V
/\ ~, \
/ ~l'k-r /------\,-
PaoJ~, \
~'f\ON \ ,,\, .
:\t\c.t.\ , \ ", \.
,~s I 'I \ ~
:\ "J ,/' ,/ \ ~ 'f,:\)
t,\>.S 'i 't1\\)()~ \
\
\,
I
/
/
, \ I
\ \ I
\ \ \
\
1
I
!
I",
"
/Y'
~7
!-' -
./
\/
'-'"
"---
,
\
I
i I
\ I i
! I i
; :
I I
c--......
,
!
-
,
\
\
r
!-..
I
i
r--
I
\
'--..1..
---,
r--
IT
I '
I I
~
"' ~
"'
m
'" 'tq:
'"
I- ......
~
-
m i::::
-
J: ~
>< ~
w I-;;:
~
~--
~r
,II
I ,',' I
,I /i I
" " b,
/
1
I
1
I
I I
I II
I ' I
t
I
I
I, I
I I 1
:1 i
I
r
I
I
1
I
I
I .
" I ~"")
,',' j
Ii /
II I
1 ,"-i
, ,
1 '
',,I I
,'" I
./c:
I,
"
1
1 t;
1 ;:s
I
I
I'
I I
1,1
I,
I I
II
II
II
I I
I I
J..,i
:".,,}.- -
-~---i'4------,- --~~--=----~;...-' -- :iAi~-'-: HsF
J:J~~i -
(---
~~
~
"#-. '
"''''
"
, ~ i
I " .
. ~
I 0 !
r ~ .
i
I
, I
, "
I.!
, I~
, I'
; ,g
i ~;
Ilj
~! !:
~~ ~:2 ::~~ ~~"_~, ~~~; ~;;;~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~
~ <>.."" <<,.,"', ..
i;i !'a~i1'1! ii!!' 'i!~i~!!1
~ -~~~ ~~~..~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~
~
q.lH
,
',/
i ,.
,I "
~I' ,
~I
"I'
i'
J, "
,,:
~i
, "~'I
" ~ ----:.'U ",I
t;il'''~,// ~ ",' Ii '~' ;1~@l ~!,:
L!Ji ~.I ~ ~ l;J j
! -S:I) ',';T'I]l( I ,1 GiJ~)
&' " ~~~t"i'~~/:'I' I~'\,~, ~~~~,':','J; ~
">,1, [JJs .' / I" ",So-': '0:'_,
~liiJ ~i , J'.. ~ 'II ... ~ '" '"
~,' I j>Y... Gill ' " .'.
OIl! -' : II " ~ ','"
{r~~ I ~) ,',w /m ~ f"',~I,1 '"" -v-c::'1
....~ ~ ,r 'f J I, I
.m .,~,.~" III 0? .' ','
'! ,>..." _: ,I "~III. <:oS /j/' ,,1;
I, ! ":;;:' ,.,;.~ I ,I ~~ ':: ~~ / "I
~ '~~ ..~' ~:~ '~"'@ I - ,ii,I,. -(2/..~ "~,I
I ....,. ....~ .... I I j-~ '''or-, I ~
' '1~'~
I, o' , I i,c 10 _;?~..'" _",.' 'I
"'- y' II '"I --- I
~~J 1"k ,~ ()..l~. lei \~ ~ \
r~-', J\ lu> ',. ~ '
/~~:~':" 8]" ,~~. 1'~~r:!J"~: : UJ'.''':~'~ ~@4':8>:
I _~): ...~ ,I: .,~ Ii' ..~ "'~" ~~ \ ,
~ I I II ! 0 ' \
, I il ! II ,
L ~
I
~
c
, -
_7"
".
,/J'~
,P6 __
./J'II>
'i
1'1
,il
!:~ I
1:
'Ii
I
I'
Ii
r
I
-~ I.
-'-':-,.--, -~~--
~~
,
"----- _L
~
~
lOAtH
---_._~
\ ",
1 'I
,...----..
-----
(
-.... ~
10... ... ;:>
:<( ~~ I, ..."', ~
~~::s ::;
;;: ...
<s'"
;:\>:1::
~...~ ,,'
0, u~5
"<
ii:;:
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES OF A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
Resource Conservation Commission
Chula Vista, California
DRAFT
6:30 p.m.
Monday, March 30, 1998
Conference Room #1
Public Services Building
.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order with a quorum
at 6:44 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
1
I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSUC to approved the minutes of December 21, 1998 as
submitted.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 3 was taken out of order because the applicant was present.
