HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1980-10469
Revised 6/3/81
RESOLUTION NO. 10469
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 650 ACRE BONITA LONG CANYON
ESTATES
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report 79-2 has heretofore
been certified by the City Council and the City Council will
hereafter consider Candidate CEQA Findings for said area, and
WHEREAS, a proposed development plan for the 650 acre
Bonita Long Canyon Estates area located on the east side of Otay
Lakes Road and south of the Bonita Haciendas Subdivision was filed
with the Planning Department, and
WHEREAS, said proposed Sectional Planning Area contains
the following uses:
A 15 acre K-6 site (approximately 7~ acres usable,
excluding SDG&E easement)
An 11 acre neighborhood park site (approximately 4+ acres
usable)
A 4 acre multiple family site (approximately 2 acres
usable)
809 single family lots, ranging in size from 6,000 sq. ft
to over 3 acres.
Approximately 266 acres of dedicated open space, most of
which is to remain in its natural state
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the planning
Commission on April 22, 1981 to consider the Bonita Long Canyon
Estates Sectional Planning Area and the Commission recommended
that the City Council approve said Sectional Planning Area Plan
subject to the conditions set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution No. PCM-81-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Sectional Planning
Area Plan for the Bonita Long Canyon Estates area in accordance
with Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-81-13 with the
following exceptions and modifications:
1. Revise condition 9.a to allow 1,000 sq. ft. of the
required 8,000 sq. ft. pads to be in slope up to 20%
in grade.
2. Condition 11 shall be predicated on Council's action
to direct a letter from the Mayor to the Board of
Supervisors asking for authorization of the street
connection and modification of the approved tentative
subdivision map in the County.
-1-
3. The developer shall participate toward improvements
within the Long Canyon drainage basin as described in
the mitigation measures identified in EIR-79-2 for
this project. Plans for desilting basins and
retention basins within the Long Canyon basin shall
be submitted for review by the City Engineer and
shall be subject to Council approval prior to the
approval of the final map for each phase.
4. Modify condition 23.a in Resolution No. PCM-8l-l3 to
read:
"The developer shall be responsible for the construc-
tion of improvements in Corral Canyon Road to collec-
tion street standards wi thin the Sectional Planning
Area. The developer may be responsible for improve-
ments in Rutgers, south of H Street, extending to the
existing improvements (ref. Chula Vista Drawing
70-76D and 73-86D) as determined by the City Engineer
with the filing of a tentative map for Phase III.
Said improvements shall include the necessary
acquisition of the Corral Canyon/East H Street
intersection as determined by the City Engineer. The
improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with
the development of Phase III of the Section Planning
Area. The connection of Rutgers Avenue south of H
Street will not be required if H Street is
constructed between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road prior
to construction of Phase III. "
Presented by
Approved as to form by
D. J. Pet
Planning
.:;:--
~"'-_ -""1
of - ---neorge D:- Lindberg, City;-Attorney
~
D4
CHULA
198 1
ADOPTED AND APPROVED
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
, by the follcwing vote,
by the CITY
26th day of
to-wi t:
COUNCIL of the CITY OF
May
AYES: Councilmen
Hyde, Cox, Scott, Gillow
NAYES: Councilmen
~lcCandliss
ABSENT: Councilmen
None
ATTES
W&J2. --rIM
Mayor of the City of Chula Vista
S TE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, , City Clerk of the
City of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above
is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No.10469 ,and
that the same has not been amended or repealed. DATED
C~1:.y L.:.LerK
/04 (p Cf
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-81-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOt1MENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE
BONITA LONG CANYON SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA OF EL RANCHO DEL REY
WHEREAS, a development plan for the 650 acre Bonita Long Canyon area of
El Rancho del Rey was filed with the Planning Department by the Bonita Long
Canyon Estates, and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Comnission set the time and place for a public
hearing to consider said development plan and notice of said hearing, with its
purpose, was given by the pubJication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing, and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held at said time and place, namely 7:00 p.m.,
April 22, 1981, ih the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 1981 the Planning Commission recertified the environ"
mental impact report, EIR-79-2, and adopted Candidate CEQA findings relating to
environmental impacts of the project.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the Sectional
Planning Area plan for Bonita Long Canyon be approved, subj~ct to the following
guidelines:
1. The developer shall be required to dedicate and/or construct all public
improvements and facil iti es, ons ite and offs ite, determined by the City
Council to be necessary to serve the Bonita Long Canyon Sectional Planning
Area; specifi~ requirements to be established with each phase of develop-
ment in conjunction with the filing of subdivision maps.
2. Prior to the issuanse of a grading plan for Phase I, the applicant shall
submit and the City's Landscape Architect shall have approved, an over-
all landscaping plan incorporating a conceptual design for later phases
and a detailed design for those phases on which tentative maps are being
filed. Said plan shall include such items as supplemental canyon tree
planting; slope, pl~hting, and an equestrian trails plan for easements,
location, grading, signing and fencing as determined by the Landscape
Architect to be necessary to implement the plan. The trails system shall
be developed prior to or concurrent with the certification of slopes in
the initial grading stages.
I (j-/(Or
-1-
t rJ/Go/
3.
4.
5.
6.
Phase I 199 un its
Phase II 105 units (43 units transferred to Phase III)
Phase III 193 units
Phase IV 152 units
Phase V 157 units
Phase VI 20 units
Total 826 units
7.
Further changes in the number of units or lots may be required,
predicated on the filing of subdivision maps in accordance with the
standards and requirements included as guidelines of the Sectional
Planning Area or conditions of the subdivision maps.
The developer shall pay P.A.O. and R.C.T. fees for Phases I and II
with the remaining phases to be contingent upon the decision during
consideration of Phase 111 as to whether or not a park is to be
constructed in conjunction with the elementary school. If the city
-2-
proceeds with the park requirement, adjustments to the P.A.D. and
R.C.T. fees will be determined with development plans for Phase III.
