HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1983/11/30 AGENDA
City Plannin9 Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, November 30, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 26, 1983
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map
Chula Vista Tract 80-10, Ladera Villas
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) A public hearing to take public testimony
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR for the proposed
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-2, Eucalyptus Grove -
Morgan/Gardner
5. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Consideration of an amendment to the General
Plan and rezoning for 3.5 acres adjacent to the Chula
Vista Municipal Golf Course (GPA-83-4 and PCZ-84-A)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Rezone PCZ-84-B - Consideration of rezoning 0.62 acres
located between 'C' Street and Sea Vale Street from R-1
to R-3 Greenwich Development Company
b. Conditional use permit PCC-84-5 Request to construct
a 207 unit senior citizen apartment complex between 'C'
Street and Sea Vale Street Greenwich Development Company
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of December 14, 1983
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
To: City Planning Commission
From: Bud Gray, Director of Planning
Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of
November 30, 1983
1. Consideration of request for extension of tentative subdivision map for
Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-10
A. BACKGROUND
1. On November 18, 1980, the City Council approved the tentative map for
Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 80-10 in order to subdivide 10 acres of
vacant land located at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada (Casa Del Rey
Subdivision) into 27 lots. The subject property is zoned P-C and lies within
the Ladera SPA of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan.
2. Prior to the expiration date, the developer requested the maximum
three-year extension of the tentative map citing the present economic
condition of the housing industry.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion approving a three-year extension of the tentative map for
Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Trace 80-10, the map to then expire on November 18,
1985.
C. DISCUSSION
There have been no significant changes in the immediate vicinity which
affect the original conditions or findings of approval. In addition, no
significant changes are anticipated within the foreseeable future; therefore,
the approval of a three-year extension is appropriate. No further extension
is permitted; therefore, a new tentative map would have to be submitted if the
map is allowed to expire.
WPC 0611P
' VAC VAC ~ .
VAC I "
I
VAC L.. .............. VAC I
SUBDIVISION LAYOUT
PRESENTLY ACANT.
,VAC
PROJECT
AREA
, VAC (~ I,
o
NORTH
City Planning Commission i
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 2
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) A public hearing to take public testimony
on the adequacy of the Draft EIR for the proposed
Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
A. BACKGROUND
1. This Draft EIR was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning
Commission on November 9, 1983 and the public hearing was continued to this
meeting to take additional testimony. After the close of this hearing, the
Consultant will prepare the final EIR which will be presented to the Planning
Commission at its December 14, 1983 meeting for certification prior to action
on the redevelopment plan.
2. Several written comments on the Draft EIR have been received and are
attached for your information. These will be included in the final EIR with
appropriate responses. The Draft EIR is being processed through the State
Clearinghouse and if comments are received prior to the hearing, they will be
presented at that time. A verbal report on the status of the State Clearinghouse
review will be made at the Planning Commission meeting.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Take additional testimony on the Draft EIR and close the public hearing.
,. ,,~:F t SM Diego
I ,, ASSOCIATION OF
, ,~,~ Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza
"-~' ~' 12OO Third Avenue
' San Diego, California 92101
, - (619) 236--5300
~,~ . November 15, 1983
· .(,3
-: .... ECEIVED
~mm~ity Development Di~ecto~ - - -
:' Z76CitY Fo~th°f GhalaAvenueV~ta ~ ~%mmun'-0-evel0pment
Dept.
Gh~a V~ta, G~ 9Z010
De~ Mr. Desrochers:
~e SANDAG staff has reviewed ~e &aft ~R for ~e Otay Valley Road R~evel-
opment ~oject ~d PI~. ~e foRow~ comment h~ not be~ review~ by ~he
SANDAG ~d of Directors.
Comment: ~e S~ate Min~ ~d Geolo~ Bo~d h~ submitted to ~ pert~ent
loc~ ~ove~m~ts its Special Report 153 on a~gre~ate materia~ ~ western S~
Diego Co~ty. ~e report ~cludes maps ~ow~ ~eas cl~sified ~ "M~eral
Reso~ce Zones"~ which ~e suitable for const~ction a~gre~ate reso~ces.
Portions of the Otay Valley ~e ~cluded wi~h~ such ~ ~ea. (A reduced cop~ of
the Otay Valley~ Tiju~a River~ ~d ~rder Hi~hl~ds Reso~ce ~e~ map is
attached.) ~ese reso~ces were not d~ed ~ the ~aft EIR.
~k you for the opport~ity to review the staff E~ for th~ project.
S~cerely~
STH~RT R. SHAFFER
Di~ecto~ of L~d ~se ~d ~blic Facilitle~
SRS/RP/rw
Atta~ment
COMMENTS ON OTAY VALLEY ROAD DRAFT EIR
by Corey Kjos, San Diego County Planning Dept.
11/2/83 (by telephone)
1. Otay Mesa industrial land to be available in the future. Take this
into account.
2. Majority of site has been disturbed (biologically). However, NW corner
has a coastal sage scrub community which supports numbers of sensitive
plants and species including the Orange-Throated Whiptail Lizard, the
Coastal Barrel Cactus and others. EIR should give more complete
discussion of biological resources that exist on the site.
3. Sewerage disposal - page 331 -
Interim sewer line being negotiated by Otay International Center and
the City of San Diego. 500 million gallons per day to serve prison,
Brown Field and Otay International Center.
FK:tms
RECEIVED
NOV 2 ! 1983
November 18, 1983 Community Development Dept.
Paul G. Desroehers
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Dear Mr. Desrochers: '
In regard to the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan, I have the following comments:
1. The EIR repeatedly references sections from the CEQA Guidelines. As of
August 1~ 1983~ the CEQA Guidelines have been revised. Ma3or changes have
been made in the Guidelines, particularly in regard to Redevelopment projects.
The EIR does not reflect the changes which have resulted. The document
should have been prepared based on the revised CEQA Guidelines.
2. The draft EIR is inadequate according to the requirements set forth in the
Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act (as revised~ August
1, 1983). The document produced is defined as a Program EIR, but it does
not meet the requirements of a Program EIR as outlined in Section 15168 of
the CEQA Guidelines. Section 1S168 states that a Program EIR can provide
for a more detailed consideration of environmental effects and alternatives
than a project level EIR. Furthermore, broad polity'alternatives and pro-
gramwide mitigation measures can be considered; cumulative impacts can be
discussed in more detail; and~ specific effects of the program can be dealt
with more effectively in a Program EIR. The present environmental document
provides no such analysis.
3. The draft EIR does not provide consideration of the existing environmental
settings, projected impacts, and mitigation measures in sufficient detail.
For examples in the biology sections we need to know specific biological
community types which exist in the pro3ect area~ both in terms of acres, and
in terms of what species of plants exist there. Are there any rare or endan-
gered species on the pro3ect site? Now will this project impact the biolog-
ical integrity of the pro3ect area? ~hat can be done to mitigate biological
impacts besides landscaping after the pro3ect is built? What about open space
easements or other forms of biological mitigation?
The entire report is deficient in this manner. By defining this area as
part of a Redevelopment Plan~ we are irreversibly committing it to future
urban development. We need to know up front the status of the existing res-
ources and possible pro3ect impacts. What kinds of impacts will the Redev-
elopment pro3ect have on the natural environment? Just because it is consis-
tent with the General Plan and Zoning has nothing to do with the physical
impact on the environment. The EIR needs much more detail and must be sup-
ported by facts, not by unsubstantiated conclusions. An EIR is an informational
document; I find very little information in the present EIR.
Gary R. Fink Page 2
Comments on Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area EIR
4. Provided below is a critique of Sections $ and 4 of the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR:
A. Land Use - Specify existing project area land uses. How many acres of
agricultural land currently exist? How many industrial? How much open
space? How will classifying the area as a Redevelopment Area change
existing land use? What mitigation measures are proposed?
B. Demographics - Will the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and
ultimate project construction result in any growth inducing effects?
C. Traffic/Circulation - What are the names of existing roads within and
contiguous to the pro3ect area? What are existing street widths and
current ADT's? What are the Circulation Element designations for these
roads? What are current and future roadway capacity of these streets?
How will the Redevelopment Plan affect current and future traffic levels?
What specific improvements must be made to mitigate increased traffic
resulting from the pro3ect?