3. Review of Negative Declaration IS-98-25 - Plenums Plus: The Commission discussed the
potential acoustical impact of the proposed project and the applicant (Robert Capp)
provided input regarding the equipment to be utilized in the operation of the facility, the
structure and the siting of various uses within the building.
It was MSUC (Allen/Bull) that the Negative Declaration be recommended for adoption:
vote 6-0-0-1 (1 vacancy)
1. Review of Negative Declaration IS-98-23 - Bella Nevona: Commissioner Charles Bull
excused himself because of potential conflict of interest.
It was MSC (Burrascano/Thomas) vote 4-0-1-1, Marquez opposed to recommend adoption
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the modification of Mitigation Measure
#3 to require a 4-1 ratio of Coastal sage scrub that is occupied by the California coastal
gnatcatcher based on the full acreage of sage scrub on the site located within or close to
the City of Chula Vista because the City of Chula Vista has used its full allocation of
Coastal sage scrub loss.
It was moved and seconded that the Commission not recommend adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration because of insufficient information regarding paleontological,
archeological and the Coastal sage scrub mitigation site. The motion did not carry by the
following vote: 3-0-2-1 (members Yumada and Allen opposed).
It was MSC (Marquez/Burrascano) vote 5-0-0-1 that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
not be adopted because of insufficient infonnation regarding paleontological, archeological
resources, insufficient time to review the Habitat Conservation Plan and Biological report,
insufficient information regarding the location and size of the Coastal sage scrub
mitigation site and the City of Chula Vista has utilized its allocation of Coastal sage loss.
RCC Minutes
- 2 -
::>RAFT
March 30, 1998
Commissioner Bull returned to the meeting.
2. Review of Negative Declaration lS-98-24 - Otay Landfill Buffer Area: It was MSUC
(BulllBurrascano) vote 6-0-0-1 that the Negative Declaration for the open space alternative
be recommended for adoption and that the industrial and mixed use alternatives not be
recommended for adoption.
It was moved and seconded that the open space alternative be recommended as the
preferred option. The motion failed on a 3-3-0-1 vote because of lack of knowledge of
resources on the site, the value of those resources and adjacent land uses.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Environmental Review Coordinator Reid presented photographs of the paleontological
resources recently uncovered in Village One of the Otay Ranch.
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:
Commissioner Marquez expressed her thanks to Mary Salas for her letter in the Star-News.
There was discussion regarding the potential for a paleontological museum or display in the City.
It was requested that all letters to the City Council that involve environmental issues be referred
to the RCC.
A majority of the Commission expressed their support for the South Bay element of the proposed
San Diego Refuge Plan.
It was noted that the current vacancy on the RCC has existed for some period of time and that it
should be filled.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chair Yumada at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfu II Y su bm i tted,
Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
(a; \llb\gmocmins97\rc033098 .min)
ATTACHMEt~ T 2
"'~
.
~~,CHERO SECTIONAL YL~m,ING A-~A PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SINGLE FP.MILY RESIDENTIAL.: DETACHED
All lots proposed for detached single family reSlaences shall
De governed by the provisions of the R-l-7 Single Family
Residence Zone (Chapter 19.24, Title 19 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code), except as provided below:
l. The following yard areas will be maintained along East
"J" Street"
a. For lots fronting on that portion of "J" Street
havinf a right-of-way width of 66 feet, a minimum
front yard of 35 feet.
D. For lots siding on that portion of "J" Street having
a right-of-way width of 66 feet, aTIdnimum side yard
of 20 feet.
2. Notwithstanding the prOVlSlons of .sections 19.24.070
and 19.24.080, lots abutting the side lot lines of lots
to be developed for zero lot line units may have a
minimum lot -width of 58 feet, a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet, and maximum permitted,lot coverage
of 45 percent-
&- THERa SECTIONAL PLANNING AT' 'A PLAN
ROPOSED DEVELOP:MENT STANL..R.DS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: DETACHED
All lots proposed for detached single family residences shall adhere to the following standards:
1. Within the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area:
a. A maximum of 70 percent of the total lots may have a
minimum lot Width of 50 feet, minimum lot area of 5000
square feet.
b. A maximum of 25 percent of the total lots may have a
minimum lot width of 50 feet, minimum lot area of 6000
square feet.
c. A minimum of 5 percent of the total lots will have a
minimum lot width of 50 feet, minimum lot area of 7000
square feet.