8. Phase VI may be developed out of sequence, provided a precise plan is
approved and all fees are paid.
g. a. The minimum pad area for units in Phases II and V and the Canyon
Dri've area of Phase III shall be 8,000 sq. ft. The minimum pad
area in Phases III and IV shall be 7,000 sq. ft. (All pad sizes
shall be exclusive of the SDG&E easement.)
b. Minimum pad width shall be 60 ft. as measured at the front setback
.line,. with the average pad width to be 70 ft.
c. Mi ni mum pad depth shall be gO ft. for the purpose of computi ng the
required minimum pad area.
d. Development standards shall be submitted concurrent with tentative
subdivision maps filed for each phase. Said criteria shall include
such items as corral locations and special fencing criteria. Setbacks
for all phases shall be as follows:
Front yard
Exterior side yard
One side yard
Both side ya rds
Rear yard
25 feet
15 feet
10 feet
15 feet total
20 feet (R-l standards for single story
encroachment shall be appl icable)
10. The rear 25 feet of each lot abutting open space areas will be evaluated
as to the need for fire retardant plant materials. Appropriate conditions
will be established with each subdivision map.
11. The developer shall acquire, dedicate, and improve the necessary area to
extend street "5" offsite to connect to the county street shown on
T.M. 3750 adjacent to the terminus of street "5". If the connection of
street "5" to the county road system proves to be infeasible, the
developer shall provide access for emergency vehicles between the ends
of cul-de-sac streets "R".
12. The water tank area shown adjacent to the elementary school site shall
be relocated unless the school site is not utilized or the school pad
area is increased to a minimum of 9 acres in size.
13. The requirement for undergrounding the existing 69 kv line within the
250 foot wide 5DG&E easement shall be waived.
~
!cJqbo/
-3-
14. The applicant shall file CC&R's with each phase which will prohibit th~
resubdivision or parcelling of lots in any approved phase which will
increase the number of lots in the phase.
15. Prior to the approval by the City Council of Phase I, the applicant shall
submit a master list of street names for all five phases of the single
family area.
16. The entire 650 acres shall be annexed before final map approval is given
to Phase I.
17. Prior to consideration of a tentative subdivision map for Phases II, V
and VI, detailed geotechnical reports shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted to the City. An recommendations of the geological and/or
soils ~ngineer sha)l be followed.
18. Mitigation of archeological sites SOi 5829 and 5830, in accordance with
Appendix III of the Archeological Survey and Report dated January 25, 1979,
shall be carried out prior to the approval of the tentative map for Phase V.
19. Prior to the approval of any final map for the project, the developer
shall sub'mit necessary calc,ulations to show that downstream sewer capacity
is adequate, or the developer shall provide improvements necessary to'
assure adequate capacity.
20. Except where specifically changed on the approved tentative map, street
design~ shall adhere to the following standards:
a. All horizontal curves shall have a minimum intervening tangent
distance measured in feet equal to four times the design speed of
the street (reverse horizontal curves are not acceptable).
b. ,Compound horizontal curves shall be avoided.
c. ~1aximum street grades for residential collector streets shall be 12%
(except Via Hacienda).*
d. The following streets should be designed to residential collector
standards with minimum centerline radii of 380 feet.*
"P" street
. "L" street (from Corral Canyon Road to "K" street)
"R" street (between "V" street and Corral Canyon Road)
"X" street
*Those streets with a 12% grade of minimum centerline radii will be subject
to further review at the tentative map submjttal stage.
I () cib ~
-4-
. ,
e. There are potential sight distance problems at the following inter-
sections; these intersections should be studied carefully by the
applicant before a tentative map is prepared:
Baylor Avenue/"A" street - looking west
Canyon Drive/Corral Canyon Road ~ looking north
Cumbre View/Canyon Drive - looking north
f". Maximum centeri ine grade for cul-de-sac street turning areas shall
be 5%.
g. The maximum grade at any intersection of two streets shall be 6%
within the intersection and for at least 50 feet past the curb lines
of the intersecting streets.
h. All through residential streets shall have minimum centerline radii
of 200 feet. Minimum centerline radii shall be 180 feet for cul-
de-sacs.
i. Grade segments in excess of 12% shall not exceed 300 feet in length.
j. Streets within the Sectional Planning Area shall conform to the
following. (corresponds to typical sections on S.P.A. plan):
(1) 56 foot right of way with sidewalks on both sides:
(a) Via Hacienda
(b) Street "A" (Via Hacienda to Baylor Avenue)
(c) Street "R" (south of street "V")
(d) Street "5" except eastern cul-de-sac, street "K" except
cul-de-sac
(e) Streets ItIII, "pl., and "V"
(f) Street "s" (except cul-de-sac north of "V" street)
(g) Canyon Drive (from Bonita Hacienda subdivision to "X"
street and from "0" street to Corral Canyon Road)
(h) "X" street (from "Y" street to Canyon Drive)
(i) Country Trails Lane
(j) "L" street (from Corral Canyon Road to "K" street)
(2) 56 foot right of way with sidewalk on one side:
(a) Canyon Drive (from "X" street to "0" street)
(b) "X" street (from "Y" street to "s" street)
~
. ."ff q
( 3) 52 foot right of way with sidewalk 00 Dotn Sloes:
(a) Streets liCit, '1011 , "EII, "FIl, "G", llJll , IIMll , uN", Ill}ll, "TH,
IIUII, and "YII
(b) IISII street no rth of "VII street
(c) lIRll street north of "VII street
(d) ,
"Lll street (from ilK" street to "MII street)
(e) IIKII street cul-de-sac south of ilL ., street I
(f) Baylor Avenue
(g) Cumbre View
(4) 52 foot right of way with sidewalk on one side:
(a) HZ" street
(b) llR.11 street cul-de-sac
(c) "Wll street
(d) "0" street
21. Drainage:
a. Permanent energy dissipators, such as shown on Regional Standard
Drawing 0-41, shall be used at outlets of drainage facilities.
b. The developer shall participate toward improvements within the Long
Canyon drainage basin as described in the mitigation measures identi-
fied in EIR-79~2 for this project. Plans for desilting basins and
retention basins within the Long Canyon basin shall be submitted for
review 'by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map for
each phase.
