Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1981/12/16 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, December 16, 1981 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 2, 1981 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of draft EIR-81-3 on EastLake Planned Community (Continued from December 2, 1981) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-9, request for professional office use in R-1 zone, 43 and 47 East "H" Street - George A. Pannell 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 82-6 Hilltop Terrace, northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion Avenue - Dale Building Company (Continued from December 2, 1981) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 82-7, Las Flores, north of "D" Street, Las Flores Drive - Harold West 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-8, request to operate family amusement center at 581 Telegraph Canyon Road in C-C-P zone - Alex Aquilino DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of December 16, 1981 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of draft EIR-S1-3 on EastLake Planned Community A. BACKGROUND 1. This hearing was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of December 2, 1981 so as to obtain comments from State agencies through the State Clearing House and the EastLake Task Force. 2. City staff met with representatives from the Clearing House and various state agencies on Monday, December 7, 1981. The attached letters of comment were presented and discussed at that meeting. They will be included in the final EIR and a response or change in the EIR made where appropriate. 3. The EastLake task force has not yet formulated a position. Their final meeting is scheduled for December 14, 1981 and they will make a presentation at the meeting of December 16, 1981. B. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1. Representatives of EastLake have expressed some concern regarding the traffic analysis as presented in the EIR. The traffic Volumes shown on figures 3-8 and 3-9 are those which would result from development throughout the traffic study area--not just the EastLake project. Figures 3-10 and 3-11 show the percentage of the total traffic (if greater than 5%) which is attributable to the EastLake project. 2. It should also be noted that in network l, where streets are extended through the Agriculture and Reserve Areas as shown on the General Plan, the assumed land use (with the exception of the EastLake area) is only one dwelling unit per four acres {.25 DU/ac.}. This obviously underestimates traffic which would ultimately be generated from this area, particularly if those areas develop with densities similar to those in the EastLake proposal. In network 2, where street segments are not extended, it was assumed that no development exists adjacent to those segments. This also results in an under- esimation of ultimate traffic. 3. Staff has been concerned over the potential traffic impacts at the inter- changes along 1-805; therefore an addendum to the traffic study and EIR has been prepared by Stephen George & Associates. This addendum has not been evaluated by staff, however, an oral presentation will be made at the Planning Commission meeting. C. RECOMMENCATION Take additional testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and close the public hearing. The final EIR will be scheduled for consideration when the project comes before the Planning Commission. SGA 8102-S2 ADDENDUM TO EAST CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC AND IMPACT STUDY For The EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY City of Chula Vista EIR-81-3 December 9, 1981 Prepared For WESTEC SERVICES, INC. 3211 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 and CITY OF CHULA VISTA Environmental Review Committee By ........ . ..... STEPHEN GEORGE & ASSOCIATES Consulting Planners, Traffic & Transportation Specialists 6856 Deerrun Place San Diego, CA 92120 ADDENDUM TO EAST CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC AND IMPACT STUDY For The EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY City of Chula Vista EIR-81-3 A comprehensive traffic circulation and impact study was com- pleted for the EASTLAKE PLANNED COMMUNITY, a development project proposed for the area east of the City of Chula Vista and west of Otay Lakes, located about five miles east of 1-805. The traffic study report, East Chula Vista Traffic and Impact Study for the Eastlake Planned Community, dated August 14, 1981 and revised September 18, 1981, was included in the appendix of the DRAFT EIR. The traffic study report and draft EIR presented the intersection capacity and level of service (LOS) for eleven (11) selected intersections each of Networks 1 and 2 for the Target Year 2000. Since the local street networks along 1-805 freeway were not computer coded by the develOper to provide projected Year 2000 turning movements at the freeway ramp termini's, the freeway ramp intersection capacity was not calculated or assessed in the draft EIR. To overcome this assessment deficiency, the City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineer researched local traffic counts and estimated the probable directional splits of traffic approaching the freeway ramps, from the west and from the east. These estimates provided the initial assumptions on the projected turning movements at the freeway ramp termini's, but these estimates had to be adjusted to reflect the computer projected Year 2000 link volumes on the freeway ramps and the cross-connecting local streets. The initial given estimates of turning movement splits at the freeway ramps, and their final resolution by the City's consultant are shown in Appendix G, attached. EXHIBIT 14 presents the intersection capacity and LOS analysis results for the selected ten (10) freeway ramp intersections along 1-805 for Network 1. Of the five northbound ramp intersections analyzed for the east side of 1-805, two resulted in a LOS "F" (Bonita Road and Telegraph Canyon Road), one at LOS "E" (EastH Street),one at LOS "C" (East Orange Ave.), and one at LOS "B" (Otay Valley Road). For the southbound ramp intersections on the west side of 1-805, one resulted in the LOS "E" (Bonita Road), one with a LOS "C" (Orange Avenue), and three with a LOS "A" (H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Valley Road). The ten intersections are further discussed below. (See EXHIBIT 14.)' Intersection 1 - Southbound On-Off Ramps and Bonita Road Intersection 2 - Northbound On-Off Ramps and Bonita Road Bonita Road is currently a 4-lane divided arterial. The roadway under the 1-805 bridge is limited to 4-lane divided with a single left-turn median lane for the northbound and the southbound on- ramps, within a curb-to-curb distance of 98 feet. The heaviest A.M. peak turning maneuvers are estimated to approach the inter- sections from the east, turning northbound and southbound on the freeway. To provide needed approach leg capacity the roadways will need to be widened to three-lane approach width froTM the east and west. The single left-turning lanes under the freeway bridge will need to be expanded to dual-left turning lanes by traffic paint markings, leaving a shoulder area adequate for bike lanes. With these future improvements, the capacity analysis disclosed that Intersection 1 will operate at .90 and LOS "E", while Intersection 2 will operate at 1.10 and LOS "F". Further improvements at these two intersections would be costly. The project traffic is anticipated to be minimal at these inter- sections, while the non-project traffic will be the principal contributor to the projected low LOS. (See EXHIBIT 11.) Intersection 3 - Southbound On-Off Ramps and East H Street Intersection 4 - Northbound On-Off Ramps and East H Street H Street west of 1-805 provides access to/from the central portion of Chula Vista, while the portion east of 1-805 is currently programmed for future construction. The existing roadway west of 1-805 is a 4-lane divided arterial, while the proposed roadway east of 1-805 is planned for a 6-lane divided arterial. The heaviest A.M. peak turning maneuvers are estimated to approach the intersection from the east, turning northbound. The present interchange is a partial cloverleaf limited to the southwest and southeast quadrants; with a left-turn lane to the southbound on-ramp and a left-turn lane from the northbound off- ramp. To accommodate the heavy westbound-to-northbound maneuver, the three approach lanes from the east will need to provide for dual right-turn maneuvers to the northbound on-ramp (a manditory right-turn in the right lane, an optional right-turn from the middle lane which would also continue across the freeway to the west). With this accommodation, the capacity analysis disclosed that Intersection 3 will operate at .41 and LOS "A", while Intersection 4 will operate at .95 and LOS "E". The project traffic will constitute six (6) percent of the total projected ADT traffic approaching and leaving east of 1-805. Intersection 5 - Southbound On-Off Ramps and Telegraph Canyon Road Intersection 6 - Northbound Off-On Ramps and Telegraph Canyon Road Telegraph Canyon Road approaching 1-805 is a 6-lane divided arterial. The interchange is basically diamond ramps with a cloverleaf ramp in the southwest quadrant, which eliminates the left-turn at-grade maneuver from the southbound off-ramp. The highest A.M. peak maneuver at the £nterchange is to the northbound on-ramp. With the present geometries, the capacity analysis disclosed that Intersection 5 will operate at .58 and LOS "A", while Intersection 6 will operate at 1.02-1.10 and LOS F. The project traffic will contribute about 17 percent of the total projected ADT traffic approaching or leaving east of 1-805. Intersection 7 - Southbound Off-On Ramps and East Orange Avenue Intersection 8 - Northbound Off-On Ramps and East Orange Avenue The projected traffic lane requirements on Orange Avenue east and · west of 1-805 is 4-lane and 6-lanes divided arterial, respectively. The bridge over 1-805 is presently limited to 52-feet curb-to- curb, one lane westbound and 2-lanes eastbound plus pocket left- turn lanes. The heaviest A.M. peak hour approach leg volume is from the east. Assuming that a three-lane approach to 1-805 is provided from the east, with the middle lane optional to the northbound on-ramp, the capacity calculations disclosed that Intersections 7 and 8 would operate at .73-.80 and LOS "C". The project traffic will be about ll percent of the total projected ADT traffic. Intersection 9 - Southbound Off-On Ramps and Otay Valley Road Intersection 10 - Northbound Off-On Ramps and Otay Valley Road While Otay Valley Road is presently two-lanes wide, the cross- section under the 1-805 bridge is about 82-feet wide, accommo- dating two lanes in each direction plus a left-turn£ng lane to the northbound and southbound on-ramps. The highest A.M. peak hour turning maneuver is from'the east to the northbound on-ramp. Assuming no change in the interchange geometrics, the capacity analysis disclosed that Intersection 9 would operate at .46 and LOS "A", while Intersection 10 would operate at .68 and LOS "B". The project would contribute minimum traffic to the interchange. Stephen Georqe & Associates December 9, 1981 APPENDIX G ENGINEERING September 21, 1981 File # HY025 Stephen George 6856 Deerrun Place San Deigo, CA 92120 EASTLAKE EIR - TP~AFFIC STUDY Please use the following distributions for traffic approaching 1-805 from the east. Bonita Road North - 40% West - 35% /7 South - 25% "H" Street North - 45% 67 West - 30% ~ South - 25% /o Tel. Cyn. Rd. North - 45% ?? West - 30% /6 South - 25% ~ Orange Avenue North - 50,% 76 West - 25% J3 South - 25% // Otay Valley Road North - 45% West - 25% South - 30% Hope This helps in the capacity calculations. GARY R. HANSEN TRAFFIC ENGINEER 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 575-5021 CAUFORNIA October 21, lgSl ENGINEERING File No. HY-025 Stephen George 6856 Deerrun Place San Diego, CA 92120 EASTLAKE EIR - TRAFFIC STUDY Please use the following distributions for traffic from the west. Bonita Road north - 40% east - 35% south - 25% East "H" Street north - 45% east - 30% south - 25% Telegraph Canyon Road north - 40% east - 40% south - 20% East Orange Avenue north - 60% east - 20% south - 20% Otay Valley Road north - 50% east - 25% south- 25% GARY R. HANSEN Traffic Engineer GRH: nr 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 575-5021 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1,,~.00 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 9S81,4 Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chila Vista December 4, 1981 P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 SUBJECT: Eastlake Planned Community DEIR - SCH# 80121007 Dear Mr. Reid: The State Clearinghouse has completed its review of the draft environ- mental impact report (DEIR) for the Eastlake project. In reviewing the document, the Clearinghouse found it to be very comprehensive. The ex- tensive research