2. The sideyards will be subject to a minimum of 5 feet setback
from each side of the home to the property line.
3. The following yard areas will be maintained along East ''j'
Street:
a. For lots fronting on that portion of "f' Street having
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a minimum :&ont yard of 35
feet.
b. For lots :&onting on that portion of 'T' Street having a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a back yard minimum
average of 15 feet.
c. For lots siding on that portion of "f' Street having a
right-of-way width of 50 feet, a minimum side yard of 20
feet.
4. In addition, lots abutting the side Jot lines oflots to be developed
for zero lot line units may have a minimum lot width of 58 feet..
minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.
ATTACHMENT 3
M.tlgatea Negative lJecJaratlon
"
PROJECT K-\...\1E:
Bella Nevona
PROJECT LOCATION:
South side ofE. "J" St. between Paseo Ladera and River
Ash Dr. , Chula Vista, CA. (see locator map)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
640-080-39
PROJECT APPLICANT:
Western Pacific Housing
2385 Camino Vida Roble
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
CASE NO: 15-98-23
DATE:
March 25. 1998
A. Proiect Settin!!
Tne project site is located within the Rancho del Rey Planned commUIlity. There are single
family dwellings located adjacent to the property on the east, south and west. There is
a single family dwelling located to the north across E. 'T Street on a large lot. Further
to the north are SDG&E transmission lines and the south leg of Rice Canyon.
The sire was previously graded and hydro seeded with non-coastal sage and other plant
materials. However, the revegetated scrub present on the project site is structurally similar
to coastal sage which enables a pair of coastal California gnatcatchers to exhibit typical
foraging behavior.
Because the project site was previously graded there are no cultural or paleontological
resources present on the site.
B. Proiect Description
The project would consist of the grading of the property and the installation of public
improvements for the development of up to 29 single family dwellings. The grading of
the property would involve 4,000 cubic yards of on-site cut, 21,000 cubic yards of fill and
17,000 cubic yards of imported fill. This would result .in a maximum of 4 feet of cut and
a maximum of 12 feet of fill.
Streets, sewer, drainage, water and other public utilities would also be provided.
The dwelling units would exceed code Tequirements and are proposed to be 2,200 - 2,600
square feet and up to 35 feet in height. The minimum lot size would be 5,000 sq. ft. and
would nmge from 5,111 to 7,900 sq. ft.
1
~~~
-,........
~---~
\..
city Df chula vista planning Department CTIY OF
~nvironmentaJ Teview sectiDn iliUlA VJSD
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project conforms to the density requirements of the Chula Vista General
Plan, the EI Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the Ranchero Sectional Planning Area Plan.
The project as proposed will require an amendment to the SPA Plan development
standards.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached
Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmentallmpact Report
will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant unless
mitigated. A discussion of these potentially significant impacts from the proposed
project fonows.
Biological Resources
On Seprember 1997, a single pair of coastal California gnatcatcher was observed foraging
in the revegetated scrub on-site during a biological survey (RECON 1997). The coastal
California gnatcatcher is listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and is also considered a species of special concern by the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). The gnatcatcher is a target species for state Natural
Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and local Multiple Species Conservation
Programs (MSCPs).
The applicant has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and is applying for an
incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to
Section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The
permit would authorize the incidental take of one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers
in association with the proposed single family residential development of the project site.
The HCP proposes biological monitoring and mitigation measures designed to minimize
potential impacts to the gnatcatchers.
The project site has been previously disturbed and revegetated with a mix of both desert
and coastal native species. No coastal sage scrub is found on this site. There are other
native and non-native plants present but these are not considered to be threatened or
endangered plant species.
2
Schools
Both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School
District indicate that the corresponding schools are operating at or near capacity. The
Chula Vista Elementary School District also states that developer fees provide for
approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities costs to house new students. Both
districts recorrunend that an alternative financing mechanism, such as participation in or
annexation to a Corrununity Facilities District be considered by the applicant in order to
mitigate school impacts from the proposed single family residential proje ct. The applicant
shall be required to obtain a "Will" serve letter from each of the corresponding school
districts .
E. Mitigation Necessary to A void Significant Effects
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts
identified in the initial study for this project to a level below significant. The mitigation
measures will be made a condition of project approval, as well as requirements of the
attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
1. A biological monitor shall be present on the project site during all brush clearing
activities. The biologist will coordinate with equipment operators and oversee the
use of brush clearing machinery in order to effectively eliminate the chance of
direct harm to the gnatcatchers present on-site. The biologist shall also be availabl e
to resolve any issues which may arise due to unforeseen circumstances.