22. Sewers:
a. All sewers within cul-de-sacs shall terminate in a manhole.
b. Improved access sha11 be provided to a11 manho1es.'
c. Sewers serving 10 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 2%.
d. The method 'of sewering Phase V from the western end of "5" street
shall be indicated. The developer sha1l submit proof that offsite
sewers are available and adequate in capacity to handle the added
sewage from' Phase V.
e. ,Manholes shan be provided at all changes of grade and a1ignment.
23. Improvements:
a. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of improve-
ments in Corral Canyon Road to collector street standards within the
Sectional Planning Area and Rutgers Avenue south of the southern
boundary of the Sectional Planning Area to the existing improvements
,/01[&>9
"
:t'
b.
shown on Chula Vista Drawings 70-760 and 73-860. Said impro~ement~
shall include the necessary acquisition of the Corral Canyon/East "H"
Street intersection as determined by the City Engineer. The improve-
ments shall be constructed in conjunction with the development of
Phase III of the Sectional Planning Area.
The connection of Rutgers Avenue south of "H" Street will not be
required if "H" Street is constructed between 1-805 and Otay Lakes
Road prior to construction of Phase III.
The developer shall be responsible for the completion of improvements
on the south side of East "H" Street from Corral Canyon Road west to
the existing improvements shown on Chula.Vista Drawing 68-1100 prior
to acceptance of improvements for Phase III.
The developer shall participate in the offsite construction of Central
Avenue as determined by the County of San Diego, Department of Public
Works and the Chula Vista City Engineer prior to construction of
Phase III. Construction must comply with mitigating measures adopted
by the City of Chula Vista.
The developer shall acquire, dedicate and improve Otay Lakes Road
from the point where the centerline of the SOG&E easement intersects
said road to the improvements shown on Chula Vista Drawing 73-100A-D.
Said improvements shall include but not be limited to 41.5 feet of
pavement, curb and gutter, and drainage facilities, east of centerline
within a 50 foot half-width right-of-way prior to acceptance of
improvements for Phase I.
The developer shall complete construction of the northerly half of
East "H" Street from Corral Canyon Road to Otay Lakes Road. Improve-
ments shall include two 12-foot traffic lanes and one 8-foot parking
lane within a 32 foot curb to curb width. Monolithic curb, gutter
and a 5 foot sidewalk shall be provided along the northerly side of
the roadway and curb and gutter along the south side. The southerly
curb line shall be 9 feet inside the south right-of-way line of a
50 foot half-width street right-of-way. Street lights and other
normal furnishing shall also be included, as shall the landscaping
and irrigation of one-half the median island. Said improvements
shall be completed prior to acceptance of improvements for Phase I.
~
c.
d.
e.
J ()~ lp9
-7-
24. Miscellaneous:
a. Add a typical section for Otay Lakes Road.
b. Erosion and sediment control plans will be required with grading
plans for each of the construction phases.
c. The developer may request that a reimbursement district be formed
for those improvements which lie outside the subdivision boundary
and provide benefit to other properties. It shall be the developer's
responsibility to submit to the City for approval a plan indicating
improvements to be included, properties to be assessed, and method
of assessment for said district.
The ~lanning Commission directs that this resolution be transmitted to the
City Council and,a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 22nd day of April, 1981 by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, Stevenson, R. Johnson and Pressutti
NOES: Commissioners O'Neill and Williams
ABSENT: None
.,"'\ ..~'
"4'
I ." ,_,.. _ /
C / i-/AU!d.,,7C--..
Cha i rma n
ATTEST:
/~.
/J11 '*r-e--.v-
I Sec reta ry
/ ()L{ b ')
-8-
c; ..:...::-;.-:.:
;'1
i
I .~
./
/,. ,
1",
(BONITA
I
!
-~,
".
- r-.:!~",'
"'!.~-'
.'~
----.
-----
------------
...,
------------ '
.1
~
,
~;.
/ .'./
I /~ ./. ~I;"'_'
:~ </ /--
. ,/~>/ /_____________ - F!
// " ,~
/ I
. I ..
/ ~
PROJECT
AREA
J
LONG CANYON
!
'..
.........
. 1600(
NORT~j
)
) ~
LOCATOR
PCS-81-4 a
PCM-8I-13 ,
: '",-:
-,
"
",
G,~
r'
" ,
',C
...... .........
..................
.....................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..... ..... .... .... ......
......................... '
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
..........................
.........................
..........................
:::::::.,)t:::::::::::::::::
..........................
..........-..............
..........................
.........................
..........................
..........................
LEGEND
:1
590 Acres @ .66DU/ac =~89 DU.
56Acres <Q? 4.0 DU/ac=224OU
"f.
..................
..................
....................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..............i...........
~~~~~ ~:~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ j;~ ~ ~:~~ ~ ~
..........................
..........................
..........................
4Acres <3 10.0 DULac" 40 DU.
r-.:ro:TAL ACRES-,650 '
: TOlAL DWELLING UNI"l'S =653
I I
I KeG .
I ,
'-____J
I
::: ~(: ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.......................
~~~iUiii]g~
.............-......
...n................
:::::::::~,.:,,::::::::
.......... ..........
......... ...........
......... ...........
......... ...........
......... ..........
.......... ..........
.......... ..........
.......... .........
....... ...-.....
.... ..-......
.. ... ..-.....
....... . ........
.......... .......
:::::::::::S:.... ..:::
::::::::::::)::::::,:
TMENTS
SO,U1Ac.
... :~
I
~
.
r----..... .
I ·
I K-G · i
: : r
,----, I
I
I
,
It H'. ST:
",..- ...;~-...i . ,;: ~l!"
I . I
I K-6 :
, ,
,------)
LONG
PLA~
"
EXHIBIT A
PCS-81-45
PCM-81-'3
_.
)
,
.~
( BONITA
6 ' 1200{
NORTH -
.,
'-.
::,.j
..l~
\.