and analyses of various issues involved with the pro- ject is evident. Other State Agencies have also completed their review of the environmental document. If you would like to discuss their con- cerns, please contact the staff from the appropriate agencies. Clearinghouse concerns with the project include: project location and associated impacts on services, loss of agricultural lands, phasing of the project, housing and employment concerns. SERVICES- SEWER The proposed project, located 7.5 miles east of downtown Chula Vista, will be costly to service, especially considering the extension of sew- er systems and a transportation network to the site. Sewer services, in order to reach the area, must be extended anywhere from 9,200 feet to ten miles or more. According to the document, the developer would be required to cover the costs for extension of temporary sewer lines and a reclamation plant, if needed (p. 76). However, will the City have to cover the majority of the costs for extending sewer lines? If so, the City should compare the costs of extending sewer to Eastlake with the costs of extending sewer to a project contiguous to existing urban de- velopment. TRANSPORTATION An extensive traffic impact study is included with the DEIR. The City, likely to bear the burden for highway construction costs, should analyze the costs for extending a highway network to Eastlake. Fiscal and en- vironmental constraints and alternatives can be looked at. Again, how would the project, located adjacent to existing urban areas, be more cost effective? Public transit busses can service the area, according to the DEIR. The document should discuss public transit access to commercial and retail development. Also, it is not clear whether services for the handicapped will cover the project area and how adequate these services will be. PHASING DEVELOPMENT STAGES Phasing of development, as proposed, should be done with areas clos- est to Chula Vista being developed first. In the proposal, it appears that most of phase two is further from the existing city boundaries than phase three. Particular reasons for the timing of these phases should be discussed in the DEIR. HOUSING The housing section of the DEIR does not mention any provision for af- fordable housing in the Eastlake plan. The DEIR should discuss this especially considering the scope of the project. EMPLOYMENT The document needs to further address how the project will link jobs to housing. The document addresses the employment opportunities that will result from the development. However, methods to encourage em- ploying Eastlake residents close to home is only discussed as an al- ternative. The Clearinghouse supports using these methods (p.106) in the plan for Eastlake. When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and res- ponses (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified EIR must be considered in the decision-making process for the project. In addi- tion, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies' comments by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse number on all cor- respondence. A recent Appelate Court decision in Cleary v. County of Stanislaus clarified requirements for responding to review comments. Specifi- cally, the court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding importance warrenting an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be conclusory state- ments but must be supported by empirical or experimental data, scien- tific authority or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analy- sis. Section 15002(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency take certain actions if an EIR shows substantial adverse en- vironmental impacts could result from a project. These actions in- clude changing the project, imposing conditions on the project, adopt- ing plans or ordinances to avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disaproving the project. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written state- ment of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (Section 15089). If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please contact Daniel Conaty at (916) 445-0613 if you have any quest- ions. Sincerely, State~learinghouse ~lc~;a~use/ cc: Ken Fellows, Resources Sta~e of California T~ ~ESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Memorandum Jim Burns To Assistant to the Secretary Dote December 4, 1981 Resources Agency Subject: EastLake Draft Doug Reid Master Environmental Environmental Review Coordinator Impact Report, City of City of Chula Vista Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue SCH 80121007 Chula Vista, CA 92010 From : Department of Conservation-~Office of the Director The Department of Conservation has reviewed the EastLake Draft Master Environmental Impact Report, which proposes development of a 3,073 acre planned community on dry farmed agricultural land. The project is in Otay Mesa, in Southern'San Diego County. Development of the EastLake community would require annexation to the City of Chula Vista to the west, ammendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, and prezoning to Planned Community from the present agricultural designation. Surrounding areas are primarily comprised of agricultural and grazing lands and natural terrain. In response to the EastLake proposal, we offer the following comments. The Department, as administrator of the California Land Conservation Act (the Williamson Act), is concerned about the loss of productive and potentially productive prime land which would result from development of the proposed EastLake project. Statewide, California loses approximately 50,000 acres of prime agricultural land to urban development annually. An additional 100,000 acres of other important farmlands are irreversibly committed to urban uses each year. Accordingly, we believe that every proposal for conversion of agricultural land requires serious consideration. Our comments fall into four categories: 1. Analysis of Agricultural Potential, 2. LAFCO Review, 3. Growth-inducing Impacts, 4. Planning Decisions Pending. 1. Analysis of Agricultural Potential The City of Chula Vista'spolicies encourage the preservation of productive agricultural land. Although these policies emphasize current productivity, they also allow for protection of potentially productive land. Chula Vista's General Plan designates land in the proposed EastLake area as "Agriculture and Reserve" (pp. 30, 31); the Plan leaves open the option of urban develop- ment without incorporating development as a foregone conclusion. If the agricultural potential of such land is found to be significant, the city's policies provide for leaving it in agriculture permanently (see the study proposed in the City's Open Space Element, p. 31; and our further comment below, p. 4 of this letter). It appears the agricultural potential of the EastLake site is significant since, with adequate water, the soil and climate can support coastal dependent crops year-round (p. 45). Doug Reid Page 2 December 4, 1981 In light of the significant agricultural potential of the EastLake site, we feel a rigorous economic analysis is needed to answer the following questions: o What is the cost per acre to provide irrigation water to the project site? The EIR notes that the cost of water for agriculture would about equal the cost of water for development at a density of 5-6 dwelling units (du)/acre, the average density of the proposed project (p. 50). o What offsetting financial benefits would be realized with production of off-season coastal dependent crops? What are the potential economic benefits of growing such crops as tomatos or flowers versus residential and commercial development? o What future water options are available, and what would be the projected attainment costs for each option? o What is the potential importance to the regional economy of various land use options, including dry farming, irrigated intensive agriculture, and urban development. The long term need to preserve the agricultural potential of the EastLake area must also be recognized. San Diego County has 62,000 remaining acres of Class I, II, III and IV lands in coastal and near coastal areas. Many of these are also threatened by urbanization. Development of the EastLake area eliminates yet another option for producing coastal dependent crops in the future. 2. LAFCO Review Under California's Knox-Nisbet Act (1963), the San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) must review and approve the annexation proposed as part of the EastLake project. Because of this approval authority, the LAFCO is a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and must be consulted in the preparation of a Draft EIR. The EIR only discusses the LAFCO review with respect to established review criteria relating to agricultural lands and "leapfrog" developments (pp. 47, 51). It would be halpful to have some indication of the LAFCO's concerns, if any, with the EastLake proposal. The San Diego County LAFCO has not yet adopted a sphere of influence for the City of Chula Vista (pp. 1, 14). A sphere of influence, required by California Government Code, Sec. 54774, is one of eight factors a LAFCO must consider when acting on an annexation proposal (see Calif. Govt. Code, Sec. 54796). The deadline for adopting spheres of influence has long since passed, as the Doug Reid Page 3 December 4, 1981 California Attorney General held in 60 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen., 119 (1977). Therefore, annexations to a city for which the LAFCO has not adopted a sphere of influence are vulnerable to legal challenge. A case in point is Resources Defense Fund v. Santa Cruz LAFCO; this litigation involves similar annexation issues. Because of the legal issue, the City of Chula Vista should consider awaiting adoption of a sphere of influence before considering annexation of the EastLake project area. 3. Growth-inducing Impacts The Draft EIR notes that the proposed EastLake project, if constructed, would result in significant growth-inducing impacts. These could have far reaching effects on agricultural production in Otay Mesa, which contains 12 percent of San Diego's productive acreage. Of primary concern is the premature urban development of productive and potentially productive lands, a scenario that conflicts with existing city and county growth management plans (p. 180). To reflect the intent of the local plans, the EIR must include more detailed discussion of several important growth-related aspects of the proposed project, including the need for housing and industry in the EastLake area and the extension or improvement by urban services to a semi- rural location. o Housing Demand and Supply. The EIR suggests that the need for additional housing in the proposed EastLake area counterbalances the development priorities enumer- ated in California's Urban Strategy (p. 32), priorities which discourage premature conversion of farmlands to urban uses. The EIR does not, however, present facts to demonstrates an overriding housing need. It leaves unanswered key questions, such as: a) What are the projected costs of the proposed housing units? b) Would the EastLake proposal provide sufficient housing types and price ranges to accomodate low and moderate income levels? c) Would the EastLake development provide needed housing opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere within or contiguous to urban boundaries? We feel th°se questions require answers before an informed decision can be made on the EastLake proposal. o Employment Opportunities. The EIR states that 22 percent of the ultimate population of EastLake would be able to find employment in the EastLake community (p. 36). The 22 percent figure should be supported by discussion of the specific employment opportunities anticipated. Also, the EIR notes that the county-wide employment average is 38 percent of the total population (p. 36). If these two figures, 22 percent and 38 percent, are correct, there is potentially a workforce surplus of 16 percent of EastLake's Doug Reid Page 4 December 4, 1981 ultimate population. In light of this potential surplus, the ability of nearby communities to absorb more employees should be analyzed carefully; if they will be unable to provide adequate emplo~ent oppor- tunities for EastLake residents, there will be new pressures for commercial and industrial development in Otay Mesa. The EIR does suggest that future development beyond the bounds of the EastLake proposal may be desirable to increase the number of close-in jobs (p. 36). The EastLake project, although a "planned community," is not self-sufficient. Not only would it rely on Chula Vista's urban support services, it would be dependent on future development to improve its employment situation. o Support Services. The EastLake EIR discusses the range of urban support services the proposed development would require: sewer, water, schools, police, fire (pp. 68, 77, 81, 85, 87). In all cases, the project anticipates drawing on existing service facilities which now supply the City of Chula Vista. These expansions would be to a currently undeveloped and relatively isolated area, thereby providing inducement for further growth. o Transportation Corridors. The EIR discusses transportation impacts of the proposed development in terms of increased traffic flow only (p. 67). The EIR should address the negative impacts on agricultural land of the road building and the road-widening proposed as part of the EastLake project. 