2. Brushing activities are to be initiated at the south end of the project site adjacent
to existing residential areas. From the southern property boundary, brushing
equipment will work across the project site in a general east-west direction and
continue northward in an attempt to direct the gnatcatchers into existing natural
coastal sage scrub habitat north of East "J" Street.
3. Off-site mitigation through the purchase of existing coastal sage scrub habitat shall
be provided by the applicant for impacts to the revegetated scrub on the project site.
Mitigation in a 1: 1 ratio shall be required for impacts to revegetated scrub resultin g
from project implementation.
4. The project applicant shall obtain a "Will" serve letter from the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District prior
to final map approval.
3
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Jeff Steichen, Planning
Doug Reid, Planning
Majed AI-Ghafry, Engineering
Samir Nuhaily, Engineering
Duane Bazzel, Planning
Garry Williams, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Rod Hastie, Fire Department
MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention
Joe Gamble, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Peggy McCarberg, Acting Deputy City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Dr. Lowell Billings
Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright
Applicant's Agent: Mark Linman & Ryan Green
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Habitat Conservation Plan for the coastal Gnatcatcher, RECON, (10/29/97)
3 _ Initial Study
This environmental detennination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the
public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding
the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
/
ENVIRO ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev.~3)
-----
(M:\home\phuming\lc.cith\negdr:c_rornans)
P""
Case No. 18-98-23
E~ONMENTALCHECKLI8TFORM
1. Name of Proponent: Western Pacific Housing
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2385 Camino Vida Roble
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
(619) 929-1600
4. Name of Proposal: Bella Nevona
5. Date of Checklist: March 19, 1998
Polcnll;lJiy
l'olenlliJlly SignificiJnt Less than
Sl~IlJflCanl linless Significanl No
Impact Miligutcd Impacl Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or D D D r8I
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental D D D r8I
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations D D D r8I
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement D D D r8I
of an established community (including a
low-income or minority community)?
Page No. I
Potenllally
Significant
Impact
Polclllially
SignificlInl
Unless
Miligaled
No
hnpacl
Less lhall
Significanl
Impact
Comments: The proposed project conforms to the Chula Vista General Plan, the Planned
Community General Development Plan and the Sectional Area Plan for the site. The site has
been previously graded and the proposed basic land use plan is not incompatible with adjacent
existing residential uses.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 !81
affordable housing?
Comments: The proposed project has a population projection that is in conformance with the
General Plan and SANDAG population projections for this area. The project is an infill
project surrounded by residential development and does not involve any public facilities that
would induce any further substantial growth. The project site does not involve any existing
housing that would be displaced.
III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic sllbstructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
o
o
o
!81
o
o
o
!81
0 0 0 !81
0 0 0 !81
0 0 0 !81
0 0 0 !81
o
o
o
!81
Page No.2
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mud slides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
!Iolenliiilll'
jiolenlJdlly SlgniflCi1nl LessUlaf1
SIgnificant lJ!1kss Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impacl Impacl
0 0 0 r8I
o
o
o
r8I
Comments: The environmental Impact Reports for the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and for
SPA ill of Rancho del Rey show that the main trace of the La Nacion Earthquake fault, a
potentially active falllt is about 1/2 miles to the west and would not directly nor indirectly
impact the project site. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. No
further mitigation will be required.
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the cOllrse of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
o
o
o
r8I
Page No.3
PolClIllall)
PolcnLwliy SJgnificanl l..esSlllall
Slgnrflcanl Unless Significanl No
Impact Miligaled Impact Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 !81
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 !81
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 !81
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 !81
water otherwise available for Pllblic water
supplies?