'*
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~; ~ i i j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j i ~ ~ ~ i i ~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~~~~~~<HHHiHHHHHHH{. 029 Acres SCHOOL/PARK/WATER TANK
. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HHHHiHHiiHiHHiHiiiHi: <p 617 Acres. 1.71 DU/Ac = 809 DU
.......................................~
.......................................~.
.......................................
.......................................
....................................... .4.A'c'r"es....'..14.DU' /Ac = 56 DU
....................................... .
.......................................
... .... ..... ........ ..... ..... ..... ....
.......................................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: TOTAL ACRES 650
.......................................
....................................... TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 865
--
:::::::: EQUES I RIAN COMMUNITY:::::::::::::::: ." K- 6. ..:. :.. ..:::::::
.............. .................
.............. .................
r------- __ I..,
I
I JR. HIGH SCHOOL
I
L_______
...................................
~"". ..~~:::~~ H ""~~""" """" ""llllllillllll iiii, .
LEGEND
, I
......'
::::: 1
.' ,~; .
.:t
~ . ".,..,.,
, ',1
.:' ',~ .,~. ll.;. L
,
I
I 1(-6
I I
L____..J
,,,
[f.
PROPOSED
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
,
(BONITA ~ONG CANYON
NO;;"(
---------- .
)
)
EXHIBIT B
PCS-81-4 a
PCM-81-13
\'.
0- -
.....9
~
--
,q'
\../
'0
'J
"
,
660
,i,l
. ; i ii}
/'1/:
,if!
I', '
./ '
iii I
Ill'
il,r
II;!
i; !
i j ~
\ ~.
;',.'f'.
"
" .'
';~,~~' .
..,::~. .-,
660
,
-~.~
. -p~'
,/ 1. ~
. '
,
I
I
Iii
BONITA
LONG
CANYON
.:0
-r" .,
~.
,
.,
.1
~~N1TA VIEW
'RAC~
STR~~T
C~NTER L.INI!:
I 1
I;
. i
'.!
. !
'~~
f
"
,
... . '.I/:r
\ .' .... ~,
.' ~ '1\" .1. t;:: I,
Page 2, Item 6a
Meeting Date 5/26/81
C. .. PLANNING -COMMISS.IONRECOMMENDATIOO---"
On April 22, 1981 the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 4-2 that the
City Council approve the Bonita Long Canyon Sectional Planning Area plan in accordance
with Resolution PCM-81-13. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes is enclosed in
Council's packets.
D.", DISCUSSION OF MAJOR POINTS
"
'.
".
.......;.!,~ .
1. Number of Dwelling Units.
~ ';J
"
."'.:;:.
. ".
The' applicant's plan proposes approximately 865 dwelling units (809 single family'. ,;','
and 56 condominium units) to be constructed in six phases within the 640 acres. The, ~.:c
General Development Plan for El Rancho del Rey, adopted in 1971, authorizes a maximum ':,,/,:.
of 653 units, thus, the proposed Sectional Planning Area plan represents a 33% increase',
in density. The General Plan for this area designates approximately 609 acres at 1-3 ,',
dwelling units per acre and 50 acres at 4-12, allowing for a range of 800-2400 dwelling.
units on the property, The requested density is clearly in the lower limits of the
City's General Plan,
,'.\' .
. .
I.'.... "
2. Land Form Alteration and Natural Open Space. ~
~ " ..~.~"
',:.' ...
Forty percent of the 650 acre site will be retained in dedicated open space largeiy.
preserved in its natural state. Grading will involve 3-1/3 million cubic yards of f.ill
and 2-1/2 million cubic yards of cut. The most intense area of development occurs in
Phase I where over 70% of the area is graded for single family lots. Supplemental tree
planting in certain canyon areas and planting of fire retardant material will be required
as conditions of tentative map approval.
3. Circulation System.
a. Some of the existing roads which link the various phases of the Sectional
Planning Area are operating beyond their design capacity. In addition, other road
segments have not been constr~cted to accommodate the proposed project; therefore, sub-
stantial offsite improvements will be required with each phase of construction. The
first phase will require improvements to "H" Street (onsite and offsite) as well as
Otay La kes Road.
b. The 148 dwelling units planned for Phase II will rely on Canyon Drive for
ingress and egress until the completion of Phase III allows for additional access to
the east. The Planning Commission recommended that development in this area be
restricted to 105 lots~ with the remaining lots assigned to later phases of construction..
..i~" c. The third and fourth phases will involve the connection of Corral Canyori
J.~';~~i~~: to ,"H" Street with addi ti ona 1 i mproveme~ts o~ Centra 1 ~venue in accordance with the'
.ti,rlljJ.'!;lga~1 ~g mea.syr.~s,( ~our travel lanes) oUtll n~d In, the EnvIronmenta 1 Impact R~p?rt. .
,,';il''1i<~in'';'addl tl on, offs 1 te' 1 mprovements may be requIred 1 n Rutgers Avenue south of H Street ..,
3A~,~t~~;comPl et.e the "ffrik)fge".between Ota~ Lakes Road and the eastern areil of Bon,~ :~:'" .
:",.r" Q.....~~Qase V.,requires a road connection to an adjacent tentative subdivision area'
already approved by the County but not yet constructed.
",:,
Page 3, Item 6a
Meeting Date 5/26/81
4. Phasing.
.' .' ;,,:, "ja:, 'The appli'c'ant has, divi'ded the.project into six phases. The first five phases
are'!,Vi1ri:iit'e'd to single family detached home sites with the sixth phase proposed as a :
~;f\.i-;i;6';:~hi.t'~condomi ni um development. Phase I, which i nvo 1 ves 199 lots adjacent to "H" Stree!:
Ir~'r"l!:~j!.lXfreqUire regrading and relandscaping of a po~tion of.the.existing Tiffany Park. .~<i ~
i. ~,l;/~The':rdeveloper will be responsible for the work wlth credlt glVen toward payment of ';i~'"
r;;j' P:,~.;'p. and R.C.T. fees., ,', _,,<:to'" :~L
~ .......>l' ... .J..........
b';';..J.~,~ phasing for th~ ~eve'iopm~nt of the park/sc.ho21 site has..~o;:t"R,een .
address~~}1~y.':;/~~e dev~.l oper. T~ ml n~ for lmprovemen~s to the ~schoo 1 a rea wi ll'~be the
responsl,,~~V~~Of t~~~/ChOOl dlStrlCt. The park slte should be developed wi~~ Phase III.