4. Planning Decisions Pending The Draft EIR refers to a number of planning decisions or studies in progress. The most significant is a study, referred to in Chula Vista's Open Space Element, "to determine locations of subareas (in the Agriculture and Reserve area) which should be afforded more permanent protection." (p. 31). We understand that the city has contracted for this study and that the results will be used to guide future urban growth. We hope that the City will abide by its original intentions, and commitment to the General Plan, and complete this study before making any decisions on the EastLake proposal. In addition to the study of agricultural "subareas," the EIR mentions three other relevant planning studies which have not yet been completed: A community plan for Otay Mesa, being prepared by the City of San Diego (p. 33); the Bonita Long Canyon Specific Planning Area, in its tentative first phase (p. 177); and the Chula Vista Planning Department's Greenbelt Plan, in its formative stages (p. 184). These plans could guide the City of Chula Vista in its consideration of the EastLake proposal, and other major land use decisions as well. Doug Reid Page 5 December 4, 1981 The EastLake Draft EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the proposed development. In the above comments, we have attempted to identify the issues raised which directly affect productive agricultural lands in Otay Mesa. These issues are serious enough to call for further study and very careful evaluation. We hope that our comments are helpful to the City as it reviews the EastLake EIR. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Final EIR when it becomes available and would also like to receive copies of all decisions the City makes with regard to the EastLake proposal. Esther Maser Environmental Program Coordinator cc: State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research San Diego County LAFCO Memorandum To : Ann Barkley, Chief Date: October 20, 1981 Division of Transportation Planning File: Clearinghouse ..... F. Darrell Husum From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subiect: Project Review - SCH 80121007 - Eastlake Planned Community - Up To 11,800 Dwelling Units, Commercial And Other Facilities On A 3,073 Acre Site East Of Chula Vista The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics has reviewed the Environmental I~pact Report (EIR) for this project. On December 10, 1980 we responded to a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for this project and indicated our views as to the scop~ and content recommended for the EIR ..... Cn June 8, 1981 we reviewed an "Inventory of Resources and Hazards" for the proj~c~t,.and again commen~ed ..... The EIR introduces no new elements and is well written. It appears that the project site will not be influenced by any airport and the major noise source will be related to surface traffic. Our only other comment is to recommend that any circulation network for The project site be coordinated with the City and County of San Diego and with District 11 of the California Department of Transportation. The EIR is adequate for our purposes. MARK F. ~.~ISFAG~L, Chief Division of Aeronautics B~r~d >lill~ Environmental Planner Attachment ·-FAemorandurn Headquarters Date: November 23, 198i DAn Barkley File: 11-SD-305 Chief, Division of Transportation Planning 6.7 Department A-95 Coordinator From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D~_tr-c. 11 Subject: SCI{ ,%80121007, Eastlake Planned Con%munity Caltrans District 11 Comments on the Draft EIS are as follows: 1. Page 56 states that State Route 125 was deleted from the future State highway system. That implies an action which has not been taken by the State Legislature. Actually, the deletion was "from the Regional Trans- portation Plan'=. 2. Pages 5 and 66 call for the construction of SR 125 as a four-lane prime arterial between the project and SR 54. It should be understood that local government must be responsible for the funding and construction of that mitigation. Such an arterial would not be State Route 125, although it might be called SA 1125 or some other designation. 3. Pages 5 and 67 specify reclassification of Sweetwater Road as a major arterial. Because the freeway agreement for State Route 54 does not call for an interchange at Sweetwater Road, local roads north of the freeway will ultimately have to distribute the traffic from Sweetwater Road. 4. Page.5~reports 19,700 ADT on SR 54 between 1-805 east to Washington Street. That probably should be Worthington Street, the continuation of Sweetwater Road. Using the 19,700 average in Figure 3-5 tends to conceal the hiqker volume near Interstate 805. Caltrans counts for 19~0 show average daily traffic of 27,500 on Route 54, just east of Interstate 805. 5. The description of existing and planned Park and Ride sites on page 60 is accurate, but those facilities did not anticipate the Eastlake Planned Community and cannot adequately serve a project of its magnitude. "As pointed out in our response to the Notice of Prepa'~ation Ann Earkley -2- November 23, 1921 at least one site should ke included in the development plan. An irrevocable grant of 100 spaces at the shopping center would provide a logical ~n_~~fac~ with transit service. //~J~es T. Cheshire /~hief, Environmental Planning Branch State of California Memorandum To : State Clearinghouse Date : November 19, 1981 Dan P~ace : Sacramento From : Department of Food and Agriculture Subject: SCH. ~80121007 3,073-Acre Eastlake Development The California Department of Food and Agriculture has reviewed the above draft Environmental Impact Report and we have the following comments. This 3,073-acre development conflicts with both the County of San Diego Regional Growth Management Plan (RGMP) and the Chula Vista General Plan, in which the designated land-use is Agriculture and Reserve. We note that such changes in the land-use designation in the General Plan as proposed will result in the loss of 2,820 acres of prime soils. This conver- sion is a significant impact in terms of the loss of potential production of coastal-dependent crops. Moreover, this project constitutes "leapfrog" development which CDFA opposes. The Majority of the Eastlake acreage is located in relative isolation from other urban development and provision of sewer services across off-site areas to reach the project site will have significant growth-inducing effects on adjacent agricultural land. Therefore, CDFA recommends the "No Project" alternative discussed on page 181 in which the existing land-use designations for the Jamul Ranch will be retained. Harry J. Krade Assistant Director Special Assignments (916) 445-0682 SURNAME AIR RESOURCES BOARD DATE: November 24, 1981 TO: l) Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator Resources Agency 2) Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Project Title: Eastlake Planned Community, SCH No. 80121007 Project Description: Location: San Dieqo San Dieqo City of Chula Vista (AIR BASIN) (COUNTY) 1SPECIFIC LOCATION) Impacts: 3,073 30,445 11,800 1,428,750 (ACRES) (POPULATION) (DWELLING UNITS) (ADT) (VMT) Evaluation of Air Quality Analyses: Analysis of: Adequate Inadequate Comment Number X Environmental Setting Impact of Project Proposal X and Alternatives Mitigation Measures for Project Proposal and Alternatives X 1 Cumulative Impacts Consistency Demonstration with Appropriate Air Quality Plans (SIP/AQMP) X 2 Other Mr. Burns Mr. Reid -2- November 24, 1981 Comments: l. AS stated in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21002.1(a), "The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." Page 154 of the draft EIR identifies some possible mitigation measures which, if implemented, could reduce some of the adverse air quality impacts of the project. However, the final EIR should be strengthened to indicate committments from appropriate entities to implement these measures. 2. In reviewing the DEIR, we are concerned that air quality imp. acts associated with this proposal may offset past achievements ]n improving air quality. San Diego has one of the most progressive air quality plans in the state. However, there is still a great deal of work to be done to attain clean air in San Diego County. Therefore, we encourage the decision-makers' approval of projects which meet local needs and are consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). This particular project is addressed as being inconsistent with the adopted AQMP for the San Diego area. If this project is to be approved, we recommend that additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in the DEIR, be implemented to offset unplanned emissions. ARB requests notification of future hearings/workshops. Yes X No ARB request final EIR for review. Yes X No Reviewed by Beverly Daniels (916) 445-0960 {NAME) {TELEPHONE NUMBER) Sincerely, Gary Agid, Chief Local Project Support Branch cc: R. Sommerville, San Diego APCD D. Conaty, OPR City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 Page 2 2, PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional use permit PCC-82-9, request, to use histori,: buildings for professional offiCes at 43 and 47 East "H" S'treet in the R-l-lO zone - George A. Pannell A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting permission to move the "Our House" structure (historical site No. 4) presently located at 666 Third Avenue and another historical structure to be determined at a later date onto two parcels located at 43 and 47 East "H" Street in the R-l-lO zone to be used as professional offices. 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-17, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on December 3, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-17, together with the following mitigation measures: a. The City's Landscape Architect shall review the landscape plans to assure compatibility with the landscaping theme along East "H" Street and the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan. b. All parking lot lighting shall be screened to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas. c. A left-turn pocket shall be installed subject to approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. d. Proper sight distance shall be assured and the means to accomplish this must be approved by the Traffic Engineer prior to the implementa- tion of the project. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "F" of this report, adopt a motion approving PCC-82-9, subject to the following conditions: a. The historic structures shall be restored as near as possible to their original appearance. The restoration shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. b. Offices for doctors and dentists are expressly prohibited. Zoning permits for all office use shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. c. A landscaping and irrigation plan, encompassing both parcels, shall be submitted upon application for a building permit. d. All of the parking, landscaping, lighting, and any required walls and/or fences on both parcels shall be installed with the first phase of development. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 Page 3 e. The exterior lighting shall be decorative and in keeping with the historical nature of the buildings. f. The hours of operation shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. g. Both parcels shall receive access from a single two way driveway centered on the common property line. h. A fire hydrant shall be installed on site; the location and size shall be determined by the Fire Marshal. i. A planned signing program in accordance with Section 19.60.490 through 19.60.520 shall be submitted along with the application for any building permit on the initial stage of development. A monument sign is allowed for each site. j. An area shall be set aside within each structure, denoting the history of the structure along with photographs and a plaque. k. Textured paving shall be utilized at the driveway entrance and areas of pedestrian circulation. 1. The driveway shall utilize alley type curb returns with a 20 foot minimum radius. A 5 foot wide sidewalk shall be required adjacent to "H" Street. m. The entire property, including the buildings, shall be maintained in a proper manner. Failure to maintain the property will constitute grounds for reconsideration of the use permit and possible revocation by the Rlanning Commission. C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North County R-l* Single family dwellings South R-1 Single family dwellings East R-l-lO Single family dwellings West County R-l* Single family dwellings *Minimum lot size, 10,000 sq. ft.