Comments: The engineering division indicates that there is an existing type "B" brow ditch
west of Wild Oak road. However, this facility is not adequate to serve the project and the
developer is proposing two type "B" inlets with one deanout and the construction of an 21"
RCP storm drain to connect to the existing 21" RCP that is within the existing 20 foot
easement east of River Ash Drive. Additional connections will be made within existing
easements to ensure adequate flow. The Engineering Division indicate that the propose
improvements will be adequate and these will be evaluated once in operation. The project site
is not found within a flood plain per FEMA maps. The project will be required to develop and
implement a storm water pollution plan (SWPP), and to comply with Chapter 14.20 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code, relating to management practices associated with construction
activity. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit will
be required for storm water discharges associated with construction activity because the project
will result in soils disturbance of five acres or more and/or is part of a common plan of
development or sale that results ins soil disturbance of 5 acres or more. No other significant
impacts to water resources or drainage are noted. No further mitigation will be required.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
o
o
o
!81
o
o
o
181
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
dimate, either locally or regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors?
o
o
o
!81
o
o
o
!81
Page No.4
Poler;l!alJ}
SIgnificant
!mpacl
PolcnLliJlI)
Significant
Unless
Miligated
Less Ulan
SIgnificant
ImpacL
No
Impact
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary
or non-stationary sources of air emissions
or the deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: Grading and construction of the proposed single-family residential units would
temporarily create dust and emissions associated with activity from construction equipment
and vehicles. These short-term emissions are not considered significant impacts, however,
standard dust control measures wOllld be implemented, including watering exposed soils and
meet sweeping. The Average Daily Traffic (AD1) calculated to be generated by the proposed
project is estimated to be 290. Due to the low number of trips no significant air quality
impacts are cited. No further mitigation will be required.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus
tllrnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
h) A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or
200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
181
181
o
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
Page No.5
Comments: Based on the proposed Ilse the total ADT for the project is calculated to be 290.
The traffic generated would not adversely impact the surrounding primary access roads
including East 'T Street a class II collector, Telegraph Canyon Road a six-lane prime arterial
and East "n" Street a six-lane prime arterial which would all remain at a Level of Service (
L.O.s.) of "C". A nearby development known as Sunbow II is scheduled to widen Telegraph
Canyon road to a six-lane major arterial before this development takes place. No adverse
impacts to traffic or circulation are noted for this proposed project. No further mitigation will
be required.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
f) Affect regional habitat preservation
planning efforts?
l'olcnlial!y
Slgniflcanl
Impacl
Potentially
Significanl
Unless
Miligalcd
No
Irnpacl
LesslhiJfI
SlgnifICanl
Impact
o
~
o
o
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 ~
Page No.6
j'oLenllaliy
Signiflcanl
Impdct
j1oLenLliJl!y
Significant
Unless
Milir,aLed
Less Lhan
SIgnificant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments: The approximate five-acre project site has been previously disturbed and
revegetated with a mix of both desert and scrub native species. The dominant plant species are
brinlebrush (Encelia farinosa), common encelia (E. californica), coast goldenbush (Isocoma
menziesii), and deer weed (Lotus scoparius). Brinlebrush is native to desert areas east and
northeast of coastal San Diego County and is not a natural component of native vegetation in
the coastal area. Approximately 50 individual California sagebrush plants are widely scanered
across the site. There are other native and non-native plant species present but are not
considered to be threatened or endangered plant species. There is no coastal sage scrub found
on this site.
On September 1997 (RECON 1997) a single pair of coastal California gnatcatchers was
observed foraging in the revegetated scrub on-site during a biological survey. The coastal
California gnatcatcher is listed as threatened by the USFWS, and is also considered a species of
special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The gnatcatcher is
a target species for state Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and local
Multiple Species Conservation Programs (MSCPs).
The applicant has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and is applying for an
incidental take permit from the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section
10 (a) (1) (B) of the Endangered species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit would
authorize the incidental take of one pair of coastal California gnatcatchers in association with
the proposed single family residential development of the project site.
The Hcr provides for biological monitoring and mitigation measures designed to minimize
potential impacts to the gnatcatchers. A biological monitor would be present on the project
site dllring all brush clearing activities. The biologist would work closely with equipment
operators to ensure that no harm comes to the gnatcatchers. An anempt would be made if the
gnatcatchers are found to direct the gnatcatchers into existing natural coastal sage scrub habitat
north of East 'T Street. Off-site mitigation in a 1:1 ratio will be required for the loss of
revegetated scrub resulting from project implementation. The breeding season for the
gnatcatchers extends from late February, when the birds begin to pair, through July, with the
peak nesting period being mid-March through mid-May. The take permit will address breeding
tssue.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
o
o
o
~
Page No.7
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner?
fiuLcnllJIJr
I )ot (~n lid I ty SIgnificant Less than
SignifICant Unless Significant No
Impacl Miligaled Impact Impact
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
c) If the site is designated for mineral
resource protection, will this project
impact this protection?
Comments: No evidence has been provided that indicates that the project will use non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. No impacts to non-renewable
resources are noted.