D. Air Quality - What are existing air quality %evels at the project site?
Please note that there is a monitoring station in Chula Vista~ and APCD
has the data. What increases in pollutants are expected after plan imple-
mentation, and from what types of pollutants? What site specific mitiga-
tion measures can be formulated? The mitigations presented are unrealistic
and are impossible to effectively implement.
E. Energy - How much energy is expended on the project site under current
conditions? How much additional energy will be expended after project
implementation? We need facts and figures, not just hypotheses.
F. Biology - See comments in ~3 above. A field survey and literature review
are a necessity.
G. Visual - What visual elements currently exist on-site? How will this be
changed with the Redevelopment Plan? Just because an area is vacant and
undeveloped does not mean that it is blighted. Nor does implementation of
a Redevelopment Plan necessarily imply visual improvement to an area.
H. Soils/Geology/Seismicity - What types of soils are found within the project
area (name them)? More details need to be provided regarding the La Nacion
Fault Zone and its relationship to the project. What underlying geological
formations exist on-site (name them)? Will the pro3ect area be impacted
by clayey~ expansive soils, or by seismic related problems? How can it be
mitigated?
I. Hydrology/Water Quality - How do we know water quality is good? Have samples
been taken and analyzed? What are current runoff levels (cfs)? What will
be the increase in runoff after project implementation? What will be the
impact of channelizing the Otay River~ both hydrologically and biologically?
How will the loss of wetlands be mitigated?
J. Archaeology/History - Needs a record check, literature review~ and field
survey to inventory archaeological and historical resources in the project
area. Known resources do exist within project limits despite what the report
indicates. Site surveys must be done before project level construction, not
after. Mitigation of sites likewise must be completed before development is
permitted.
Gary R. Fink ~ Page 3
Review of Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan EIR
K. Public Services - Service letters are needed from the relevant districts
to provide information about current facilities available and their present
and future capabilities. What are the impacts of public services resulting
f~om the project? Mitigations?
L. Noise - We need to know what site specific existing noise levels are in
decibels~ not just a chart with ideal noise levels. This means taking
readings in the field with noise monitoring equipment. Future noise impacts
should be projected, using data from other industrial parks which could be
applicable to the project site. Specific mitigation needs to be proposed.
M. Economic/Fiscal - Not relevant to the draft EIR and much too detailed.
N. Project Alternatives - Why were alternative project locations not discussed?
This is a feasible alternative which was simply ignored.
O. Growth Inducing - The project will be growth inducing~ and it should be so
stated objectively. Rather than merely pointing out the beneficial aspects
of growth inducement, adverse impacts also need to be discussed.
P. Irreversible Environmental Impacts - There are additional irreversible
changes associated with the project than those listed in the report.
Q. Short Vs. Long Term Effects - Needs more detailed discussion. Cumulative
impacts need to be expanded in considerable detail; several were not discussed.
R. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - Expand this discussion to include~ at a minimum,
biology~ archae~logy~ land use~ geology, energy, erosion~ etc.
5. The report in general does not present facts as is required by the Guidelines to
the California Environmental Quality Act. Rather, it follows an illogical, non-
factual narrative based on unsubstantiated conclusions and non-sequitors which
present only the beneficial aspects of the project. The EIR should not be approved
by your agency until it is re-written, and answers to the above questions are
satisfactorily documented.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Very truly yours,
Gary R. Fink
883 La Senda Way
Chula Vista, California 92010
chu~ ~ata. CA ~201X
........... :.~.._
i h~ve sta~ied all of t~e aveilabl~ ~ageri~ I co~d ~ on
~he redevel0Dmen~ of the O~ay W~ley Ro~d ~e~. ~i~h my baek-
gro~! ~nd :r~infng a~ ~n arcai~c~ ~d city planner, ~ as a
homeowner ~d l~dlord, wha: follows ia my personal reaction.
It is no se:re~ ~ha: ~ar ~ea nas become ~e ~get ~f ~1 sorts
of/trash, garble, 3md ~as:e dispos~l schemes.
2he City ~f Chela Vista ia :l~naing to aDen~ over ~9 million dol-
lars f~r redevelo~menz of ~4e 0~ay ~alley Ao~d ~ea. I fin~
dis~ressing ~ha~ t~ey are ~oasi~ering ~he recl~saific~tion of
~0~
acres of desigaaSed p~k lan~ for general aa~l~u~:rl~l ese. In-
d~:~i~l use coald lnclade gasoline ~ oil refinin~ plants,
s~l fac:~rie~, mad/or slaughter ho~se~, J,AS~ to mentio~ ~.
p~ssibili~les. 2here wo~d sc~ceiy be ~ improvemenx over
we already have.
.MW firs~ s~g~e~ion la ~%at ~. capable proJec~ ~rchi~ee~ be com-
missioned t~ prs~e~ a p~ac~ical m~a~er pl~, complete rich spe-
cific zoninX an~ ese of tee 671 ~cres ~der coasidera:ion.
I ~ote fro~ the specifications n~ep~red by :~e 0o~ni~y Systems
9262~~ (7~4) '' -
- 529-7 .
"S~ma~ of Pl~.nned Project Area Imnrovemea~s
~proJeets antioinnted ~o be p~rs~xe~ at adoptior~ of the
:'Redevelopm~n~ 21~n Hre se~ forth in ~ne Anticipated In-
"i~!al ProJec~ Lis~ se~ forth in Attachment ".~,,. The2
are idantifi~ for Dl~nni~ p~rposee ~nd s~l! not be
co~s ..... d aa ~ zim~txo:: on the _~g,ncy ~o c~.rry out
~n~ lmple~n~ t~e Hedevelopment Plan i~ ta~t ~he list
may be ~ended at ~. ~a sabjecz Zo pablic
~nl review."
. ECEtv D ....
OCT 5 983
Commun [ Development
I herewith submit suggestions thst should certainly rem~!t in
a marke~ improvement of the 0tsy Valley Road area:
1. Otay ~alley Road ghould become a'beaatifal boulevard
from the 1-805 exit to the end of the p&rk ares.
2. Ctay Valley 2oulsvard shomld have at least two traffic
la.uss in each d~rection, separated by a ~i~e at~ractlve
covered ~i~h trees zud flowers. '
, ~. A bicycle p~h mh~al~ ram ~ngmide - separated from
vehic~!~r traffic by a sm~l ~!,wered island.
~ 4. Thc ~eigned p~k area 'ehcuXd be developed into ~.
zthletic park, the focal coster of which should be
sized pool (similar to that of Saddleback College at
Vi~Jo). In addition there should be a ~ ~d extem-
sire ~ess f~r ~blic school athletic activities, both develop-
ment~ s.nd compe~ltlv$.
~ 5. Smrrc~uding areas ~ho~d be allocated for furze ex-
.p~slon of activi~Xes.
6. New homsin~ ~d ind~mtri~ a~eaa aho~d be deaigue
with sufflc~en~ off-road park lng, In we!2-~hted p~k-!~
settings.
To s~msrize, the ~rea shoed be clef. red of ~uy ~
L-~a a~r and gromud polimting i~st~latio~s.
After a[l~ the Coronado Cayz, o~e of o=r most prest'
dential devmlopments, was once a g~bsge
~%~GO CO
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
~ ~ Environmental Impact Repo~ Review 'Co~ttee
o ~ P.O. Box A-81106 S~ ~ego, ~ 92138
~O %O~ October 8, 1983
To: Mr. Pa~ G. ~sroche~
Co,unity ~velopment Director
City ~ Ch~a Vist~
276 Fourth Avenue
~a Vista, C~ifo~im 92010
Subject: Notice of P~p~ation of a ~t EIR
Otay V~ley Ro~ Redevelopment Project
~ar Mr. ~srochers:
T~ you for the subject Notice of Prep~tion, received by us l~t
month.
We note that the ~iti~ study indi~tes t~t cult~ reso~ces will
not be ~cted by this project. The EIR sho~d indicate the justification
for this conclusion, ~d include the tec~c~ ~po~(s) upon which it
b~sed.
We ~so wo~d point out the need, under ~, to consider indirect
~pacts to c~tur~ resources.
When the ~IR becomes ava~able for public review, SD~ wo~d
appreciate receiving a copy upon which to co~ent. T~ you.