--prezoned R-l-lO. 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of two relatively level vacant parcels located on the north side of East "H" Street, approximately 800 feet east of Hilltop Drive in the R-l-lO zone (single family residential, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The westerly parcel, containing 11,171 sq. ft., has 81 feet of street frontage and a lot depth of 141 feet and is basically a rectangular lot except for a 10'x25' area at the northwest corner which is part of the adjacent parcel immediately to the north. The easterly parcel has an area of 11,280 sq. ft. and measures 80' by 141' There is no significant vegetation on the properties, City Planning Commission Page 4 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 except for three pine trees planted at the time East "H" Street was extended from Hilltop Drive to 1-805. 3. Proposed project. a. The proposed project consists of relocating two designated historical structures onto the two parcels and using said structures as professional offices. The first building proposed to be moved is the "Our House" (historical site No. 4) structure located at 666 Third Avenue. This structure is proposed to be located on the westerly parcel. The other structure to be relocated, although not certain, is tentatively listed as the "Greg Rogers" house (historical site No. 1) located at 699 "E" Street which is to be moved onto the easterly parcel. Each structure is to be restored and upgraded to meet present code requirements. The exterior of the buildings will be restored as close as possible to their original appearance. The gross square footage of the two buildings will be approximately 6,150 sq. ft. b. Access will be provided by a single two-way driveway centered on the common lot line between the two parcels. A total of 21 parking spaces are proposed on site (a parking ratio of one space per 300 sq. ft.); 15 of the spaces will be located along the rear of the two lots with the other 6 spaces provided between the buildings on each side of the driveway. c. The buildings will set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from the side property lines. The "Our House" structure will be located approximately 65 feet from the rear property line. The other structure is expected to set back further from the rear property line because of the configuration of the building which is not as long as the "Our House" building. 3. Extension of East "H" Street. When East "H" Street was extended from Hilltop Drive to 1-805 only four parcels w~re allowed direct access onto East "H" Street. Those properties are: the two subject properties, the parcel immediately to the west; and the parcel at the southeast corner of Hilltop Drive and East "H" Street. A five foot high masonry wall with landscaping in front was erected along the frontage of the other proper- ties and sidewalks were installed along the south side of the street. Parking is presently prohibited on both sides of the street. The Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan designates this section of East "H" Street as a "gateway" to the city. 4. Municipal Code. Section 19.58.44 of the Municipal Code sets forth the procedure and criteria necessary to be allowed to use an historical site for limited professional offices; said criteria is as follows: a. A conditional use permit must be approved by the Planning Commission. b. The site and/or structure must be recognized has ha~ing historical significance and must have been entered into the historic register. c. The lot should contain at least 12,500 sq. ft. of level developable land. City Planning Commission Page 5 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 d. The lot should be within 300 feet of a thoroughfare or heavily travelled collector road. e. The proposed office use should be limited in scope so as not to generate substantial vehicular traffic on residential streets. f. Physical changes to the building must be in keeping with the original design and architecture. D. ANALYSIS 1. Intent of the code. The provision to allow limited professional offices within existing buildings of historical significance in the R-1 or R-3 zones is intended as a means to preserve those particular structures. At this time, there are 9 designated historical sites within the City of Chula Vista. All but two of the 9 structures are located within residential zones. The two structures located within the commercial areas are the "Greg Rogers" house, historical site No. 1, and the "Our House" structure, historical site No. 4. The opportunity to preserve these structures in the commercial areas is limited because of the high land costs and because the structures usually cannot be upgraded or altered in such a manner that the building will achieve the same income as a newly constructed office or retail building. Therefore, it becomes necessary to be able to relocate these structures into other parts of the city if they are to be preserved. 2. Proposed site. a. The applicant in this case has chosen to relocate the structures in an R-1 area which essentially meets the guidelines established by Section 19.58.244 of the code as outlined in Section C, paragraph 4, of this report. The project site is located on a major street and there will be no traffic generated on any residential streets. While the lots do not meet the 12,500 sq. ft. standard, they each have over ll,O00 sq. ft. and they are level so that the entire lot area is usable. The proposed common driveway saves space and each lot should be capable of meeting the required offstreet parking, setback, and landscaping requirements. b. Except for the property immediately to the west, all of the other lots immediately surrounding the project site are oriented toward other interior residential streets and back up to the project site. The properties to the south are separated by a major street and walls and should not be affected by the proposed use. 3. Traffic. a. There is the potential for creating a traffic hazard by allowing commercial uses to occupy the subject property. If the property were developed residentially, approximately 24 trips per day would be generated, whereas office uses would generate approximately 74 trips per day or slightly more than three times as much traffic as a residential use. While the numbers are not significant, the potential for traffic conflicts does increase with the added numbers. For this reason, I have recommended that offices for doctors and dentists be prohibited because they traditionally generate more traffic than other types of office use. b. East "H" Street has a present traffic volume of approximately 20,000 City Planning Commission Page 6 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 ADT per day. Once East "H" Street is completed east of 1-805 the volumes are expected to double. Because of the amount of traffic and speeds on East "H" Street, a left turn pocket to avoid eastbound traffic conflicts, caused by cars attempting to make a left turn into the site, will be required. The Traffic Engineer has indicated that the left turn lane would be required regardless of the land use. The left turn pocket will cause the travel lanes to be shifted adjacent to the curb in the vicinity of the subject property. This creates certain problems for cars wishing to make a right turn into the site, primarily the need to slow down to negotiate the turn. For this reason, alley type curb returns should be installed to facilitate an easier turning maneuver for west- bound traffic. Another traffic problem is caused by the existing 5 foot high masonry wall located on the property immediately to the east and the existing trees on the site itself. The wall is located 7 feet back from the face of the curb which together with the trees on the site causes a sight problem. While very little can be done with respect to the wall, the trees can be trimmed to improve the visibility of cars exiting onto East "H" Street from the site. The fact that East "H" Street has a posted speed limit of 40 miles an hour, and drivers commonly drive in excess of the speed limit, make it imperative that adequate sight distance be provided. E. CONCLUSION 1. The analysis of this project has revealed certain factors which argue for approval and some which argue for denial. Those factors are set forth below: ~rguments for approval a. The project will not generate traffic on the adjoining residential streets. b. The parcels are rectangular, level and large enough to accommodate the proposed structures. The usable portion of the site is increased by the use of a single common access driveway. c. The project will result in the preservation of two historical buildings which otherwise will likely be lost. d. The professional office use will be oriented away from the residential uses immediately adjoining the project site. e. Conditions are being imposed relating to hours of operation and a limitation on the office users to maintain compatibility with the adjacent residential area. Arguments for denial a. The proximity of the parking area to the residential uses to the north could have an adverse impact. b. The increase in traffic generated by the proposed use will also increase the potential for traffic conflicts on East "H" Street which is a heavily traveled major street. c. The proposal introduces a commercial use into a well established single family area. City Planning Commission Page 7 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 2. All things considered and despite some remaining reservations, I believe the arguments for approval have a slight edge over those for denial and that the recommended conditions of approval will make the proposed office uses compatible with adjacent residential areas. Therefore, I have recommended that the project be approved. F. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of this request will enable the applicant to relocate two designated historical buildings onto the site, thus preserving part of the heritage of the City of Chula Vista. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfgre of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use is oriented away from the residential uses immediately adjacent to the site which front and receive access from other interior streets. The conditions of approval will reduce the potential traffic conflicts caused by such use and insure that the project is compatible with the adjacent uses. The existing fence along the north property line will be supplemented by a 9 foot wide planting buffer to provide a separation from the adjacent single family area. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The project site is adjacent to a major street and the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed structures With adequate offstreet parking. The structures have or will be designated as historical sites. 4. ~hat the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The buildings will be upgraded and restored as close to their original condition as is possible. The appearance of the structures and the landscaping will be ~in keeping with the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: 43 & 47 East "H" Street PROJECT LOCATION: 43 & 47 East "H" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: George A. Panne] CASE NO. IS-82-17 DATE: December 3, 1981 A. Project Setting The proposed project site consists of two vacant lots (11,171 sq. ft. and 11,280 sq. ft.), which are located on the north side of East H Street, between Hilltop Drive and Interstate 805 freeway. The project site is surrounded on the north, east and west sides by single family dwellings and on the south side by East H Street. There is no significant vegetation on the project site although three existing street trees (pines) are located along H Street. Expansive soils have been identified on the project site through a soils investigation performed by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (July 28, 1980). B. Project Description The project consists of the relocation of two designated historical structures from 666 Third Avenue and 699 'E' Street to the project site, and the conversion of these structures to commercial office buildings. A parking lot for 21 vehicles is proposed on the project site in addition to appropriate landscaping. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans Section 19.58.244 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code outlines the guidelines necessary to allow the commercial use of a residential structure within the R-1 zone. Since both residential structures proposed for conversion are listed in the local Historical Sites Register a Conditional Use Permit must be obtained to operate as commercial offices. The utilization of a house having historical importance for commercial offices on a limited basis is compatible with the General Plan. D. Identification of environmental impact} 1. Soils A soils investigation prepared by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (July 28, 1980) identifies the presence of expansive soils on the project site and makes recommendations which will ensure stable construction. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project. 2. Cultural Resources The relocation of structures that have historical importance will not result in an adverse environmental impact. The restoration of recognized historic struct~ · would have a beneficial impact to the community in general. city of chu~ vista planning d~lzlftment environmental review ioct~n IS-82-17 2 3. Aesthetics The proposed relocation project is located along a "gateway" to the City, as designated in the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan. Special consideration should be given to landscaping, especially along the East 'H' Street frontage. The City's Landscape Architect should review the proposed landscape plans for compatibility of plant species and theme along East 'H' Street. All parking lot lighting should be shielded to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas. 4. Traffic Safety The City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that a potential traffic safety hazard may be created by permitting a commercial land use to operate at this location. A residential landuse at this location, conforming to the present R-1-10 zoning, would generate approximately 22 one-way vehicle trips per day. As a commercial office use a total of 74 trips per day would be generated. The potential for traffic conflicts will be incrementally increased with the proposed project. A commercial development at the proposed site will necessitate a left turn pocket on East 'H' Street to avoid eastbound conflicts. In order to accomplish this the travel lanes will be shifted next to the north and south curbs. The traffic engineer recommends that an alley-type curb return be installed to move vehicles off East 'H' Street faster. An existing 5' high masonry wall located approximately 7' from the face of curb and existing pine trees along East 'H' Street create a sight-distance problem for vehicles exiting the site when combined with moving travel lanes closer to the curb. Although nothing can be done to move the adjacent masonry wall, the pine trees can be trimmed to permit better visibility. An additional hazard is created due to the effective speed of westbound traffic, the lack of other curb cuts along East 'H' Street, and the resultant driver expectations. The vehicles travelling west on East 'H' Street from Interstate 805 freeway will be concerned with their approach to the signal light at Hilltop Drive. This fact plus the fact that vehicles along East 'H' Street commonly travel in excess of the posted 40 mile-per-hour speed limit make it imperative that adequate sight-distance be provided for vehicles leaving the project site. Proper sight-distance will be required and shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. E. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid significant environmental impacts 1. The City's Landscape Architect shall review the landscape plans to assure compatibility with the landscaping theme along East 'H' Street and the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan~ 2. All parking lot lighting shall be screened to avoid excess glare on adjacent residential areas. 3. A left turn pocket shall be installed subject to approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. 4. Proper sight-distance shall be assured and the means to accomplish this must be approved by the Traffic Engineer prior to implementation of the project. IS-82-17 3 5. Recommendations contained in the soils report submitted by the applicant shall be incorporated into the project. F. Findings of insi~nficant impact 1. The site is void of any natural or man-made resources. Expansive soils have been identified on the project site although recommended mitigation will ensure a stable foundation for the proposed relocation of structures. 2. The project is in general conformance with the General Plan, although conformance with zoning requirements will be subject to approval of the Planning Commission. 3. No substantial impacts are anticipated which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not significantly increase traffic levels and difficulties with sight-distance shall be mitigated prior to implementation of the project. No threat to human life will occur due to project implementation. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Gary Hanson, Traffic Engineer Roberto Saucedo, Associate Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Applicant George A. Pannel 2. Documents City of Chula Vista General Plan (Scenic Highways Element) Municipal Code (Title I9) Historical Sites Register Soils Investigation (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 1980) The Initial St~:<I¥ .~:,:,! ~c::tton ~r~,l ,~valuat~on forms documenting the findincz of no :~,rnlf!c~nt ~n?act arm on file and available for publkc r~vlcw ,~t ~1~ "h'~l,~ Vi~;ta I~a~ninq [],]pt., 276 4th Av(~nue, Chu[a Vi~;ta, CA ')20l(). EHVIRO,~:~.IENTAL IIEVIiJW COOEDI~:ATOR city of chula vista planning department environmental review section %% · EL I ~ RANCHO VISTA SF S~' SF L SF OI CHUL VISTA ~P SF SP SF SF VIA DE SF SF EAST "H" SHASTA ST. MANKATO ST. WHITNEY ST. ~1 ~cc-~-~ I JPROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN THEI ~ ~-/ ZONE ( HISTORICAL FRONT LEFT REAR City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1982 Page 8 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 82-6, Hilltop Terrace, northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion Avenue - Dale Buildin~ Company A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is seeking approval Of a tentative subdivision map known as Hilltop Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 82-6, located at the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Nacion Avenue in the R-3-P-12 and C-N zones. The developer intends to subdivide 8.2 acres into six lots consisting of one 0.6 acre neighborhood commercial lot and five residential lots containing a total of 90 condominium units on 7.6 acres. 2. An Environmental Impact Report, EIR-80-2-A prepared on the rezoning of the property was certified by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1980. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Recertify that EIR-80-2-A has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and that the Planning Commission has considered that information in reviewing the project. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Chula Vista Tract 82-6, Hilltop Terrace, subject to the following conditions: a. The lot lines shall be adjusted or the buildings moved in order that a 5 foot setback can be maintained between the buildings (including stairways and balconies) and the property lines. b. The developer shall record Convenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) subject to the approval of the City Council concurrently with the recordation of the final map. c. The City of Chula Vista shall be made a party to the CC&R's which shall include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Prohibition against carage conversions; 2) Prohibition against outside antennae; 3) Provisions for the maintenance of the private streets, comnon open space areas, common buildings, recreational facilities, required fencing or walls and private storm drains. d. The developer shall provide private street lights within the subdivision; the location, type and design shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning. e. The entrance driveway approaches from Nacion Avenue shall be an alley type approach in accordance with regional standard drawing G-17 with a minimum 15 foot radii. City Planning Commission Page 9 Agenda Items for December 16, 1981 f. Standards and specifications for all proposed stamped concrete shall be approved by the City Engineer and Director o£ Planning. g. The development shall be subject to the conditions of approval as set forth by the Design Review Committee. h. No building permits shall be issued until such time as the school districts have given written notice to the City that they are able to provide school facilities for the residents of the development. i. The R-3-P-12 zoned portion of Lot 1 shall be rezoned to C-N prior to approval of the final map. j. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detail approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans; easements to be provided as required by the City Engineer. k. The developer shall grant to the City sewer easements as required by the City Engineer. 1. The developer shall grant the street tree easement along Nacion Avenue shown on the tentative map. m. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within the State easement; a copy of said permit shall be supplied to the City prior to approval of the final map. n. The developer shall construct a sidewalk along Nacion Avenue as shown on the tentative map. o. The entrance to the project opposite Camino Vista Real shall be identified as a private road; the entrance shall be designed to physically distinguish the entrance as private. p. If the project is to be developed in phases, this approval shall be contingent upon a logical sequence of development; in addition, each phase shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas and amenities. Lot 3 shall be developed in conjunction with the first phase of development. The private street in Lot 5 shall be developed concurrent with Lot 4. All other p~ses shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Director~of Planning. q. The fire hydrant i~ediately east of building 4 shall be deleted and a hydrant placed at the northwest corner of the private motor court serving buildings 1, 2 and 3. Another hydrant shall be installed at the west end of the motor court serving buildings 4 through 7. City Planning Commission Page 10 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use: North R-1 Single family dwellings South C-N Retail commercial East 1-805 freeway West R-1-P Single family dwellings 2. Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of two vacant parcels. The most southerly parcel is zoned C-N and is approximately one-half acre in size. The northerly parcel is zoned R-3-P-12 and has been previously graded (borrow pit) resulting in the property sloping gently from north to south with 2:1 slopes along the northerly and easterly property lines. The properties to the north are approximately 25 feet higher in elevation. The slopes along the easterly property line are part of a dirt berm ranging from 30 to 40 feet higher than the level portion of the site. The Telegraph Canyon drainage crosses the southerly portion of the property between the two parcels. The drainage is primarily an open channel with a covered box culvert over the easterly 173 feet. 3. Tentative map. The developer intends to subdivide the subject property into six lots. Lot 1, containing a total of 0.6 acres, will include the covered portion of the drainage into the area of the lot resulting in the lot being split zoned. Lot 3 is a 0.3 acre common lot with a swimming pool, jacuzzi and recreation building, housing a lounge, restroom and office. The other four lots will be developed with 90 condo- minium units. 4. Proposed development. a. Structures. The 90 units will be housed in 24 two-story buildings which will be either triplexes or sixplexes. There will be 6 sixplexes, each with an attached 8 car garage. Each of the 18 triplexes will have an attached 4 car garage. No develop- ment plans have been prepared for the commercial lot. b. Units. There will be six basic floor plans, comprised of 11 one bedroom units, 69 two bedrooms, and 10 three bedrooms. The following table indicates the type of unit, the amount of storage and open space for each unit. City Planning Commission Page ll Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 Hilltop Terrace - Characteristics of Floor Plans Type Bedrooms Floor Areas (s.f.) Stora§e (c.f.) Patio (s.f.) Balcony (s.f.) la 2 1180 240* + 144 or 96 140 90 lb 2 1240 240 + 168 90 2a 3 1375 240 + 200 or 120 150 60+ 2b 1 1180 240 + 96 132+ 3a 2 lll2 240 + 128 lO0 84+ 3b 1 950 240 + 72 69+ *In assigned garage. Note: The "b" units are second floor units. c. Parking. The 90 units require a minimum of 121 parking spaces on site. The development will provide 120 garage spaces, 48 open spaces and 8 R.V. spaces--a total of 176 spaces, or 55 spaces more than required by code. d. Circulation. The project will be served by a private loop street with short cul-de-sacs which provide access to the garages. The southerly access is aligned with Camino Vista Real located across Nacion Avenue and the northerly access is located approxi- mately 250 feet north of Corte Nacion. The access points conform to the precise plan guidelines. e. Architecture. The buildings will be of contemporary design with wood shake shingle roofs, a combination of stucco and wood siding on the exterior elevations and wood trim, stairways and balconies. The patio walls will be stucco. 