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 181
hazardous sllbstances (including, but not
limited to: petroleum products, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan'
c) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 181
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The project proposes residential development and would not pose a health hazard
to humans nor would hazardous materials or substances be stored on site. Therefore, there
cannot be a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident
or unforseen natural occurrence. No adverse impacts are noted..
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
o
o
181 0
0 181
Page No.8
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
o
o
IJoltnlialJv
Sll~ njf Ica n L
Impact
l'olcnLwlJv
Signiricdnl
Unlcss
MiLigi1l{~d
LesS' Lhan
SIgnificant
Impact
No
Impacl
Comments: Temporary construction noise would occur at the project site, however, the
short term nature of the noise and the daytime hours associated with the construction activity
render the potential noise factor to less than significant.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered government servIces in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 r8I 0
b) Police protection? 0 0 r8I 0
c) Schools? 0 r8I 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 r8I 0
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 r8I 0
Comments: The fire department indicates that they will be able to provide adequate level of
fire protection for the proposed project without an increase in equipment or personnel. The
police department indicates that its response time for priority 1 & 2 calls is slightly below the
service threshold standard. However, the police department does not indicate that it will
require an increase in personnel or equipment to provide an adeqllate level of service for the
proposed project. The Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High
School District have expressed their desire for the proposed development to form part of each
of their Community Facilities District. The applicant will need to obtain a "Will" serve letter
from each of the mentioned districts prior to final map approval. No other adverse impacts
are noted. No further mitigation will be required.
o
o
o
r8I
XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/ELMS
o
o
r8I
o
Page No.9
Polenlidlly
Slglllflcanl
Impacl
Polcnlli1!1y
Significanl
Unless
Miligdlcd
l.essthdn
Significant
Impacl
No
Jmpacl
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to
respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes
or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that
the nearest fire station is 4 miles away and that this threshold standard will be met.
The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Fire Department states that it can adequately provide fire service to the
project site with the proposed development
b) Police
o
o
o
~
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls
of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and
Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project slightly exceed these
Threshold Standards.
Comments: The police Department indicates that adequate service can be provided to the
project site. Crime prevention personnel are available to assist the Project Manager with
recommendations and input regarding this project.
c) Traffic
o
o
~
o
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or bener, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS.
No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak
hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
Standard. This Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic! circulation are noted from project approval.
d) Parks/Recreation
o
o
~
o
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population.
This Threshold Standard does apply to the proposed project.
Page No. 10
FotenlliJlI}
Significant
Impacl
Folcnl1illl}
Significant
Unless
MiLJgaled
Less thall
SJgniflcanl
Impact
NO
!mpacl
Comments: The project is subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements. The
applicant will not be required to dedicate park land but will be required to pay park in-lieu
fees as established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks or recreational
opportunities are noted. No further mitigation will be required.
e) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes
not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s)
and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply
with this Threshold Standard.
o
o
181
o
Comments: The Engineering Department indicates that the project proponent's proposed
improvements to existing off-site drainage facilities appear to be adequate to serve the proposed
project. These proposed improvements will be evaluated by the City engineering division
once in place for full effectiveness. No further mitigation will be required.
e) Sewer
o
o
181
o
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not
exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide
necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City
Engineering Standards. The project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
Comments: The project proponent proposes to install an 8" pvc sewer line in Wild Oak Road
to flow westerly in an easement that will connect to an existing 8" pvc sewer line in River Ash
Drive which flows in the southerly direction to Blackwood. The Engineering Division
indicates that the proposed improvements to the existing sewer facilities appear adequate to
serve the proposed project but, these will be evaluated in the future for proper performance.
No significant adverse impacts to sewers are noted. No further mitigation will be required.
D Water
o
o
o
181
Page No. 11
j;olcntm!i\
Slgniflcan[
Impact
IJolcnl\dlly
S\gniflCiJnl
Unless
Miligalcd
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The Threshold Standards require that adeqllate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed
project does comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The project proponent will need to obtain a "Will" serve letter from the
corresponding water purveyor for this area. No adverse impacts to water quality are noted
from project approval. No further mitigation will be required.
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
W70uld the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? D D D 181
b) Communications systems? D D D 181
c) Local or regional water treatment or D D D 181
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? D D 181 D
e) Storm water drainage? D D 181 D
f) Solid waste disposal? D D 181 D
Comments: Please see discussion under Section xn Thresholds above for drainage, sewer and
water. The Engineering division calculates the project will generate about 717.75 lbs. of solid
waste per day. This represents a less than significant impact on solid waste disposal services.