Sincerely,
~ C~i~erson, EIR Review Co~ittee
cc: SI~ President
file
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION i DA.YE: September 29~ 1983
~om omc~ mx ~
~E~o, ~RNIA 9~I REPLY TO: ~D 830922-0
(9~ 6) ~s-8oo6
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency -
276 Fourth Avenue O~D~' ~ ._
Chula Vista, CA 92010 . C0/;;fflg/yity
L CnuZ vista
R~. Redevelopment Agency's for Otay Valley Road Reue
merit Project Area. SCH ~83091409
~ank you ~or requ~fing our co~men:s on ~e ~OP cited $ove.
~e OEI~ should:
(1) D~ribe actions token ~o Wen:i~ historic, ~cheologJcaJ, architectural or o~er cultural resources Iota:ed in
~e project area, ~d should presen~ results ob~ined. Only ~ose resources likely ~ be affected by the project
n~d be Jdenfi~ed.
Include ~ physic~ descMp~ion of idenfi~ed cul~ral resources and :belt se~fin$ supplemented by cle~
pho~gr~phz
Con.in a documented ~luafion oF ~he impotence o~ any cultural resources identified, ~ndicafing what
s~dards or criteria were used, how ~hey were applied snd by whom, and wha~ conclusions were reached and
why.
(4) De~rJbe snd analyze ~ preci~ly ~ possible ~y adverse impacts ~o impo~]nt cultural re~urces
deMni~ion o~ e~ect confined in Sections 15382 and 15126 (~) of ~e. ~IR Guidelines. ~e Focus should be
~ow and ~o wha~ exmn~ ~ose qu~li:ies ~a~ ma~e ~ese re~urces impor~n~ may be ~dversely a~ected by :he
proj~u
(5) Discuss re~onable ~tern~fives ~a: would avoid any adverse e~ec~s ~o ~he quali~ies ~ha~ make ~ese resources
impo~sn:. Familiarity wi~ current pre~a~Jon ~echniques ~n architecture, I~d use planning, public policy
deve]opmen~ prese~afion law ~d cuRural resource managemen~ should be clesrly eviden~ in ~he choice and
discussion of alternatives.
(6) Propose reasonable mitigation measures ~o minimize adver~ effects ~o the impor~n~ qualifies of ~nese re-
~urces in accordance wi~ Scc:Wn 15126 (c) o~ ~e EaR Guidelines. Familiar]W w~h current
techniques in architecture, land use planning, public policy developmenL prese~acion Jaw and cuRursl
resource mana~emen~ should be cle~ly evldcn~ in ~he choice ~nd Wscussion of mi~Jg]~Jon measures.
(7) Con~orm ~o ~e requirements of Sections 15126 (b), (e), (f) and (~) of the EI~ Gu{delines i~
As par: of ~e da~ g~:her~ng effort, {~ is generally adv]saWe :o:
(1) Consult one of ~c Regional Archeological Information Cen~e~ Ils:ed on the back of ~his let:er For current
~cheological re~urce
(2) gefrain from dealing with sices, building, s~uc:ures or objects less ~han ~ty yenrs o~ age unless ~heV
(~) Consul~ w~h histor~c~ societies, archeolo$ical societies, preservation organizations, Wndm]rk commissions
(~)
(4) Co~sult with particular cultural or ethnic groups if there is any reasonable possibility that a resource of
interest to them might be affected by the project.
Please note that if any federal agency, board or commission is involved in this proiect, compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, is required. The DEIR should be drafted to reflect
compliance with the requirements of this Act.
If you have~(~es~j~,s, j~s~ eau Maryln Bourne Lortie of this
Sincerely,
~r. Kno'x Mellon
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: State Clearinghouse
INFORMATION CENTERS COUNTIES INFORMATION CENTERS COUNTIES
Dr. O~vid A. Fredrick~on, Coordinator Alameda, Colusa, Contra Cost~, 0¢. Michaet A. Glassow, Coordinator San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara
(707) 664-2494; ATS$ $68-2494 (805) 961-2474; ATSS 649-2474
Chico, CA 95926 San Diego, CA 92182
(916) 895.6256 ATSS 459-6256 (714) 265-6300; AT$S 656-6300
6000 J Street Redland$, CA 92373
(916) 4546217; ATSS 433-6217
(209) 667-3307;AT$S 427-5307 Attn: Daniel McCarthy
(714) 787-3885; ATSS 651-3885
(805) 833-2289
(805) 398-459! or 395-401 I Los Angeles, C~ 90024
(213) S25-7411;ATSS 725-7411
Sourest Se u ce
~' ~ Mr. Paul ~ Desrochers 22 September 1983
~V Chula Vls~a Redevelopmen? Agency
~ 276 Fourth S~eef
Chula Vista, ~ 92010
Dear Nn Desrochers,
I ~hank you for ~he opporfunlty fo respond ~o the Noflce of Preparatlon on
the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Pla~ Here are my comments on ?he varlous
Items of dlscusslom
1. Earth- The placement of excess excavated soil should not result In any
further filling along the flyer. Already the channel has been serlou~ly
restricted and degrade~
2. Wafer - Channellzation of ?he riverbed should no~ occur In the usual
fashlon, but rather an Innovative modlflcatlon of the channel which allows
retention or enhancement of tree growth, and wlldl~fe values of ~he Valley
should be Implemented In the plum
~. Plant Llfe- More needs fo be said abou~ the Impact to the river channel or
rather, how Impacts w~ll be precluded from fhls resource are~
4. Animal Life - The statement that wildlife can be expected to migrate and
re-establish their habltats Is no~ based on fac% Loss of woodland or
freshwater habita~ Is a significant adverse Impact which can be avoided wlfh
sensitive planning.
5. Natural Resources - How will ?he plan affect future extraction of rock,
gravel or sand from this por?lon of the Valleyl It appears fo have been missed
in the pas% Are there any aggregate resources left 'there? The State Bureau
of Mines and ~ology has just put out a report on these resources In San Diego
County. Maybe Fenfon has somefhlng ~o say regarding ?his point. Also, Is
~here a proposal In this plan fo develop Iow-wafer or n~water use landscaping?
Will these commercial flrms put In sod and big leafy trees?o enhance fhelr
corporate Images withou? regard fo sef~Ing the pace for future trends In
landscape design?
Several weeks ago I spoke wlth a planner from San Francisco who was
looking af potential land uses at the west end of Otay Valley for Fentom Wlfh
so many of ~he coastal river valleys being placed Info open space corridor
uses, he felt that the Olay River Valley would be a slmllar opportunity. He
characferlzed ~he river valley as the armpit of San Diego County. Such a
characterlzaflon is based largely on the ~pe of Indus?rial uses now ?here and
~he ca,aller manner In which the river valley has been mlned wlthouf proper
reclamation and filling In wlthouf regard ~o future uses
Mr. Desrochers, I see fhls plan as an opportunity fo place more Industry
Info the area In a sensible, aestheflcally pleasing and biologically
responsible manne~ I hope you will act on my comment~ Please feel free to
con~acf m~
RECEIVED
~ Hl~cnel Beauchamp
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 13. P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO 9213S--54Oe
October 20, i983
R rED
Paul G. Desrochers OCT 24 ~983
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency _..
276 Fourth Avenue Community Development Dept.
Chula Vista, California 92010
Dear Mr. Desrochers:
Notice of Preparation for Draft EIR on
Otay Valley Road RedeVelopment Project Area, SCH~83091409
Caltrans District 11 is concerned with the impact of traffic
generated by the redevelopment of this 800-acre area on Inter-
state Route 805, especially the interchange at Otay Valley
Road. A series of mitigation measures for the freeway facilities
in the area will probably be needed as redevelopment progresses.
Mitigation measures generally require funding by local government
or project sponsors. The Redevelopment Plan should include
financing mechanisms to accomplish any necessary off-site
mitigations.
As a starting point, the EIR should analyze peak-hour traffic
impacts, identify the off-site mitigation measures needed, and
address any impacts resulting from those mitigations. For
example, there may be biological or archaeological resources
within the areas to be impacted by off-site mitigations.