5. Design Review Committee. On August 6, 1981 the Design Review Committee approved a precise plan (PCM-82-2) for the proposed development subject to the following conditions: a. Texture paving at the entrance driveways. b. Three and one-half foot maximum fence height within the 15 foot front setback. c. The 6 foot perimeter fence/wall carried around the southeast corner of the site. d. Building 21 shall either be moved northerly or the fence moved away from the channel. f. Easterly slopes to be landscaped with trees and irrigated, subject to the Landscape Architect's approval. g. Retaining walls and trash enclosures shall be stucco to match the buildings or shall be of decorative block. h. Building 3 shall be relocated or the drainage structure easement relocated and re-recorded. i. Stairways and balconies must observe the 15 foot front setback. City Planning CommissiOn Page 12 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 6. Building setbacks. The precise plan guidelines call for a minimum 30 foot front setback for two story structures and a 15 foot setback for one story structures and portions thereof. In addition, the precise plan guidelines..limited structures adjacent to Nacion Avenue to one story and not more than 15 feet in height. The proposed development consists of only two story structures, some of which partially encroach into the front setback. In most cases the encroachment is minor, since only a small portion of the corner of the building is located within the 30 foot setback. Many of the buildings are set at an angle to Nacion rather than being parallel. The variation of setback along Nacion creates an average setback which exceeds the 30 foot standard. The Design Review Committee approved the encroachments into the front setback on the basis that the intent of the setback guidelines is being achieved by the proposed plan and the variation actually creates a more pleasing street scene. 7. The proposed tentative map results in Lot 1 being split zoned. Because of the topography and the relationship to the covered portion of the channel to the commercially zoned portion of the lot, it is appropriate to include that area in the area of Lot 1. The developer has indicated he will petition for rezoning to adjust the zone boundary to coincide with the property line. 8. The developer is proposing to subdivide the residential area into five lots for financial purposes and will probably develop the property in phases. This will require that the property be developed in a logical and sequential manner so that adequate circulation and parking is provided at each phase of construction. The developer will also have to provide the necessary easements and maintenance agree- ments between each phase of development. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Hilltop Terrace, Chula Vista Tract 82-6, is recommended for approval based on the following findings. 1. The site is physically suited for the type of proposed residential develop- ment. 2. The design of the project will improve the existing public facilities, such as streets, drainage, sewer, etc., which have been designed to avoid any serious health problems. 3. Approval of this project will not adversely affect the public service needs of the residents of the city or available fiscal or environmental resources. 4. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and its elements as follows: a. Land Use - The density of the project of 12 units per acre is in conform- ance with the General Plan designation for this area of 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. City Planning Commission Page 13 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 b. Circulation - The development will be served by a private street system and no additional public streets are needed to serve adjacent properties. c. Housing - The proposed project will provide needed housing in the community. d. Conservation - The subject property has been disturbed by a previous borrow pit operation; the development will not result in any additional significant grading. e. Parks and Recreation - The development will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedication and improving park lands. f. Seismic Safety and Safety - The proposed development is not adjacent to any known earthquake fault. The site is well within the response time of the fire station located on East "J" Street. g. Noise - The units must be of a certain construction to achieve accept- able interior noise levels. h. Scenic Highways - Telegraph Canyon Road is a designated scenic route. The adopted precise plan guidelines and Design Review procedure will insure that the proposed commercial development meets the goals and objectives of this element. i. Bicycle Routes - The right of way of Telegraph Canyon Road is adequate to accommodate the bicycle route established on said street. j. Public Buildings - No public buildings are designated on the subject property. 5. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision ~p Act the Commission 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 of Chula Vista and the available fiscal and environmental resources, and determined that the subject property is well suited for residential development. H A L £CR £$T,,,~ ~ i a PROJ,: HILLTOP I PC$-,~,~-~ 8 TR£ET "D" City Planning Commission Page 14 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Flores~ Chula Vista Tract 82-7 Harold West A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map known as Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7 in order to subdivide 5 acres, located on the east side of Las Flores Drive extended north of "D" Street, into 20 single family residential lots in the R-1 zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-15, of possible environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on November 12, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-82-15, together with the following mitigation: a. Recommendations stated within the prepared soils report should be incorporated into the project. b. Grading and hydroseeding should be accomplished as described in Section 2.D of the Negative Declaration. c. The sewer system will have to be designed to minimize the inflow of of water during inundation and designed in conformance with the Flood Plain ordinance. d. In order to maintain vehicular access to the dwelling units the travel lanes of the proposed street will be required to be at an elevation which will result in about 1½ feet of inundation during a 100 year flood and have no ponding during a 10 year flood. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall be responsible for acquiring and dedicating right-of-way for Las Flores Drive to a line 12 feet west of its centerline (as shown on the tentative map) between the north and south boundaries of the project excluding that easement already granted to the City by Document No. 78-300702 recorded 7-18-78. b. The developer shall obtain drainage easements for any segments of brow ditch offsite of the subdivision. City Planning Commission Page 15 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 c. The developer shall be responsible for constructing a 10 foot width of Las Flores Drive immediately west of its centerline from the southerly subdivision boundary to "D" Street. Installation of these improvements shall be coordinated with the deferral g~anted for property associated with Parcel Map 5711. Note: There is an improvement certificate on Parcel Map 7129 covering a portion of a 10 foot wide strip west of centerline. d. The developer shall be responsible for constructing the storm drain in Las Flores Drive and offsite drainage facilities from the southern subdivision boundary northward to a suitable outlet north of the northerly boundary. A reimbursement agreement may be requested for one half the cost of such work. e. The developer shall be responsible for constructing street improve- ments in Las Flores Drive consisting of, but not limited to: a paved roadway width of 28 feet; curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side and an A.C. berm along the west side; and drainage facilities. f. The lowest habitable floor of each dwelling shall be at least one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation. g. The developer shall acquire and dedicate adequate right-of-way for a temporary cul-de-sac as indicated in map revision #4 and shall construct said facility. h. The owner shall grant to the City, by grant deeds, one foot control lots as determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. i. The developer shall file copies of the CC&R's with the County Recorder concurrent with the final map. Said CC&R's shall provide for the responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas, roads and guest parking areas shared under contractural agreement by the property owner of each common panhandle lot. This may be accomplished by the formation of a homeowner's association. j. The panhandle lots are approved in concept, which means that the lots may be developed provided that the detailed regulations of the code can be complied with and that additional grading and/or retaining walls may be necessary to build on the lot. k. The driveway locations shalt be so spaced as to provide the maximum number of parking spaces at the curb. 1. The common access serving two lots shall be improved to its maximum width upon the development of one or both lots. m. Development of the panhandle lots shall be subject to the provisions of Section 19.22.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. City Planning Commission Page 16 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. a. The 5 acre project site consists of 10 existing parcels under six separate ownerships located on the easterly slopes of a canyon between Second and Minor Avenues and north of "D" Street. The northerly extension of Las Flores Drive will be located at the bottom of the canyon. Four of the existing parcels are through lots with frontage on both Minot Avenue and the extension of Las Flores Drive. Each of these lots is developed with a single family dwelling fronting on Minot Avenue; the other six parcels are vacant. b. The subject property has an average slope of 16.8% and a maximum slope of 28%. The runoff from the sides of the canyon drains north to the Sweet- water River flood plain. Elevations of 35 feet or lower are within the 100 year flood level and are subject to inundation. 2. Tentative map. a. The developer intends to subdivide the 10 parcels into 20 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. The four lots developed with single family dwellings will be split, leaving four parcels (ranging from 12,300 sq. ft. to 16,020 sq. ft.) fronting on Minot Avenue. The rear portion of these lots will be consolidated with the other parcels fronting on the extension of Las Flores and divided into 16 lots. ,Of the 16 lots, 7 will be panhandle lots with access to Las Flores Drive. b. The panhandle lots are described as follows: 1. Lots 10 and 11 will receive access via a 20 foot common drive (10 feet on each property). Three guest parking spaces are provided as required by code; 2. Lots 12 and 13 are adjacent to one another but will receive individual access on each side of Lot 6; the access drive to Lot 12 is 20 feet wide whereas Lot 13 has a 15 foot wide drive; each lot is provided one guest parking space per code requirements; 3. Lots 14, 15 and 16 will receive access via a 20 foot common driveway between Lots 4 and 5. The three lots have a total of five guest parking spaces as required by code. c. Each of the newly created vacant lots will be graded to create level pad areas on each lot. Because of the steep terrain, a series of retaining walls will be constructed. As each site is developed additional grading and walls may be required. The initial grading will consist of a balanced cut and fill of 20,000 cubic yards. d. The development involves the extension of Las Flores Drive and other public improvements (storm drain, etc.). These improvements are to be coordinated with the development of Hudson Valley Estates, Units I and 2, which are located on the westerly slopes of the canyon across from this project. City Planning Commission Page 17 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 3. Coordination of development. Since the approval of Hudson Valley Estates Units I and 2, the developer of those two subdivisions has been working with the owners of this project and other property owners in the area in an effort to coordinate the grading of the canyon and the installation of public improvements (streets, sidewalks, etc.). An overall grading plan encompassing the majority of the canyon has been prepared and is being reviewed by the City. The proposed grading will raise the canyon floor an average of 12'. The sides of the canyon will'provide a large portion of the needed fill. The coordination of the grading and installation of improvements will eliminate the necessity of interim measures caused by piecemeal grading and development and will-allow the properties to be developed in a logical and sequential manner. 