No impacts to power or communication systems arc anticipated from approval of this project.
No further mitigation will be required.
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Page No. 12
Polenllall)
Pote[ltIGlI:! SigniflCiir,l Les~ lhan
Slgniflcanl Unh~ss SJgnificanl No
Impacl Miligillcd hnpacl Impacl
a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 181
the public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 181
scenic route?
c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 181
effect?
d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 181
could increase the level of sky glow in an
area or cause this project to fail to comply
with Section 19.66.100 ofthe Chula Vista
Municipal Code, Title 19?
e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181
Comments: The proposal represents a relatively small infill residential project. Surrounding
land uses on three sides are single family residential. It is anticipated that the project will
complement adjacent surrounding residential development. No adverse impacts to aesthetics
or lighting are noted. The engineering division indicates that the installation of street lights
will be required along East "J" Street as well as within the project site. No further mitigation
will be required.
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 181
or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical 0 0 0 181
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 181
cause a physical change which would affect
Ilnique ethnic cultural vallles?
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 181
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
Page No. 13
e) Is the area identified on the City's General
Plan EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: The project site has been previously disturbed and revegetated. The adjacent
properties are fully developed with single family residential housing. No adverse impacts to
cultural resources are noted.
PolcnllilJly
IlolrnllalJy Significcml Less thiil!
Significant Unless Significant
Impact Miligalcd Impact
0 0 0
No
Jmpad
r8I
XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project,
which is located in a fully developed urban setting.
o
o
o
r8I
XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
o
o
r8I
o
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
o
o
r8I
o
c) Interfere with recreation parks &
recreation plans or programs?
Comments: The project is subject to Parks and Recreation Threshold requirements. The
applicant will not be required to dedicate park land but will be required to pay park in-lieu fees
as established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks or recreational
opportunities are noted. No further mitigation will be required.
o
o
o
r8I
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
Page No. 14
Potentlal!y
Significant
impacl
j!oLcnlliJ!ly
Signifll'ill1!
Unless
Miligaled
Lesslhan
Significant
!mpact
No
Impacl
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 181 0 0
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting. The project site has been
completely disturbed by human activity. There are no sensitive plant species on site.
However, a pair of coastal California gnatcatchers listed as threatened by the USFWS has been
observed on the site. A Habitat Conservation Plan has been prepared in order to obtain a
section lO(a)(l)(B) federal permit for the incidental take of these species. Please see discussion
above under section VII, Biological Resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long-term goals. The project represents a small in-fill project proposing
to provide housing for the local and regional area.
o
o
o
181
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable. Project approval will result in the development of an existing five
acre vacant site to meet the area's housing needs.
o
o
o
181
Page No. 15
l'olr:JllJally
~li:nlfICanl
!rnlMct
IlolenLidl!,
Significa!!1
Unless
Mitigall:d
Lesslhan
SJgniflcanl
Impact
No
!mpad
d) Does the project have environmental effect
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the
project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
o
o
o
181
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project
and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project:
1. A biological monitor shall be present on the project site during all brush clearing activities.
The biologist will coordinate with equipment operators and oversee the use of brush
clearing machinery in order to effectively eliminate the chance of direct harm to the
gnatcatchers present on-site. The biologist shall also be available to resolve any issues
which may arise due to unforseen circumstances.
2. Brushing activities are to be initiated at the south end of the project site
adjacent to existing residential areas. From the southern property boundary, brushing
equipment will work across the project site in a general east-west direction and continue
northward in an attempt to direct the gnatcatchers into existing natural coastal sage scrub
habitat north of East "J" Street.
3. Off-site mitigation through the purchase of existing coastal sage scrub habitat shall be
provided by the applicant for impacts to the revegetated scrub on the project site.
Mitigation in a 1:1 ratio shall be required for impacts to revegetated scrub resulting from
project implementation.
4. The applicant shall obtain a "Will" serve letter from the Chula Vista Elementary School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District prior to final map approval.
Date
Page No. 16
XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
o Land Use and o T ransportation/ Circulation o Public Services
Planning
o Population and 181 Biological Resources o Utilities and Service
Housing Systems
o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral o Aesthetics
Resources
o \Xl ater o Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and a NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 181
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, 0
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Page No. 17
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of
this determination.
'\ ;;?I!J
{J ~~1l/j .