The feasibility and design of any mitigations involving Inter-
state 805 should be carefully coordinated with Caltrans. Our
contact for that purpose is Sheldon Craig, District Project
Management Engineer, (619)237-6708.
Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration would have
approval power for work within the right-of-way of Interstate
805. Because of that shared responsibility, actions that require
approval by Caltrans may also be subject to the National Environ-
mental Policy Act and related federal regulations. Along with
funding, the mechanisms for carrying out off-site mitigations
should provide for any necessary federal environmental documents.
Sincerely,
W. R. Dotson
District Director
~ J.~rmes T. Cheshire, Chief
~'Environmental Planning Branch
JTC:PP:jk
~" ~'" xcc: Marshall Krupp"-~'~'
STATE OF ~tlE~IA--mE RESOURCES ~GEN~ GE~G~ ~EU~m~N. ~
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ~ ~
~ng ~ach, ~ ~802
October 26, 1983
l~aul G. Desrochers
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Y~. Desrochers:
We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Otay V~_ley
Road Redevelopment Project Area (SCH 83091~09). To enable our staff to
adequately review aud comment on this project, we recommend that the following
information be included in the ~R:
1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within the project area(s).
P~rticular emphasis should be placed upon identifying rare, endan-
gered, aud locally unique species.
2. Documentation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts wb_ich
would adversely affect biotic resources within and adjacent to the
project site(s). In addition, we believe C~A requires a discussion
within the EIR of specific measures that the applicant proposes to
implement to offset such impacts.
3.P~oject alternatives which may be more beneficial for ~ildlife and wild-
life habitat.
The project sponsor should be advised that eny diversion of the natural flow or
alteration of the bed, channel, or bank of the Otay ~iver or any other stream
or lake will require notification' (with fee) to the Department of Fish aud Geme
as c~11 ed for in Section 1603 of the Fish end G~me Code. This notification and
the subsequent agreement must be completed prior to initiating any such changes.
We urge compliance with this code section prior to finalization of the specific
design since project features associated with stre~s or streambeds may require
modifications.
Thenk you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you
have any questions, please contact Jack L. Sp~11 of our ~vironmental
Services staff at (213) 590-5137.
Sincerely, ~ -~ E C E ~ !: E ..~'
Regional
M~a~er
O0mmuni(? Davel0pmen! Dep ,
Re.on 9 ·
cc: Office of l~.ann_i_ng & Nesearch
October 10, 1985
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
2?6 Fourth Avenue .:
Chula Vista, California 92010
Attn: Paul G. Desrochers
Dear Mr. Desrochers:
In response to your Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project and Plan, I offer the
following comments:
1. Geology/Soils - The project is located in an area of clay soils which
are susceptible to sliding when saturated. The possible existence of on-
site landslides should be investigated. Also~ the project lies within the
La Nacion Fault Zone~ as'identified by local and State geological investi-
gations. The susceptibility of the project site to movement in the event
of an earthquake needs to be discussed.
2. Archaeology/History - An archaeological/historical invest/gat{on needs
to be conducted~ since recorded cultural resources are known to exist on
the property. This would include a record check~ field survey~ and a report
describing all identified resources and recommended mitigating measures.
3. Biology - A biological survey also needs to be conducted~ to identify
on-site-native plant and animal commun{ties. This should include an inventory
of rare and'endangered species which may be eliminated due to implementation
of the project. A report with mitigating measures should be prepared.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on th~J project. Please retain my
name on your mailing list for this and future projects to~J~e processed
through the City of Chula Vista.
Sincerely,
Oary E C E [tv E
· ~
883 La Senda Way
Chula Vista, California 92010 OCT 1 21983
(619) 421-6718 or 565-5714
Community Development Dept.
Si~ATE OF (~ALIFORNIA--H~ALTH AND WELFARL AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
415/540-2665
October 24, 1983
Paul G. Desro~ers
Comm~i~ Develop~nt Di~ctor
~ULAVISTAREDEYELOPHENTAGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula ~sta, California 92010
SUB3ECT: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency's NOP for ~
Otay ~iIey Road RedeveIopme~ Project A~ea
Sm #83091409
Dear Mr. ~srochers:
The ~partment has reviewed the subject en~ronmental document ~d offers
the roll,lng comments.
In response to your N~, we are enclosing a document p~pa~d by the Noise
Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of
Environmental Impact Reports", which provides some general guidelines as
to what this office considers important in EIRs.
If you have ~y questions or need further informatibn concerning these com-
ments, please contact Dr. 3erome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office
of Local Envi~nmental Health Programs, at 2151 8e~eley Way~ Room No. 613,
Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665.
Stuart E. Richardson, Dr., R.S., Chief
~OISE CONIROL PROGRP~4
Enclosure
cc: EHD
OCT 6
Commun/~ OOVelo~men! De~t.
STATE OF CALtFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
1102 Q STSEET
P.O. BOX 2815
,SACRAMENTO, CA 95812
September 22, 1983
SCH No. 83091409
Paul G. Desrochers
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010 ~
Dear Mr. Desrochers:
Your September 19, 1983, notice of preparation for the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Draft Environmental Impact Report has been
reviewed.
Enclosed are our assessment guidelines which will assist you in the
preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project and will
provide the information useful to our review.
For additional information, please contact Donna Lott of my staff at
(916) 322-6022.
Sincerely,
Anne B. Geraghty, Manager
General Projects Section
Technical Support Division
Enclosure
cc: Raymond Weeks, San Diego County APCD
Michael Zdon, SANDAG
Dan Conaty, State Clearinghouse
Donna Lott, Technical Support Division ~ ~ C~ I ~
S£P£6 1983
Community Oeve Pment Dept.
Issue Date: May 4, 1983
Revised: June 10, 1983
Report No. RP-83-002
Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments:
General Development and Transportation Projects
by
Regional Programs Division
State of California
Air Resources Board
ll02 Q Street
Sacramento, California
95814
These guidelines are on file at the Planning Department if
any member of the Committee or public would like to review them.
'WI),,1 J: CZA JKO',~/$ KI
HONORARY OHAIRMAN
DJ OCTOBER 31,1983
a. Honorable City Council
and Mayor of Chula Vista
Gentlemen:
DJ The San Diego County Water Authorities do not pay much attention
to the growth of population in this County by the 2000 an increase
of about 0.9 million, and in the Otay Mesa Industrial Development
uJ area 44~000 alone (or 77~000 ~eople v:ould be employeed there). Ther~
n- fore they are not seeking new sites for water storage re.~ervoirs in
order to avoid local rivers v:ater losses to the pacific ~cean, ex-
ceeding 200,000 acre-f~et of water annually~ which could be a suppl~
~ for 0.9 million people.
n- The enclosed materials will inform you more with the details. Thc
'" should all6v,, you to plan a redevelopment of the otay Valley Road ap-
proprietly~
n- Resp~l~
_> W.Czajkowski /
~- Member of the Representative~:
.Advisory Counc~ on Environme~
O cc:
~ 1. San Diego County Depot. of Plan~uing
~ and Land Use.
~' 2~ San Diego County Flood Control District, Zone 4.
O
.j 3. San Diego Economic Development Corporation.
O
O Mat~ials:
1~ Letter to the Mayors of Sept. 17,1981 with response of 0ct.7~198
I 2: SFi'~TIN~,~T,, & STAR iCZWS of J.~ly-August 1982.
3~ AHORA-~OW of June 23,1983."
,, 4. AN bPEi,~ LETTER TO SAN DIEGO COULTY V~ATER AUTHORITIES (AHORA-h'OW,
O IA JOLLA LIGHT & STAR NE",?S of'1983).
5- AHORA-l'~0%7 of September 1~1983.
O For the "cc', v,,ithout item I.
0
' E
03 '
· < t~'OV 2 1~83 //-Y'°°'3
Commumty Oevelopment Dept.
The list of attached materials to this letter are on file
at the Planning Department if any member of the Committee
or public would like to review the letters and newspaper
articles.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 3
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Plan
A. BACKGROUND
1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has proposed a
redevelopment project located at Otay Valley Road, east of 1-805 to the City
corporate limits including portions of the Otay River Valley and County
landfill.
2. At a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency on September 14,
1983, the Planning Commission selected Project Area boundaries and approved
the Preliminary Plan for the proposed project. Agency staff and consultant
subsequently began preparation of a draft Redevelopment Plan and EIR.