'l~t~)7~)l;!hough,,:.the condominium "area i,s');i~,ted,"'a'~ Phase VI; there is no obje'Cfion' ',.,
to allow~n~$~ development out of sequence. "
t~'~ . '
5. Ora i nage .
"
.'
~
Approximately three-fourths of the site is part of the Long Canyon basi'n'which "',:,'
flows northwest and joins the Sweetwater River just north of Bonita Road. The project'
area within that basin constitutes 43% of the total basin. As stated in the environ-
mental impact report, "All of the drainage basins in which the project is located ,have
existing drainage facilities which are inadequate to one degree or another." Repotts
on file with the City indicate that the proposed development will produce only a small
,increase in runoff (4% added, based on 50 year storm) in the total basin. However,
because of the inadequacy of existing downstream facilities, the added increase will
cause flooding to the already developed housing along Acacia Avenue. The applicant
is proposing to solve the downstream inundation problem by using onsite retention basins
in Long Canyon to control the amount of flow. With proper design, the system should
substantially reduce the present and projected flows in the canyon. The system will
require review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant has the option of
improving the downstream drainage facilities at an estimated cost exceeding $700,000 as
an alternative to the retention basin plan, However, with little or no money available
from other projects to aid in the construction, such a solution places a very costly
burden on this project.
6. Elementary School/Park Site.
The Sectional Planning Area plan has an elementary school site designated adjacent
to the SDG&E easement near the extension of Corral Canyon Road. Although the nearby
elementary schools (Tiffany and Sunnyside) are at capacity and the proposed develop-
ment will generate an estimated 500 students, the school district is reluctant to make
a commitment at this time. A final disposition will be made when a subdivision map is
processed for Phase III. The developer is obligated for 6.2 acres of developed park
land based on the 865 unit Sectional Planning Area plan. I am recommending that the
approved maximum density be set at 826 units, which would require 6.1 acres of park.
Since the City can accept developed park land or in lieu fees, the Planning Commission
has recommended that fees be collected for Phases I and II with the final decision to
construct 'the park withheld until Phase.,I:\:r~;B'ec!!'use of the City's park/school concept,
the decision as to whether or not to bUi'l'd'ahet'r5'.rl1k'''as shown on the Sectional Planning
Arm pi~n will be predicated in part by the 'clecis'iorfof: ,the school district r~garding the
elemen~ary school site. The 4+ acre usable park shown 'on the Sectional Planhi:ng Area
plan needs to be enlarged to a minimum 5 acres by deleting 3 lots on the north side
of street "P":
] ot.f~ 1
continued
Page 4, Item
6a
Meet i ng Da te
5/26/81
~1;~.
~~i'-'
\~~k':~ The Planning Commission hearing attracted citizen input from two nearby areas,
!~::~:\';.J\~.~c.i a Avenue. and Baylor Avenue-Mi 11 s Street.
r~~'~~.~:~~ ;t'
~\~~'''~. .
~~~:.~t:: ,
M..:,;;:~ ,. ; .Residents in the adjacent county area were primarily concerned with drainage
!;:,'" solutions': Assurances Vi~ i91.ven by the subdivider's engineer that the 'final design
for drainage will be reviewed-and approved- by":M,g:faty Eng;i:;e'ei~;;dth;t pr-;visi;;-~':'
for maintenance of the retention basins will be madeYf"that is the conceptual solution
'. approved by Counci 1. ':...
: ~'.<!' '.~ .~t~::.~7',
;: .;... -;::':. "'::~,;,,\BaY10r Avenue-Mills Street (Adjacent to Bonita High School) ..
..' ":r.~Nf:j,\ITibors expressed concern over the fact that while Baylor Street was stubbfd,.:.
out t~~s~~~~ the adjacent area it was not, in their opinion, designed to accommodate Y
the projected traffic increase. The Planning Commission concluded that prior to any
constructi on of uni ts tri buta ry to Baylor, a second cOllnect i on to Otay Lakes Ro~a'..." .)'\.
through the Bonita Haciendas tract should be available. The Commission made thtt a ./.\1
condition of approval of the tentative map. -;,'
7.
Citizen input at the public hearing.
",
'~hl::~,~ .,'
.l:_-:"f:<t..,. ','
\, '.~ . ..~":~~~
a.
Acacia Avenue.
:.f'.""
D. DETAILS OF SPECIFIC AREA PLAN
1.
Land use, density and lot size
~/
.
','
a. The 650 unit density established for the property on the 1971 General ~
Development Plan for El Rancho del Rey was based on a very superficial analysis of the
site without the benefit of a proposed grading or circulation plan. In addition, lot
padding and retention of open space were not considered in the earlier plan. The .
Sectional Planning Area plan presented for consideration seeks approval of 865 dwell.ing
units. This plan contains more precise design information on which to base a decision
regarding the density. Adjacent land uses (type, lot size, character) as well as topo-
graphic considerations were evaluated in arriving at a recommendation.
"
,
.>
2)
Phase I is located adjacent to a standard single family detached
subdivision (Sduthwestern College Estates) and, therefore, reflects a.'.
density and lot sizes (typical 7,000 sq. ft.) in keeping with that a~ea.
!f,..
Phases II, III and IV abut one-half and one acre county subdivisions~to
the north and west and for the most part reflect a mixture of lot sifes
with the smaller lots confined to the inner core and easterly periphery
of the Phase IV area. The average lot size within these phases varies
from 11,000 sq. ft. (Phase IV) to nearly 20,000 sq. ft. (Phase II).
1)
.
!-" .