Eri';;rom;6:ehtal Review Coordinator
City of chula Vista
Date
I .
3/ /1 /7~
I
o
o
Page No. 18
ATTACHMENT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
15-98-23
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Bella Nevona single-family residential
subdivision proposed along the south side of E. "J" Street between Paseo Ladera and River Ash
Drive in the City of Chula Vista. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such
as IS-98-23.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The mitigation monitoring program for this project ensures adequate implementation of
mitigation for the following potential impacts: Biological Resources and Schools.
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
(MCe), shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERe) for the City of Chula Vista. It
shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program are met to the satisfaction of the ERe. Evidence in written form
confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration
No. IS-98-23 shall be provided by the biological monitor and applicant as identified in the
attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, to the ERC as stipulated by each
mitigation measure. The ERC will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation
measures have been accomplished.
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Bella Nevona subdivision
INITlAL STUDY NO: 98-23
Issue Area
Biological
Mitigation Measure #1
"A biological monitor shall be present on the project site during al brush clearing
activities. The biologist will coordinate with equipment operators and oversee the use of brush
clearing machinery in order to effectively eliminate the chance of direct harm to the gnatcatchers
present on-site. The biologist shall also be available to resolve any issues which may arise due to
unforeseen circumstances."
Mitigation Measure #2
"Brushing activities are to be initiated at the south end of the project site adjacent to
existing residential areas. From the southern property boundary, brushing equipment will work
across the project site in a general east-west direction and continue northward in an attempt to
direct the gnatcatchers into existing natural coastal sage scrub habitat north of East "]" Street."
Mitigation Measure #3
"Off-site mitigation through the purchase of existing coastal sage scrub habitat shall be
provided by the applicant for impacts to the revegetated scrub on the project site. Mitigation in
a 1: 1 ratio shall be required for impacts to revegetated scrub resulting from project
implementation. "
Full compliance with these mitigation measures will reduce potential project impacts to biological
resources to less than significant. No additional mitigation is necessary at this time.
Proiect Phase Implementation (proiect Design: Construction: Post Construction)
During the construction phase.
Responsible Agencv lies)
City Planning Department
" 1 ///
y v
-1
, ,
" ., \::;J /
// ~~Irn: i
PAOJECT~ ~,~
~ION ----.~ ~
r;-
II .' i
:,~' '""
i. '"
"
;1 "
li~ "
.'1 ~,(
II :
!,~
II
, . .
,.-------.
XC '
Q:- ;----
'-0., -
I it:::).. i,l
: ,"",' .----_i ,-
I:. ., -..i/ I i
. \ \ I / C) / /--____' :--
I , ,I, '.~\ ' I Ibj/~ ____
, \ \ \ \ ~/ I !
I jli \\\~ ~ '-'ICJ' . ~
\ Ii'" .., \ ~~\ ,,~\)'Joou r'\ I, '/>,' I"
~\>>~\ ''. \ . /, . \. ....
\ \ \ \, \ '! 1\ / ~
. I, \ .....- _______ :' I / \/ ! '....._
I. .'\. ----\ '-->-" \', ~! I 1---....,
:.-- ----- \..___' . ,--------... !. / / ----'-----I
/<.., , ~' /~I f:j
I /^"'v> :<~/~ I 'SJ ~,.'
"'~ / /. , " '.' "~...., . ! i
., y /"- .',-~.". I / .... , " i_________ /! ;
:
(~r-------- ,//
,/ I ,-
-. . ,
-,
i
/
/
/
/
;
;
/
\
/~~\
~
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
I
\.
/
i
,
,
I
\
I
\
/
/
.~
---- ',- \:.-;:::-
~\-'
/" \~
. ..-------- ' --
, '7"'---
. ,- ...---- r!J.
. ---------- ...- .
~.~.
. I: . '.
, I \ \
v' J
'\
\
/
\
/
;'
, \
"
, ,
'.
'/
.,
;.-
I
:............
,---.......
---
~
i
\
,
\
'\ ", \,
!,
I i
W\\..DD~IZ BD
I
i
I
I
C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT Western Pacific Housing PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~ APPUCANT: INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT East "J" Street Request Proposal ier a Tentative Subdivision Map with 29 single iamlly
ADDRESS: detached dwellings units and associated grading and public improvements.'
SCALE: ALE NUMBER:
NORTH NoS::aJe 1&98-23
h:\hDme\planning\oarlDS~Dcators\is9B23.cdr 2111/9B