3. On October 20, 1983, the Redevelopment Plan and draft EIR were
presented to the Redevelopment Agency. The Agency subsequently referred these
documents to the Planning Commission for review and comment.
4. The Planning Commission is requested to solicit public comments on
the Redevelopment Plan along with the draft EIR and to incorporate these
comments into a final report to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to
be approved. (Attached you will find a copy of the Redevelopment Plan.)
5. The Redevelopment Plan and final EIR will be considered by the
Planning Commission at the regular meeting of December 14, 1983.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed Redevelopment Plan and hear public testimony regarding
the adequacy of said document.
C. DISCUSSION
1. The proposed Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area consists of
two parcels. Parcel 1 is located generally north of Otay Valley Road and is
within the City of Chula Vista. Parcel 2 is located generally south of Otay
Valley Road and is within the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego.
2. Within the proposed Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area there
is a need to correct problems relative to circulation, infrastructure, land
use incompatibility, structural delapidation and deterioration and other
conditions of blight present and anticipated on certain properties. These
conditions have caused physical, social, and economic liabilities which
necessitate the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The implementation of the goals
and policies set forth in said plan will ensure developments which are
consistent with and in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare
of the people and property owners within the project area and the community in
general.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 4
3. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is consistent with, and conforms to,
the goals, policies, standards, and land use considerations of the Preliminary
Redevelopment Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and Redevelopment
Agency.
4. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego general
plans and conforms to the standards, regulations, requirements, and intent of
the municipal codes and zoning ordinances of the City of Chula Vista and
County of San Diego, as appropriate.
5. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is consistent with previously
prepared studies by the City of Chula Vista relating to deficiencies in the
Project Area infrastructure and circulation system.
6. The proposed Redevelopment Plan has been prepared pursuant to the
requirements and regulations of the community redevelopment law, and in
particular, Section 33405 et seq.
7. Pursuant to Section 65402 of the governing code, with respect to
activities which may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan, such activities and undertakings conform to the applicable
general plans of the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego.
FK:nr
WPC 0901H
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 5
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Draft EIR-84-2, Eucalyptus Grove
Morgan/Gardner
A. BACKGROUND
1. An Initial Study of possible environmental effects was concluded on
July 19, 1983. At that time a decision was made by the Environmental Review
Coordinator to require that a focused EIR be prepared on the proposed
project. A public meeting was held on September 13, 1983, by the ERC to
provide the public an opportunity to provide comments prior to the preparation
of the draft EIR.
2. The EIR was then prepared under an agreement with RBR and Associates,
the project proponent and the Environmental Review Coordinator. The ERC
issued the draft EIR for review on October 25, 1983. (Draft EIR attached)
3. The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment, rezoning,
precise plan and tentative subdivision map.
4. Various written comments have been received and they are attached to
this report for your information. The document is being processed through the
State Clearinghouse; however, no comments have been forwarded to the City. If
comments are received prior to the hearing, they will be available at the
meeting.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing and take testimony relative to the adequacy of the
EIR. It is anticipated that a response to written and verbal comments will
have to be prepared; therefore, the hearing should be closed and consideration
of the final EIR set for December 14, 1983, when the proposed General Plan
amendment, prezoning and tentative subdivision map will be heard.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. The proposed project involves the following discretionary acts: (1)
General Plan amendment from "medium density residential" (4-12 DU's per acre)
to "high density residential" {13-26 DU's per acre); (2) rezoning from
R-3-P-13 to R-3-P-23 (23 DU's per acre maximum); (3) precise plan approval;
and (4) tentative subdivision map approval on 17.59 acres of vacant property
located on the west side of 1-805 north of "£" Street.
2. The project will consist of the development of 376 apartment units to
be contained in 19 structures to be constructed in two phases (Phase l, 9.04
acres containing 176 dwelling units; Phase 2, 8.56 acres containing 200
dwelling units). All residential structures are two stories high with carport
parking tucked underneath in most cases.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 6
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Groundwater
Groundwater resources in the project vicinity are fair to poor and
recharge has been significantly and adversely affected by the construction of
major dams on the Sweetwater River. The project site makes no significant
contribution to existing groundwater resources; therefore, project's
implementation would not be expected to have significant impacts.
2. Drainage
The project site is presently located below the lO0-year flood plain
level. The proposed residential structures will be raised above the lO0-year
flood elevation and existing drainage facilities on site are adequate to
handle the anticipated increase in runoff rates. No further mitigation will
be necessary.
3. Landform/aesthetics
Conversion of the project site from a vacant land area to an urban
land use will result in the alteration of the visual quality of the property.
A majority of the mature grove of eucalyptus trees located along the westerly
boundary of the project site will be retained and some modification of
existing slope areas at the north end of the site will occur. Careful site
design, landscaping, and strict conformance with the City of Chula Vista's
grading ordinance would help to reduce potential impacts. The report
concludes that there will be no significant impact.
4. Air quality
Though located immediately adjacent to 1-805, the projected carbon
monoxide levels, anticipated with project implementation, and under worst case
conditions, will not exceed State or Federal levels.
5. Mobile noise sources
Noise impacts resulting from the project are not considered
significant due to topographical relief of the site, adequate project design
and distances to the nearest receptors. Noise impacts on site from adjacent
1-805 and "E" Street will be reduced through acoustical screens in private
open space areas (balconies}, standard construction techniques and acoustical
walls necessary to protect external common open space areas. Noise levels
will be reduced to an insignificant level through the above measures.
6. Land uses/General Plan element/zoning
The project site will presently allow multiple-family development and
due to topographical differences and other physical features of the site
{existing eucalyptus groves), there appears to be no significant environmental
effects that would be incompatible with adjacent single-family residential
areas.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 7
7. Community social factors
The project will include special financial mechanisms to allow a
percentage of the 376 apartment units to be used for moderate-income housing.
This action is compatible with the City of Chula Vista Housing Element since
the site provides access to major transportation corridors, public transit,
shopping and schools. Impacts associated with moderate-income units are the
same as those discussed in relation to the development of medium-high density
apartments.
8. Schools
The nearest elementary school to the project site, Rosebank
Elementary School, is currently operating near capacity and Sweetwater Union
High School District is considered overcrowded, although not all schools
within the district are operating over capacity. Both school districts
indicate that no further mitigation measures will be required beyond the
payment of required fees.
9. Transportation/access
The proposed project will incrementally contribute to significant
cumulative impacts existing at the intersection of 1-805 and Bonita Road,
though traffic impacts from the project itself are not considered significant
on adjacent streets. The provision of dual left turn lanes at the Bonita
Road/I-805 northbound freeway ramp is presently being considered to reduce
some congestion by CalTrans.
Existing traffic safety issues identified at the public meeting held
September 13, 1983, have been found to be existing engineering and enforcement
problems and the proposed project will incrementally add to these existing
conditions. Sight distance difficulties experienced on Flower Street and at
the intersection of Flower Street and "E" Street/Bonita Road have been dealt
with in the EIR and mitigation measures have been proposed which can be
implemented and will eliminate any significant impacts.
10. Paleontology
A field survey of the project site found no evidence of
paleontological resources.
E. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
1. On November 21, 1983, the Resource Conservation Commission
recommended that the EIR be certified as being prepared in accordance with the
law and expressed various concerns about the project (comments attached).
2. A letter has been received from Mr. Sam Snyder, Jr., Principal at
Rosebank Elementary School. A response to this letter will be contained in
the final EIR (letter attached).
3. Additional comments have been received from the project designer and
the City of Chula Vista line departments. A response to these comments will
be contained in the final EIR (see attached comments).
WPC 0609P
November 22, 1983 ~
TO: Chairman, Planning Commission
FROM: Resource Conservation Commission
SUBJECT: Review of EIR 84-2, Morgan & Gardner 376 Unit Apartment Complex
The following motion was adopted unanimously by the Resource Conservation
Commission on November 21, 1983:
MSUC (Taylor/Hodson) 5-0 to accept the EIR with the following concerns:
Close proximity to freeway and the noise level for the residents;
traffic close to an elementary school; impact of traffic on "E"
Street and Bonita Road; density of project and the removal of trees.
CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
~r Rosebank School
80 Flower Street
Chula Vista, Ca. 92010
November 17, 1983
Environmental Review Coordinator
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, Ca. 92012
RE: Case No. EIR-84-2
Dear Mr. Reid:
As principal of Rosebank School, I feel that I need to
indicate to the EIR Board my concerns with the apartments
projected for Flower Street·
At the present time our school is nearly filled, approximately
15 openings; and with enrollment increasing I foresee no
openings by 1986 when the project is due to be completed.
Therefore, there can be no guarantee that parents of children
renting these apartments will have their children attending
Rosebank School.
I am also concerned with the number of additional cars that
are expected to flow past Rosebank School. We already have a
speeding problem on Flower Street. The street in front of
the school is very narrow (36 feet wide); and when buses are
loading and unloading, parents loading and unloading children,
and with people parking on the curb side, many times there is
only one narrow lane for traffic to flow. The community,
Rosebank Parent Club, and Rosebank staff have requested a
four way stop sign to be placed at the corner of Corte Maria
and Flower Street, and a stop sign on Hilltop Drive at the
corner of Flower Street, from the City of Chula Vista. This
request has been denied, and we are at a loss as how to
control the speeders. With this added traffic, there is just
bound to be a serious mishap· These are the two most pressing
concerns that I have with the project.
If you need any additional information please contact me at
422-8329. R
Sincerely,
~'~' t ?iOV 198)
· Sam G. Snyder, Sr.
Principal
BOARD OF EDUCATION ~,,.,
George T. Felix .... · ' 7830 la mesa boulevard ~ ~ -, ~: ~' ' :~
- .~.- · ..... ~ : ......~,::',;b~ phone 462-3000
' ~ ..... la mesa, california 92041 . ' ....{
November 14, 1983 -','<~.: '-: RECEI,V. ED. .
. .~ , ,~ - . .. .,. By,
,~.,.-,-Duanne Bazzel ~ Planner ~.~u ...... ~ .... ~ '.
- ~,~,:: NOV 15 19~3
~: '~-:'Clty of Chula Vista -:,.:: _,~:.: ,~ .....
cnuZa wasa, ca 92o~0 -,, ~: .,'.¥" PLANNING
' : "*' ~'"'"" CHU~ VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Project: Morgan & Gardner 376 unit apartment complex .
Our project number: 830~
Dear Duanne,
! have received a copy of the Environmental Impact Re~ort Draf~ for
Morgan & Gardner, 376 unit apartment complex (City of Chula Vista
EIR 84-2 SCH83082412) and am eclosing comments per your reouest.
Refer to paEe 43 paragraph 2, makes reference to providing a wall
between buildings 18 and 19. This is not something that STC reco~ended
at our last meeting with them and the owner/developer. STC will be
co~enting on this item.
Refer to page 50 paragraph 1 and 2 seem to be repeating some of the
same information.
Refer to page 50 - Section 3.6.2 Impact - paragraph 1 - delete garages
and replace with basement parking "tucked under" one side.
Refer to Table 8 page 53 Median income is listed as $17,700 and on
page 54, paragraph 4 indicated a median of $16,900.
Refer to Section 3.9 Transportation/Access, page 59 - a copy has been
sent to Federhart and Associates for review and any comments they may
have will be following.
If you require any more assistance please note our office will be
closed from November 15 through November 22, 1983, but we will be
available on the day of November 23, 1983.
Sincerely,
e ~. Felix--.
Alvarado Design & Associates .... , .... .
November 8, 1983
File: YE 002
TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM: John Lippitt, City Engineer ~
~-'SU~JECT: Review of Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Report for Morgan Gardner 376-Unit Apartment
~ Complex
An engineering review of subject draft EIR has been conducted
covering the areas of drainage, geology, soils, land form, noise,
air quality, traffic, and solid and liquid waste generation.
Except for the following, the draft EIR accurately assesses the
foregoing issues and recommends appropriate mitigating measures:
'. DRAINAGE The report uses a run off coefficient for multi-
family residential of 0.50 to 0.75 citing Chow.
We suggest the upper limit of O.75 for Chula Vista
in our Subdivision Manual. However, the most
significant drainage aspect is that portions of
.~.: Flower Street will flood during a.lOO-year flood.
The crown of Flower Street, at the location of the
42-inch pipe draining the northeast portion of the
site (Drawing 78-103D), is at elevation 40.45
~- ~--~ feet, approximately two feet lower than the
~z~ z<rc predicted 100-year flood elevation. A lOO-year
~-,~. flood crest will back up the 42-inch pipe and
~ co -~-. inundate Flower Street approximately 100 feet to
~-- ~,~ ~ the northwest and 250 feet to the southeast,
-- --, ~ f respectively, of the inlet. This flooding would
~ ~z restrict access to Buildings 10 and 17 through 21
~ ~ --- located east of Flower Street. Although this
~ az ~ ~ flooding can be inferred from the report, unless
i~ ~ spelled out, the risk could be overlooked. The
~-- foregoing is shown on the attached copy of Fig. 5.
Additionally, Section 18.54.060A., of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code, requires the first floor
elevation of new structures to be located at least
one foot above the regulatory flood elevation.
Therefore, the lowest proposed floor elevation
referred to in the second paragraph of Section
3.2.3. should be increased to 43.5 feet.
TRAFFIC In our judgement, the report should be revised to
reflect the following:
Page 64, last paragraph...The statement,
"...excessive speed and congestion near Rosebank
Doug Reid 2 ! November 8, 1983
School" should be noted as the opinion of school
officials, or whoever. We do not agree.
Page 65, third paragraph - change,
"...Intersection 1..." to "the freeway ramp
intersection west of 1-805."
Page 66, other possible mitigation measure,
"Restricted parking...of Phase I" should be moved
up to the measures that should be implemented.
Page 11. Relative to on-street parking, it should
be pointed out that the majority of available on-
street parking spaces will be located along the
westerly end of Flower Street and away from where
the demand will be.
SUMMARY This draft EIR addresses the marginal areas noted
in the initial study and recommends proper
mitigation measures, but the impact of a 100-year
flood should be fully stated, and our comments on
Traffic carefully considered.
DND:av
Attachment
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 8
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of an amendment to the General Plan and
rezonin9 for approximately 3.5 acres adjacent to th~
Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course from Parks and
Public Open Space and A-D to Visitor Commercial and
C-V-P (GPA-83-4 and PCZ-84-A)
A. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of
October 26, 1983, in order to allow review and input from the Sweetwater
Community Planning Group. The Commission also raised two questions concerning
the EIR which are discussed under Section B below.
The City Council, in February of this year, instructed the PlanTing
Department to study the potential use of the City-owned 3.5 acre site west of
Jimmy's on the Green. The Council asked the department to limit its
evaluation to those land uses which would be compatible with the adjoining
golf course, and sensitive to the area's environmental quality. Based upon
the preliminary findings of the study, Council has authorized public hearings
to be held on a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning for the property.
This represents the second time in recent years that the City Council has
called for a review of appropriate uses for the property in question. In
October 1979 the Planning Commission recommended redesignating the site for
Visitor Commercial use, but the Council opted for the near term to retain the
Parks and Public Open Space designation.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. The Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted a review of
EIR-79-9 which was prepared in conjunction with the 1979 General Plan
hearing on this property and has found that no additional significant
environmental impacts will result from project implementation and
that the impacts discussed within the EIR will not change
significantly. It is appropriate, therefore, to review and recertify
EIR-79-9, attached hereto as Exhibit C, as adequately addressing the
environmental impacts associated with the present proposal.
2. Addendum A to the EIR has been refined to more closely reflect the
conclusions of the traffic analysis. The report finds that the
vehicular trips generated by the project will lower the level of
service at the Bonita Road/Willow Street and Bonita Road/Otay Lakes
Road intersections from A-B level to a B-C level. This is an
adequate level of service and, therefore, the project will not
significantly degrade the current levels of traffic circulation
services nor will any special mitigation measures be required to
accommodate the project.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 9
3. The EIR states that the lower level of the Golf Course clubhouse
would be inundated during a lO0-year storm and the level of flooding
would be increased by .35-.40 feet. Since the EIR was prepared, the
clubhouse has been remodeled and the Pro Shop moved. The lower level
of the structure is now used for storage. The flood level in this
area is about 73-74 feet above MHTL. The maximum lO0-year flood
level after project completion would be about 74.5 feet. The
existing ground elevations near the clubhouse are 76-77 feet, with
the first floor elevation .5 to 1 foot above that level. This is the
structure that would be most likely impacted by the proposed project
and any impact that may result would be limited to the basement area
and would be insignificant.
C. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a motion recertifying EIR-79-9 with Addendum A.
2. Adopt a motion recommending to the City Council that GPA-83-4 and
PCZ-84-A be approved and that the General Plan designation and zone
district of the subject property be changed from Parks and Public
Open Space and A-D to Visitor Commercial and C-V-P.
D. ANALYSIS
1. Existing land use and zoning.
The property is vacant and zoned A-D (agricultural-design review required).
2. Adjacent General Plan designations (see Exhibit A)
North Parks and Public Open Space
South Retail Commercial
East - Parks and Public Open Space
West High Density Residential
3. Adjacent land use and zoning (see Exhibit B).
North A-D Municipal Golf Course
South - C-C-D Shopping Center
East A-D Municipal Golf Course and
Jimmy's on the Green Restaurant
West R-3-G-D Apartments
4. Development for park use under the existing designation and zoning.
The arguments in favor of developing the property for park use are that
the open space character of the site should be preserved as a "window" to the
golf course, and that there are presently no parks on the south side of the
Sweetwater Valley. On the other hand, the site is not well suited for
neighborhood park purposes inasmuch as it is located on a heavily travelled
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 10
major road and is not centrally located with reference to the neighborhood it
would serve; park users would tend to spill over onto and conflict with golf
course operations; and Rohr Park, the Allen School Playground and the County's
Sweetwater Regional Park, both existing and proposed, provide ample public
park and recreation facilities in this area.
5. Alternative Uses.
The subject 3.5 acre property has 400 feet of frontage on Bonita Road and
is located between Jimmy's on the Green Restaurant and the Vista Bonita
apartments. It is across the street from the westerly portion of the Bonita
Centre and backs up to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course. By virtue of
this location, the site is suitable for either multiple family residential or
commercial use, both of which are discussed below.
a. Commercial Use The options available under the commercial use
category include retail, professional and administrative, and
visitor. Since the Bonita area has ample retail and office
facilities, and since such uses would generally not complement the
golf course, we eliminated these options from further consideration.
The visitor commercial designation, on the other hand, would allow
uses such as restaurants, theaters, motels, commercial recreation
facilities and related uses which are generally not now in abundance
in the Bonita area and which could conceivably serve area residents
as well as the tourist or the traveler. The recreational aspect of
such uses would also complement golf course operations, perhaps most
notably in the case of a destination-oriented motel.
The arguments against visitor commercial use, however, include some
reservations as to the market demand for a destination-oriented motel
in this area with essentially only the golf course for support, or
the desirability of creating another restaurant site directly
adjacent to Jimmy's on the Green. Additionally, visitor-recreation
serving facilities and the level of activity they often generate may
result in land use friction with the adjacent apartment dwellers to
the west. The nature of the use and its relationship to surrounding
properties, however, could be closely controlled if the City chose to
market the parcel via a ground lease. In this eventuality, the City
would issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to several potential
developers and choose the proposal which is deemed most suitable in
terms of land use, site layout and design, and financial return to
the City.
It should also be noted that there has been interest expressed in
developing the site into a motel/commercial recreation complex
involving 80 guest rooms, and including racketball courts, tennis
courts, swimming pool, and gymnasium facilities for use by the
general public as well as by guests of the motel. According to the
party expressing this interest, a national motel chain has rated the
site favorably.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 11
b. Multiple family use. Developing the parcel for high density
residential use of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre would
represent a logical extension of the development pattern already
established on the north side of Bonita Road directly to the west of
the site, and would not present the same potential for land use
conflict as would a visitor commercial-recreation use. Luxury
apartments or condominiums, however, would be compatible w~th, but
not necessarily supportive of the golf course.
6. Expansion of Golf Course/Restaurant Parking
Since the expansion and improvement of the restaurant facilities at the
golf course, there are frequent times during the week when the available
parking is insufficient to meet the demands of both golfers and diners. This
problem is further aggravated by the fact that the parking lot is also used
regularly by joggers using the golf course running trail. Therefore, any
discussion of potential uses for the property in question should address the
issue of additional parking for the adjacent golf course/restaurant.
According to accepted parking standards, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course in combination with Jimmy's on the Green restaurant should be served by
approximately 268 parking spaces, or 47 more than the 221 spaces that
currently exist to serve both uses. Increasing the total additional need to
approximately 60 spaces to account for the joggers would require approximately
one-half acre of land, or perhaps less if a shared-use parking scheme could be
arranged in conjunction with the development of the remainder of the 3.5 acre
parcel.
The use of a portion of the parcel for expansion of public parking would
be permissible under any of the land use designations discussed above.
E. CONCLUSION
All things considered, we believe the Visitor Commercial designation and
C-V-P zoning offer the greatest opportunity to introduce facilities onto the
site which would complement and support golf course operations and which may
now be lacking in the Bonita area. If a decision is made to expand parking
for the golf course/restaurant, we believe the Visitor Commercial alternative
also offers the greatest opportunity to do so in an imaginative and economic
manner.
Staff has also included in their recommendation that the "P" Modifying
District be appended to the underlying C-V zoning in order to insure that
development is closely coordinated with and complements adjacent uses. If the
Visitor Commercial option is chosen, however, we would recommend that
consideration be given to a ground lease rather than an outright sale of the
property in order to control the nature of the use and the form of development
to the maximum degree.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 12
F. FISCAL IMPACT
In consultations with two prominent local developers and the City's
Landscape Architect, we obtained the following "ball park" estimates of the
cost/value of the 3.5 acre parcel under the alternatives discussed above:
1. Park Use.*
Cost of development: $35,000 - $122,000
Cost of maintenance: $24,000 - $28,000/year
2. Visitor Commercial Use.**
Market Value: $1,680,000 - $2,130,000
Ground Lease: $134,000 - $213,000/year
3. Multiple Family Residential.***
Market Value: $1,260,000 - $1,400,000
4. Parking Lot Expansion. ****
Cost of development: $60,000
* Development $10,O00-$35,000/acre depending on design and facilities
offered; maintenance $7,000-$8,000/acre/year.
** Market value $11-$14 sq. ft.; ground lease 8-10% of value per year.
*** 20 du/ac @ $18,000 - $20,O00/unit.
**** Approximately one-half acre, or 60 spaces, @ $2.50 sq. ft.
Note: Allotting one-half acre for expansion of golf course/restaurant parking
would reduce figures under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 accordingly.
WPC 0416P
EXHIBIT A
GPA - 8:5 -4/PCZ-84.-A
"General Plen Designations"
From'Parks ~ Public; Open Spac~
and 'A- D'to"Visitor Commercial' 8~
'C-V-P'for approx. 3.5 acres
VISTA
FRED H. ROHR pARK
-SlI)Ir-ETWATER REGIONAL PARK
C HUL.b vISTA --"
MUNICIPAL ~.,~
'~<~; GOLF COURSE -~'u-.,;
MFO ' -
*. On fha
BO~
, CONDO'e:
BONITA ~ (39)
CENTRE EA$~
· " ~- . '~ r BONITA CENTRE
~ ', R.5.P-8
' / : , I
·., , ~ BARN
~ r~ PaSEO , ......'~'- II /
'"'? - EXHIBIT B
,,..:,. ~ GPA - 83 - 4/PCZ -84-A
__ ALLEN "Land Use and Zoning"
" II~ From"Parks & Public Open Space"
,.. , ~ and "A-D'to~Visitor Commercial"
" 'C-V-P" for approx. 3.5 acres
EXHIBIT C
October 10, 1983
To: Members of the Planning Commission
Via: Bud Gray, Director of Planning~/~]"~' ~.y.L~
From: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental ,,~.,~., Coordinato
Subject: Adequacy of EIR-79-9 for Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
The Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department has conducted a
review of £IR-79-9 (Golf Course Property) to determine whether this document
was still valid regarding a proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning for
approximately 3 acres of property west of the existing Chula Vista Community
Golf Course Clubhouse.