"
:~. :,t:'
~. . ;~;
.:,.'~
. ':~ro (t.~; .,~
tJ., ::.l~"}~#l,~ ~1a~y of the lots within Pha~es II, III, IV, and V ~ave pad areas_of 6,qoo
""'" toV';O.PofS'q. ft., thus the largest port1on of the larger lots 1S devoted to'slope banks
~~~wH1ch1~v~ very limited use for the owner. The general character of pad and house
.~'consttJ~tion in this area of Bonita results from an average pad size of approximately
l}i'.(\t,.oOP;;Yq. ft. It is my conclusion that Phases II and V, as ~e~l as the Canyon Drive
area Qf~Phase III, shou1d adhere tQ that standard. The cond1t1on? of ~pproval allow_
continued
3) 'Phase V
lots on
with an
located at the extreme northerly section of the
179 acres, dedicating approximately 89 acres to
average lot size of 25,000 sq. ft.
plan has 157
open space,
Page 5, Item 6a
Meeting Date 5/26/81
the gentler slope areas (up to 20% grade) to be counted as usable pad area for those
., portions of the pads exceeding 7,000 sq. ft. The remaining area of Phase III and all
of Phave IV relate to a more urban setting where minimum pad sizes of 7,000 sq. ft. '.
''.~~a.re appropriate. In addition to pad sizes,.t.he following.standards'.apply: ,:-.;:
'..' 1) . The average pad width '~i.i';':~'~"'~b;-'~~~i ,~~i~} /~;'nim'~~~p~:~~~jd~h. o.tlli;~:
60 feet at the front setbac~",l'!Re.;.;~'W. :~~~~~:;.....;,:,;.:":" ..
"t~'!-':'"
I'i~"~,,,: ":'.
[1':"" "\'
'...~". '.~
1'.' .'.
i',. ,,-,,
~' ;,,:,,1....,4
2)
Minimum pad depth will be 90 feet for the area used in computing the
required minimum pad area.
i\i!~!%~'Iii.'~~~~::
+,~""'r~~J":
. ~t "1;.'.
~.--,,,,~'?.
.':-,~~
>~;~~,::. c. The basic de'n;i~~ of the project reflects what wo'J'ld be expected in,~he
City's standard R-E (1/2 acre) and R,E~40 (40,000 sq. ft.) zones. The setback's':"for
tho'se zones are 25' front, 15'-20' exterior side, 10'-15' side yards and 25' ;"ear.
Since the lots have been clustered so as to preserve substantial areas of natural open
snace, the basic lot size is reduced. This reduction in lot size warrants.an adjustment
to the traditional setbacks in the R-E and R-E-40 zones. I have recommended that the
front yard standard of 25 feet be retained with reductions to side and rear ya.rds more
in keeping with R-l-10 standards (10' exterior side, 10' & 5' side yards, and 20' rear
yard) .
3)
Development standards must be submitted concurrent.,with the. st'ii?'divisio.ol.;'~'"
map filed fo~ eac~. p~a~s~':9~di$~a!l.l"JDclude such itefl),s as.c.~rr;,a\l;,: locations""
and any speclal fenclng cntena. ," ....'.
~l'"
d. Phase VI is proposed as the most densely developed area with plans calling
for 56 dwelling units. The 56 units are proposed on a 4 acre site, however, approxi-
~at91y 2 acres of the site is usable, thereby resultina in a density of 28 units per
acre on the developable land. The adjacent condominium development to the north has
fewer than 50 units developed on 5 acres with another 5 acres in open space. To be
comparable in character, Phase VI should be limited to 20 dwelling units.
2. Equestrian Trails.
The plan is criss-crossed with equestrian trails which parallel proposed roads
and meander through natural open space and connect to the SDG&E primary east/west
trail system as well as adjacent County trails. Minor adjustments to the system, .
including required protective fencing, limited grading and corral locations, will be
addressed with each tentative map filed on the various phases. Phase I, for example,
requires an adjustment to the system to cross into Phase IV at the location of the dam
for the. retention basin. Easements will be necessary to establish trails across certain
lots; signing and fencing will be required where deemed appropriate by the City.
3. Landscaping.
The majority of the ungraded area will be left in its natural state; however,
because of the potential for canyon fires, an area 25 feet wide, beyond each pad
abutting common open space, will be cleared and planted with fire retardant material.
Irrigation of these areas will be the responsibility of the individual homeowner.
Supplemental tree planting will be required in specific canyons and/or drainage areas
to enhance the overall appearance of the development. An overall tree planting scheme
will be required for Phases I-V prior to recordation of the subdivision map for Phase I.
~GJ9 Required landscaping ~djacent to lots backing up to .'~H" St~eet.and Corral Canyon
Road wi 11 be under the malntenace contract of the.,o.p~n ..spa,cetd1$,Jir,l,f,t. Each phase of
development within the Sectional Planning Area will be reeva.lu~!ed~as~~to the amount of
native material or decorative plant materials to be used on' s'16~e7s.:;'.~~,n.:"
';~>1iJ:'~li'..'."" ...
\' nl.;.",,,,:',.
. '..:~~'. i.
~'."';!. .. . . r. .
"\:;' ..;....'r.
. ",l"
Page 6, Item 6a
Meeting Date 5/26/81
4. SChools/Parks.
The elementary school site designated on the plan as 15 acres has approximately
7~ acres of usable area located outside the SDG&E easement. The school district has
indicated a need for a minimum of g acres, excluding the easement. Therefore, if the
district requires dedication of the site, it appears that the water tank shown abutting
the east side of the school would have to be relocated. Staff will work with the
applicant's engineer to resolve this matter.
The 3 acres encumbered by the SDG&E easement is only partially usable since existing
towers supporting 238 KV lines and poles for 69 KV lines are lcoated within this right
of way. In addition, officials of SDG&E have indicated that future plans call for
additional overhead structures and lines within the right of way.
The park site contains approximately 4+ acres of usable land, whereas, the proposed
865 dwelling units would require over 6 acres of park land based on present ordinance
standards. As mentioned earlier in this report, the extension of "H" Street will require
regrading and relandscaping a portion of Tiffany Park for which credit will be given
to the developer. It is estimated at this time that reworking approximately one acre
of Tiffany Park will likely result in the developer being obligated. for 5+ acres of
additional developed park land on the site. The expansion of the park site will require
the elimination of 3 lots shown on the north side of street "P".