4. General Plan and zoning. The net density of the subdivision is 4.6 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan designation for this area of Medium Density Residential, 4-12 dwelling units per' acre. The lots range from 7,200 sq. ft. to 16,020 sq. ft. The code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. The panhandle lots conform to Section 19.24.170 governing panhandle lot development. The conditions of approval will insure the maintenance of the common driveways and guest parking areas. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 and 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7, is recommended for approval based on the following findings: 1. The 250' lot depth is insufficient to provide for a development pattern with cul-de-sacs at right angles to Las Flores Drive. This side of the valley lends itself well toward panhandle lot development in a fashion similar to that approved earlier for the west side of the valley. 2. The design of the project will improve and extend the existing public improvements, such as streets, drainage, sewer, etc., which will be designed to avoid any serious health problems. 3. Approval of this project will not adversely affect the public service needs of the residents of the city or available fiscal and environmental resources. 4. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and its elements as follows: a. Land Use - The density of the project of 4.6 units per acre conforms to the General Plan designation for this area of 4-12 DU/acre. b. Circulation - The development will extend and improve Las Flores Drive north of "D" Street. c. Housing - The proposed project will provide needed housing in the community. City Planning Commission Page 18 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 d. Conservation - While extensive grading will occur, it will retain the basic land form. e. Parks and Recreation - The development will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedication and improving park lands. f. Seismic Safety and Safety - The proposed development is not adjacent to any known earthquake faults and is well within the response time of the fire station located on "F" Street. g. Noise - The units must be of a construction necessary to achieve acceptable interior noise levels established by the uniform building code. h. Scenic Routes - The project is not adjacent to any designated scenic route. i. Bicycle Routes - No bicycle route is designated on Las Flores Drive. j. Public Buildings - No public buildings are designated on the subject property. 5. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act the Commission 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 of Chula Vista and the available fiscal and environ- mental resources and determined that the subject property is well suited for residential development. CONDITIONED negative' declaration PROJECT NAME: The West Subdivision PROJECT LOCATION: North of 'D' Street, between Minot Avenue and the future extension of Las Flores Drive PROJECT APPLICANT: Harold D. West, Et A1 CASE NO. IS-82-15 DATE: November 12, 1981 A. Project Setting The project involves approximately 5 acres of property along the easterly slope of a canyon between the northerly extension of Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue. The site currently contains a few accessory structures (stables, sheds, etc.) which are utilized by properties fronting on Minot Avenue. Adjacent land uses consist of single family dwellings located to the east, vacant land to the west, vacant land to the north, and single family dwellings to the south. The subject property has an average natural slope of 16.79% and maximum slope of 28%. Runoff from Minot Avenue drains down the canyon slopes to the floor of the canyon and proceeds north to the Sweetwater River flood plain. However, elevations (35 ft. elevation and below) of the site are currently within the 100 year flood plain and/or subject to potential inundation. The site is covered with native vegetation and most likely supports wildlife prevalent in open canyon areas with limited human access. Several large California Pepper Trees are located on the project site. There are no known geologic hazards within the project vicinity, however, cohesionless and compressible soils are present. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into 16 vacant parcels and 6 parcels containing existing single family dwellings. All vacant parcels will obtain access from Las Flores Drive and existing parcels front on Minot Avenue. All proposed residential building pads are located above the 100-year flood plain, those pads less than I foot above have been designated as garage pads for development. To provide access to the site, Las Flores Drive will be improved south to its inter- section with 'D' Street. The proposed Las Flores Drive improvements consist of the dedication of 26' of right-of-way on the east side of the future center line and the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of the street in addition to a storm drain pipe and basic utilities (water, gas electric, etc.) under Las Flores Drive. The project also involves the extension of the storm drain system from Minot Avenue to the proposed systems in Las Flores Drive. Improvements are proposed to coordinate with the development of Hudson Valley Estates #1 (EIR-78-1) which is located to the west of the proposed project. C. Compatibility with zo'ning and plans The proposed subdivision will result in a net density of 4.6 DU/acre which is in conformance with the medium density residential (4-12 DU/acre)'land use des~p~4~ city of chula vista planning department environmental review litton ' ' IS-82-15 2 ( of the General Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms with the Municipal Code requirements for lot size minimums (7,000 sq. ft.) and lot depth and width minimums (90 ft. and 60 ft. respectively). D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Soils A soils report prepared for the subject property indicates that on-site soils consist of loose alluvium, uncompated fill and terraced deposits. Cohesionless soils located on the project site may be subject to localized sloughing. To ensure stable construction, recommendations as stated in the soils report should be incorporated into the project. 2. Land Form/Aesthetics The project entails substantial grading. To reduce potential siltation and ensure aesthetic quality, manufactured slopes should be graded to blend with the existing contours of the natural topography by use of variable slope ratios and rounding of top and side slopes. Hydroseeding and other planting with native materials should be used to substantially reduce aesthetic impact of land form change and retain a more rural appearance as well as minimize water consumption. Several mature California Pepper Trees are currently located on the project site and are scheduled for removal through the proposed grading plans. The applicant should contact the City's Landscape Architect in an effort to save as many trees as feasible. The tentative map, or a preliminary grading plan, should reflect the location of the trees and indicate their proposed disposition. 3. Flood Hazard Lower building pads and Las Flores Drive improvements are located within the Sweetwater River lO0-year flood plain. The applicant indicates that these lower pads will be primarily for garage construction, but that dwelling pads will all be raised 1 ft. above the flood level to avoid flood hazard. In order to maintain vehicular access to the dwelling units, the travel lanes of the proposed street will be required to be at an elevation which will result in about one and one half ft. of inundation during a lO0-year flood and have no ponding during a lO-year flood. 4. Schools Local schools are currently operating at or above capacity. The following chart contains the most current school enrollment and capacity figures and number of new students anticipated due to the proposed project. New Students School Enrollment Capacity From Project Rosebank 475 476 10 Hilltop Jr. High 1362 1440 5 Hilltop Sr. High 1444 1484 3 The proponent will be required to conform to the public facilities policies of the General Plan. This will include the submission of letters from the school districts. ' IS-82-15 ~ 3 5. Parks There are currently no dedicated park facilities within the park district 2.01 where the project is proposed to be located. Given the population of this district, the park acreage requirement is 3.6 acres. Based on the city's park acreage requirement factor of 2 acres/lO00 population, approximately 0.10 acres of park land would be required to serve the project. The project proponents will be required to pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. These fees will be used for the purchase and/or development of park facilities in the area of this project. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid si§nificant impact 1. Recommendations stated within the prepared soils report should be incorporated into the project. 2. Grading and hydroseeding should be accomplished as described in Section D2 of this Negative Declaration. 3. The sewer system will have to be designed to minimize the inflow of water during inundation and designed in conformance with the flood plain ordinance. 4. In order to maintain vehicular access to the dwelling units, the travel lanes of the proposed street will be required to be at an elevation which will result in about one and one half ft. of inundation during a lO0-year flood and have no ponding during a lO-year flood. 5. Written assurance of classroom space from the appropriate school district will be required. 6. In-lieu park fees will be required. F. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The project site is void of any natural or man made resource, although several mature trees are present on site. Dwelling sites will be raised above the lO0-year flood plain and recommendations stated within a prepared soils report will be followed to mitigate soils and slope stability related impacts. The aesthetic quality of resulting land form and feasible disposition of mature trees will also be ensured by prescribed mitigation. 2. The proposed subdivision is in basic conformance with the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. Impacts can be mitigated and none are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. Construction of the proposed 16 units will not result in any significant increase in vehicle traffic nor will any appreciable increase in related noise or pollutants result. IS-82-15 4 G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Roberto Saucedo, Associate Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Department Applicant Harold D. West Applicant's Engineer Algert & Hay Engineering, Inc. 2. Documents EIR-78-1, Hudson Valley Estates #I IS-81-5, Extension of Las Flores Drive IS-79-58, Hudson Valley Estates #2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton & Associates, July 1981) The Initial Stud7 .!p[~l [c.~t£on .~n~t evnluation forms documenting the findinqs or no r~z~mific.nnt impnct are on file and available for public review .~t ~h,~ Chuln V~sta Planninq Dept., 276 4th Avenue, Chula V~r;ta, CA ENVIR~L ~vrEw COORDINATOR city ol chula vista planning department environmental review lection City Planning Commission Page 19 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-82-8 to establish an amusement center at 581 Telegraph Canyon Road - Alex Aquilino A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is asking permission to establish an amusement center featuring video games and pinball machines at 581 Telegraph Canyon Road in the C-C-P zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-82-16, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on November 25, 1981. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-16. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion approving PCC-82-8 to establish an amusement center at 581 Telegraph Canyon Road, subject to the following conditions: a. The amusement center shall not open for business before 11:00 a.m. on any normal school day (summer excepted). b. A bicycle storage rack for a minimum of ten bicycles shall be provided within close proximity to the entrance of the amusement center. c. Liquor shall be prohibited on the site. d. One uniformed security guard shall be on duty at all times. C. DISCUSSION 1. Existing site characteristics. The applicant intends to lease 1,500 sq. ft. (25' x 60') of floor space within the Canyon Plaza shopping center located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest and Crest Drives in the C-C-P zone. The lease area is located approximately 115 feet west of the easterly end of the commercial building located nearest Crest Drive. The store immediately to the east of the proposed center is an oriental market, with a pet store further to the east. The space immediately to the west is presently vacant, a freestanding savings and loan building is located to the south, at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Crest Drive. 