The uncertainty of the school district as to whether or not they are going to
require an elementary school site within the development leaves doubt on the city's part
as to whether or not the park should be located within the project. Parks developed
independent of schools are more typically 10 acres in size, whereas, joint park/school
projects providing for some common use of facilities allow the park to function with
5 acres.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the city collect fees with the first
two phases of development and withhold a final decision on the park construction until
subdivision plans are filed for Phase III.
5. Circulation and Phasing.
The 650 acre site is divided into six phases of development, using "H" Street,
Otay Lakes Road and Corral Canyon Road as major access points serving the various
phases. Phase I will be served by "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road, therefore, improve-
ments to those streets are essential to the subdivision. Via Hacienda cannot be
connected to Otay Lakes Road until improvements are installed in the adjacent Bonita
Hacienda subdivision, therefore, building construction for 133 units' of Phase ~ will be
withheld until the'connection can be physically made, . This will 'minimize traffic through
Southwestern College Estates.tract. .' .
Phase II is planned for 148 dwellings which will utilize Canyon Drive connected
to Otay Lakes Road. Until Phase III is developed, Phase II is virtually one.long
cul-de-sac with only partial relief provided by another street (Cumbfe View) which
connects back to Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street by way of Via Hacienda. The Planning
Commission concluded that the approximately 43 lots shown east and south of the inter-
section of street "X" and Canyon Road should be included in Phase III rather than Phase II.
I oefG Y
continued
Page 7, Item
Meeting Date
6a
5/26/81
Construction of Phases III and IV will create the need to connect Corral Canyon
Road with "H" Street and Rutgers. In addition, the City Engineer has determined that
Rutgers Avenue should be connected offsite from the south side of "H" Street to the
Southwestern College Estates area. However, further evaluation will be conducted when
the tentative map is filed for Phase III. Condition 23.a of Planning Commission Resolu-
tion PCM-8l-l3 requires the developer to complete Rutgers south of "H" Street. Condi-
tion 23.b makes the developer responsible for .the street improvements on the south side
of "H" Street from Corral Canyon Road west to the existing improvements. The developer
objects to this condition stating that his development already is required to complete'
excessive offsite improvements. We really cannot evaluate what his fair share on "H"
Street is until a '''reimbursement'' or "fair share" district is developed (see condition
24.c). Bonita Long Canyon was deleted from "H" Street west of Otay Lakes Road because
they would build "H" Street east of Otay Lakes Road. Therefore, we believe they should
build this segment of "H" Street even though they may receive reimbursement.
'I, '. -;,.... ~'ajor offs ite street improvemenfs wi'l."1;~be 'n'ece's'Sa ry in Centra 1 :p,ven~e~)~';"e the .v.....
',k;qdunty has allowed previous developments,.:t"6'odllN0'tthou't providing"'1fB~gU'aJ"e1.}\iiprove- ."
~~~~ents (drainage and street dedication and"i'fuRr,O'verlient') fo serve the area~;S::.'l,is.~Jrid.icated
.', ,'!\'i'ri the EIR, the.' devidopmerit 'of., Bon! ta. .lo~gt::.c:a'ri~off;;:JiiJ):'requ i re Centra 1 Avenue-,t!:to be',
widened to four travel lanes. AlthoJgnr(tnl'g':p'll~ce'S:t~. substantial burden on this
development, the improvements are necessary to sol ve' area access proboems which ~Iill be
maqnifiea by the project
.'
.;,,'"
j,"f"
:"
;
".
Phase V, which includes 157 lots, was originally planned with a loop system involving
streets "S", "V" and "R". The system was modified to leave street "R" as a cul-de-sac,
hov!ever, this solution is workable only if street "S" can be connected through. to.a
lQQ~ street in a County approved tentative subdivision map for property to the west.
If street "S" is not extended to the county road system, two cul-de-sac areas. of 2000
foct to 2400 foot lengths are created with streets "S" and "R". The City Engineer,..:
Director of Planning, and the City's Fire Marshall all agree that providing a~~onnection
from street "S" to the planned loop street in the county helps the overall circulation
pattern in both the county and the city and is an important link for emergency vehicles.
The primary problem in extending the road is that the County has already approved a .
subdivision which eliminated any road connection in this area because of objections
raised by nearby residents in the county. In its place a secondary access road was re-
quired by the developer of the county subdivision to connect northerly to Central
Avenu.e. A requirement placed on this developer to provide for the extension of "S" street
to:~tne'.county subdivision would necessitate condemnation or purchase of an approved
su~:~;i'v'i~ion lot, t?g~ther with approval.from the County. ~onditions .could .p.{W}iqly.....
chq.nge lf the subdlvlslon map explres wlthout the recordatlon of a flnal map':';.Ji.The
Council should authorize the Mayor to submit a letter to the Board of Superv.l~,9rs
. ~xging the approval of this street connection. ?:\. '~;i~
.*~i It should ~e noted that the school s~te, wate~ tank area~ and the park ar~~n.?L ~~~,
.~J.t~learlY shown ln any phase.. The schedullng of thlS cort.ructlg.n.:sh?~~~:b~.>est.~.r!~:~'~,~:,a~.;l''''"
~with the filing of a tentative map for Phase III. '. .' .:..... .
.. ~I,~)'.
. $;-/..:'"
:!(:<,..
of:':;-'
::"
Phase VI is dependent only upon improvements along Otay Lakes Road, therefore,
construction could occur independent of the other phases.
.,~ '''; ."'''..... - ~ -
. , ~
'----~
. .
','
,d" ,
"
cQrjfiriued
. - -.'" .
r cf{(p 7
',' The propo~~,d"acces's: ',r.oad- to the water tank and the K-6' el ementary school has not
been approveq~",jjy. SDG&E and,. therefore, shoul d be consi dered schema tic at thi s time.
'7~" . A-. "":t:~'~:~~. .
'~t. ':.'?7'~:f~F~:f'..;:~~~""t," .~' ':'~"
!~~~ ~. '. '.;7;'~ ,enGll~ng:f~
':"; .,<\; " .:. :1}1~~O~,:, :..,:~ . !... '
'~"';.~.~iii~:(2~E?~:9tt-a~ive block wall ~i~l. be require~ along "H" ~treet and Corral Canyon Road
"1!1: K.~~p'~I!~.'Wlth current subdlvlslon regulatlons. Additlonal fencing for equestrian
ar.eas'aJ;~ell as slope protection fencing need to be addressed in subsequent filings
of tentatlve maps.
8. CC&R's
The applicant will be required to file CC&R's with the City which will prohibit
the splitting or resubdivsion of any lot. This condition is necessary because of the
wide variety of lot sizes within the property.
9. Annexation.
The applicant has made inquiries regarding annexation, however, no application has
been filed as of this date. Because of the inter-relationship of the various phases,
I recommend that the entire 650 acres be annexed before final map approval is given to
Phase I.
10. Development Standards.
The development standards submitted by the applicant are incomplete and inconsistent
with the Sectional Planning Area plan filed with the City. Revised development standards
should be filed with each tentative map on a phase by phase basis to insure that
standards will relate more clearly to each phase of construction.
11. Low/Moderate Income Housing.
In general, the 865 unit Sectional Planning Area plan is not designed to accommodate
low or moderate income housing. The 56 unit condominium or apartment area, designed for
the Phase VI'area, could provide an isolated and limited area for moderately priced
.units. However, as outlined early in this report, I cannot support the density requested
and recommend authorization of no more than 20 units. for the site.' Under,.present 'poli.cy,
the appl icant is required to "address the need" to develop 10% of his units at p,r..ices '
affordable by low or moderate income families. The applicant has prepared a lett~r ...~'-~...
(enc 1 osed in Counc il 's packets) descri bi ng the way in whi ch .he has .','addressed the need."
Page 8, Item
6a
Meet i ng Da te
5/26/81
" ..,6. SOG&E Easement.
..' ;. .
.' . :';:~;)~'ThE(.~D~m:~t<i~~.me.DJ i s encu.'!lber.ed;;b)""e~~~!~~,~tower.s,;,~.O,l es an~ overhead 1 i nes,
,.;;,,'wn,ic'h,:'l.iniils activitY within ,to tra.i.ls, open'('.space, roads,or parklng. At present the
"', Ci'ty reqGi:res developers to under~j'r.~,und .~9YY:' .iI6:~.~ w~\~h.exceed 1500. feet in 1 ength.
Wnen this item was considered by the' ~lann]ing ,Cqmmlsslon;' representatlves of SDG&E
had indicated that one line was exclusive 69 KV. However, a recent field check by SDG&E
has shown that a 12 KV line is also attached to the same pole system. Present City
ordinances require the undergrounding of the 12 KV line and not 69 KV when they exist
on{t~e same system. Therefore, the developer would be required ~o underg~ound the.
;.12 KV unless a separate waiver is requested and granted by the Clty Councll; Councll
'ap'p0q'ved such a waiyer for the adjacent Bonita Haciendas subdivision.
" . tt ~ll'" C
...~ '"" " / \ ~)f.::""..:- 'w...'r...-:-..........;-
. '; ',.1..' M-.:"'>~:..J-"" -~.., ~ .
{'\ ~. \', #-;.. . -; ~~'":
I,.~....p;:-;~l ...."t.:,. ,,'
- :.. ~. . ~,', 1,.J,. ':', .~" ' ...'
, ::".,p:,~:?':?'v..:..-
. "l'" .' ,.lj~ ,\_1 .' . ...
, ..' ~ .' -"l.t{ . ~ .: .
.~ '1 "~.:,.p~ ',t~....;,{N1Y.;; .
". ,~! . . ~::~-J; ';.,,'!.'jI
\ .,..' }
'---__ "C'-
."' ---_~J....o..;.:.-:;::=-~ ~'_
/;;}.{,:.:
-,~......,~J
" ~
";""
-------
'C...:f'
. .,~ ..'..
. ;>
,.:f
,
Page g, Item 6a
Meeting Date 5/26/81
12. Street Names.
''','
.' ~ -:.
of the following street names. ..:,.;
" ..:~~.t. ,', ~.'~.~.. ~ :~:t~:~;:'~~~.~.\~ :'~7.;;~..~;~f:'
,.'.JIiJf'-. .....', . .. . t.... ~ ~. '. ....
.- '-.... ,"~;. ,,"
The Pl a nni ng Commi ss ion has recommended approva 1
.,.....\..:..
a. For Phase I:
b.
':
I t/{b ~
Designation on Map
Street A
Street C
Street D
Street E
Street F
Street G
Street J
St reet I
Cha nge to
Redlands Place
Tampa Court
Dra ke Court
Austin Court
Azusa Court
Bristol Court
Hampton Court
Yuba Drive
In Bonita Long Canyon Sectional Planning Area, Pliases;.ft, III,
'. ,',..:....
I~i'
,. .
~"':.
Map
',_. .Change to
,'C~ ..1#'....' So...",...
IV, and V:."
.~{~....~": .
;;" ....... .;...~..ii .:,'
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
K (south of Canyon Drive)
K (cul-de-sac off street P)
L
t1
N
o
P
Q
R
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Hackney Drive
Crown Pl ace
Derby Way
Prancers Court
Co It Cou rt
Churchill Place
Turf Club Drive
Pine Trails Court
Trotter Road
Country Trails Lane
Horseshoe Hay
Sulky Court
Exacta Court
Sara toga Street
Canyon Court
Belmont Drive
Pimlock Court
Meadow Pl ace
~;, ~~.t}.., ~ :;~::,1: De s i qn a t ion ~on
" ~....:.~ :',..:' ~,.f~ _ p.,'
{: k~'~~;*
...\.'....,,~
".,.,\.....,!'&m
?.r:.~:,.."lo~~. '.t.
.'.~~:.~~;..' .
(north of street S)
(west of Corral Canyon)
~...
. '(tit,.