2. Proposed use. The amusement center will contain approximately 25 video games and 5 pinball machines which will be located along both sides of the center. At the rear there will be an office, storage room, and a restroom. Vending machines are proposed City Planning Commission Page 20 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 near the restroom. The proposed hours of operation are: Monday-Thursday, ll:O0 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight; and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There will be one employee and a uniformed security guard present during each of the two shifts. 3. Letters of support. The applicant has operated and is operating other amusement centers, one of which is located at 4342 Bonita Road within the Bonita Centre shopping center. The amusement center was approved in 1978 and according to our records has been operating without incident although the manager of MacDonald's restaurant nearby has indicated some displeasure with the establishment. In support of his request the applicant has submitted letters from the Director of Public Safety of Chula Vista, the property manager of the Bonita Centre, and other individuals outside the City of Chula Vista {see attached). D. ANALYSIS 1. The project site is located within a recently completed shopping center which still has a number of vacant stores; however, it appears that the center is proving to be successful and it is expected that those stores will be occupied in the near future. This is unlike the neighborhood commercial center located at Otay Valley Road and Melrose where a previous request for an amusement center was denied by the Planning Commission. In that case the commercial center was in the C-N zone and had been completed for some time, but still the majority of the stores were unoccupied. The site is well removed from adjacent residential areas. 2. It has been expressed on several previous occasions that the presence of adults offers a deterrent to inappropriate behavior on the part of young people. Even though there are vacant stores in the vicinity of the proposed use, it is expected that this will soon change and there will be more adult activity nearby. In addition, the store is easily visible from the parking lot, allowing for casual observation by police patrolling the area. The Police Department has experienced some problems in other video centers related to underage drinking. Therefore, the staff is recommending that alcohol be prohibited on the premises. E. FINDINGS 1. ~hat the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The proposed use will provide a service which does not presently exist within the general vicinity. The recommended conditions will allow this use to operate in a manner which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will be located within a shopping center which will have a number of adult shoppers whose presence should deter any inappropriate behavior on the part of young people expected to make up the majority of the patrons. The location is well removed from residential areas. City Planning Commission Page 21 Agenda Items for Meeting of December 16, 1981 3. ~hat the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions ,specified in the code for such use. The conditions of approval require the installation of a bicycle rack within close proximity of the proposed use. Any interior remodeling will require a building permit. 4. ~hat the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The proposed use conforms to the commercial designation of the General Plan for this area. negative -declaration --- PROJECT NAME: Canyon Plaza Family Game Center PROJECT LOCATION: 581 Telegraph Canyon Road PROJECT APPLICANT: A1 ex Aqui 1 ino CASE NO. IS-82-16 DATE: November 25, 1981 A. Project Setting The proposed project would be located within the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center at 581 Telegraph Canyon Road. The specific lease area is approximately 1,500 sq. ft. in size and adjacent lease areas on both sides of the project site are presently vacant. Single family residential dwellings are located to the north, with a substantial grade separation, the shopping center parking lot and Telegraph Canyon Road is located to the south. The site is completely developed with no natural or man-made resources present. Bi Project Description The project involves the operation of a family game center, complete with video game machines and pinball machines. The proposed facility will employ one to two employees, and is proposed to operate from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday; 10:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. C. Cpmpatibility with zoning and plans The proposed amusement center will be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will assure compliance with the Municipal Code and will consider compatibility with adjacent land uses. D. Identification of environmental effects 1. Noise The proposed use will be contained within a fully insulated existing commercial structure, therefore noise levels associated with the operation of video machines will be self-contained within the structure. The proposed location within the commercial center should help avoid any nuisance noise impacts on neighborhood residential areas. E. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The project will not adversely effect any natural or man-made environmental features present in the project setting, nor will the project generate any pollutants that will have a potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the range of the environment which supports the biRsystem. city of chula vista planning deportment ~f'J~ll~"~ environmental review section IS-82-16 2 2. The project is in conformance with the long range general goals of the City of Chula Vista and will not attain short term to the disadvantage of long range goals. 3. The proposed video arcade will not have any impacts that are anticipated to interact and cause any substantial cumulative affect on the environment. 4. The project will not result in the generation of any air pollution, light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to the welfare or health of any human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista - Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roberto Saucedo, Associate Engineer Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Tom Dyke, Building Department Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner 2. Documents IS-81-46, Campbell's Starcade IS-81-49, Sports World Arcade IS-82-10, Fun Factory The Initial .qtH~1¥ .~{)i',l Lc :tion '~n~t ,~valuation forms documenting the findin~;.~ of no s~ni. Fic~nt [n?~ct .nr~ on file and available for public revietv .~t (h,~ C~],~ V~ ~t~) Planninq Dept. , 276 4th Av~nue, Chula Vista, CA 920[{). ENVI RO~L P~V r EW city of chula vista planning department envrironmental review lection ~N 6 (714) 479-8200 AL. AQUII-INO ~ GAME CENTERS 4342 Bonita Road Bonita, CA 92002 A Brief Resume of Fun Fair Game Centers A San Diego based company. Ail centers owned and operated by Mr. Aquilino. 35 Years in the same business. Excellent recommendations. Never operated a game center that management, police and adjoining businesses were not pleased with Fun Fair operation. A visit to any Fun Fair Game Center and questioning of adjoining businesses should be a must'to any prospective landlord or management, and welcomed and advised by Mr. Aquilino. A few reasons why Fun Fair Game Centers are the best game centers in San Diego: - Proper conduct and dress of patrons always maintained. - No loitering of patrons. - Uniformed Security Guard on duty at all times. - Carpeted floors and walls for beauty as well as sound absorbent. OFIqCE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE CALIFORNIA February 8, 1980 TO WHOM IT 5~Y CONCEal: Mr. Alex Aquilino has been operating the Fun Fair Game Center in the city of Chula Vista for approximately 17 months. During this time the Chula Vista Police Department has had no difficulties or problems with this operation. This business provides a recreational service for the young people of our community and as such I would be pleased to recommend Mr. Aquilino for operation of a similar business. Sincerely, Director ~f WJW/ams October 24, 1978 To Whom It May Concern Mr. Alex Aquilino, (dba Fun Fair Game Center is a tenant in good standing with Bonita Centre. We appreciate Mr. Aquilino's tenancy and his continued co- operation in following the rules and regulations of our cen- ter. Based on performance to date, our office is pleased to re- commend Mr. Aquilino for similar tenancy in other community type centers. Sincerely yours AD~ CO., INC. /Mark Adler / Property Management Z;~/aj cc: file 4398 Bordo Poad · ERDa.to Cotifo'n~o 92002 · (714) 415 9330 Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream 4344 BONITA ED. - BONITA, CALIFORNIA 92002 · (7[4) 475,4131 ~,~ STAFF RE~ORT AND ~OMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 19, 1981 4. DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT 807 - Aquilino 120-day review of game. center at 558 Jamacha Road; DISCUSSION This item is a 120 day review as suggested by Council after the City Council upon appeal amended a condition of approval of CUP 807. The condition originally required 2 supervisors to be present at certain times and the Council amended it to require only one supervisor. The Police Department has submitted a letter dated December 24, 19 8~ with con~nents on this facility and a report submitted by Agent Blu~rth on his contacts with the operators of adjacent businesses is al. so attached. It Our July report indicated that there had been littl~ or no problems generated frcm the Fun Fair' Game Center in the previous six months and I a~ plee~ed to report that the same conditions exist at this time. Mr. Aquilino is to be cc~ple~nted on effectively dealing with the problems pointed out by adjacent business operators and tb~ Police Depa~'~L~nt. R. R. MOREAU, Lt.~5 -'' DATE: December ZN,~Bu ~ TO: Sgt. CAMERON~'~ ~ FROM: J. BLUDWORTH, Agent #6 RE: Fun Fai~ Game Canter, Conditional Use Permit #807 Per your request, the following businesses and people were contacted to determine the current conditions being maintained at the above listed business. Mr. and Mrs. Richard SURETTEm House of Fashion~ 638 Jamacha Road~ business phone number 440-2900 Mr. SURETTE and his wife both stated that they have not had a problem of any nature with the owner or the children from the Game Center. The New Leaf Flower Shop~ 642 Jamacha Road~ phone number 444-6041 An employee advised me that the owner was unavailable for today; however, she would contact him tomorrow, and if he did have a complaint, he would contact me. Teri MCLANE~ manager of The Tan-erS Suntannin9 Salon~ 562 Jamacha Road Teri MCLANE advised that when she first took over the business that there had been a problem with the Game Center as far as trash and skate boards in the area; however, there is no longer this problem. Robert WHIETHERBY, manager of Sal's Budget Barber Shop~ 560 Jamacha Road) phone number 440-0336 Mr. WHIETHERBY did not have a complaint about the Game Center. Dianne PREBISIUS) manager of Jamacha Cleaners) 544 Jamacha Road~ phone number 442-4162 Mrs. PREBISIUS indicated that she had just recently taken over the business from her father; however, in the last several months, there has not been a problem emanating from the Game Center. Mrs. TIFFIN~ manager of Tennesch Beauty Supply~ 542 Jamacha Road, phone number 442-8851 Mrs. TIFFIN, manager, stated that she did not have a complaint about the Game Center. Carol CHABOT~ owner of The Video Shoppe, 580 Jamacha Road~ phone number 442-4419 Carol CHABOT stated that she had only praise for the way that the Game Center business was being condUcted of recent months. She states that the owner/ manager of the business seems to control the kids extremely well, and that when she has a problem such as bicycles parked in front of her business, she simply goes out and tells the kids to remove the bikes, and they have always followed instructions. OFFICE OFTHE John W. Fitzgerald January 16, 1978 To Whom It May Concern: Mr. A1Alquilino was a proprietor of a Fun Fair here in the City of Burbank, Illinois for many years. He operated a business that presented no problem or difficulty to the City of Burbank from the Police, Health, or Fire Departments standpoint. His business provided a fine recreational service for the young people of our community and we were sorry to see him leave. We can sincerely recommend his type of business as an asset to any community. Sincerely, /~John W. FitZgerald v Mayor JWF/bs IBURBANK. · .c,T,,.^,L 6,30,EST ?'th STREET. BURBANK,ILLINOIS 60459 (31])5!)9-55C)O .