The EIR was prepared and finalized in 1979 and discussed a General Plan
amendment and rezonin~ of the property. The City now proposes to pursue these
actions and must analyze the informational document to determine whether any
added significant environmental impacts could result from the project at this
time.
An analysis of impacts to traffic circulation was conducted by the City's
Traffic Engineer utilizing current available data. Attached with Exhibit C is
an update of Section 3.13 "Transportation and Access" (Addendum A to EIR-79-9)
contained within EIR-79-9. The conclusion of this Addendum is that the
project will not, by itself, have a significant affect on transportation and
that impacts resulting from the project will not need mitigation.
DR:DB:nr
~C 0544P
~" ~" 3~
ADDENDUM A '
3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS
3.13.1 PROJECT SETTING
ACCESS TO THE PROJECT SITE WiLL BE PROVIDED BY BONITA
ROAD, A FOUR LANE EAST-WEST ARTERIAL STREET CONNECTING WITH
I-8~5, CHULA VISTA TO THE WEST, AND SR 54 AND SPRING VALLEY
TO THE EAST. BONITA ROAD CONTAINS FOUR LANES FOR TRAFFIC,
AND A 2-WAY LEFT TURN LANE. THE NEAREST SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
ARE AT OTAY LAKES ROAD (65~ FT. EAST) AND WILLOW STREET (25~ FT.
WEST). BUS SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY CHULA VISTA TRANSIT, ROUTE 5
WHICH RUNS HOURLY FROM 6 A.M. TO 1~ P.M. MONDAY-SATURDAY.
ROUTE 5 SERVICE IS EXTENDED FROM THE CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER
(WEST) TO SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE (EAST).
THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE MOST RECENT TRAFFIC
COUNTS ON THE EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM.
ADT(1) (DATE)
BONITA ROAD;
WEST OF WILLOW ST. £$900 ~86~ ~8 ~1/81
EAST OF WILLOW ST. $~B00 &894~ ~$ ~0/82
WEST OF OTAY LAKES RD. 26500 ~8~ 9~8 ~0/82
EAST OF OTAY LAKES RD. ~gB00
WILLOW STREET;
NORTH OF BONITA ROAD 9500
OTAY LAKES ROAD;
SOUTH OF BONITA ROAD I7900 ½~99~ ~9 $/85
3.13.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
~HE PROJECT'S TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND IMPACT
ON THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE TWO
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES;
ALT. I - 52 CONDOMINIUMS
52 DU. X 8 TRIPS/DU/DAY - 416 TRIPS/DAY
ALT. 2 - RESTAURANT 6~ SQ. FT. W/15~ SEATS MOTEL 1~ ROOMS
RESTAURANT - 55 TRIPS/I~ SQ. FT./DAY X 6~ SQ. FT. =
33~ TRiPS/DAY
MOTEL - 1~ TRIPS/ROOM/DAY X 1~ ROOMS - 1~ TRIPS/DAY
TOTAL 133~ TRIPS/DAY
(I) TWO WAY, 24 HOUR AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
DELETION .......
~ddendum
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FROM ALT. 2 WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON THE CIRCULATION
SYSTEM. IT IS ASSUMED THAT IF THE STREET SYSTEM COULD ACCOMMODATE
THIS "WORST CASE" CONDITION, THEN LESSER TRAFFIC VOLUMES WOULD
NOT CREATE CIRCULATION PROBLEMS.
INTERSECTIONS ARE THE CONSTRAINT ON HOW MUCH TRAFFIC A
CIRCULATION SYSTEM CAN ACCOMHODATE. THEREFORE, PROdECT GENERATED
TRAFFIC WAS ADDED TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC AT THE NEARBY
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY
BEING UTILIZED.
THE ANALYSIS METHOD USED IS "INTERSECTION CAP~CITY
UTILIZATION" (ICU) WHICH iS A TECHNIQUE FOR ESTIMATING THE
OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE AT AN INTERSECTION. BASED ON TRAFFIC
VOLUMES AND INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS, THiS TECHNIQUE SHOWS THE
LEVEL OF SERVICE AT WHICH THE iNTERSECTION IS OPERATING. THE
FOLLOWING TABLE COMPARES THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO ICU VALUES.
LEVEL OF
ICU SERVICE DESCRIPTION
~.74 & BELOW A, B CONDITION OF FREE FLOW
~.75 - ~.84 C CONDITION OF STABLE FLOW
,~85 - ~94 D CONDITION APPROACHING
UNSTABLE FLOW
~.95 - i.~4 E UNSTABLE FLOW; VOLUMES
NEAR OR AT CAPACITY
1.~5 & UP F FORCED FLOW; STOPPAGES
MAY OCCUR FOR LONG
PERIODS OF TIME.
THE ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT 2/3 OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING
INBOUND AND 1/3 BEING OUTBOUND FROM THE PROJECT DURING THE PEAK
HOUR.
THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS ICU VALUES FOR THE INTERSECTION
OF BONITA ROAD/WILLOW ST. AND BONITA RD. OTAY LAKES RD. WITH
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND WITH PROJECT GENERATED VOLUMES.
INCLUDING PROJECT
EXISTING GENERATED TRAFFIC
INTERSECTION (PEAK HOUR~ (PEAK HOUR)
BONITA RD./WILLOW ST. .?3 .~-(~) .~4 .27
BONITA RD./OTAY LAKES RD. .6--~ .64-~ .66 .2-'~
(~ ~NGEU~E6 KA~ER ME~fGA~
½N~E~ PR~P~SE~ BEVEE~PMEN~ ~N $~HEA$~ ~RNER AND FREE
R+GH~ ~RN ~ANE F~R EAS~ B~N~ ~RAFF+G
THE TABLE SHOWS THAT EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED BY THE PROdECT~ THE TWO INTERSECTIONS AT WORST WILL BE
OPERATING AT LEVEL OF SERVICE A-B. B-C.
DELETION ........
Addendum
3.13.3 MITIGATION
THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE ~ROJECT WILL NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADE THE CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE~
THEREFORE, THE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT WILL NOT
NEED MITIGATION.
3.13.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
USING THE VISITOR COMMERCIAL CENTER AS THE "WORST
CASE" CONDITION, THE PROJECT WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 133~
TRIPS PER DAY. AT THIS TIME THE STREET SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE
THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC PRODUCED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE. ALTHOUGH THE
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM,
THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS GENERATED BY ~HE PRO~EG~ W~L~ REB~E~=
can be anticipated az a result of the project:
1. Incremental INCREASE IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ON
BONITA ROAD.
2. Incremental INCREASE IN DELAY TO VEHICLES ENTERING
BONITA ROAD FROM DRIVEWAYS AND FROM ALLEN SCHOOL RD.
THESE PROBLEMS WHICH WILL RESULT DUE TO THE INCREASE
OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROJECT AREA ARE SMALL. EXAMINING
THE ISSUES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE PROJECT, by itself, WILL
HAVE AN INSIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
However, it should be noted that the cumulative effect
of increased traffic generated bH this project along with other
future large scale projects may have significant traffic impacts.
DELETION ...........
Addendum
November 4,
C TY CLEI ;7$ OFFICE
Mayor Greg Cox and
Members of the City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca. 92010
Dear Mayor Cox and Council Members:
In our letter of October 24 to you we requested a moratorium
on development on Bonita Road until an overall traffic study
has been completed. ~!e have not received a reply.
On November 30,!983 ~he Chula Vista Planning Commission will
review a zone change on 3.5 acres adjacent to the CV Municipal
Golf Course. An excerpt of the Transportation and Access Section
is enclosed (Attac~ment 1). You will note the "Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) designation of Bonita Road and Willow
will drop one grade of service.
On November 9, 1983 the County Board of Supervisors will consider
a rezoning request on 5~47 acres on Bonita Road and Glen Abbey
Boulevard. A portion of the "Focused Environment Analysis on
Traffic Circulation" of the EIR is enclosed (Attachment 2).
This analysis shows the intersection of Bonita Road and Plaza
Bonita/Lynwood Drive has a "D" level of service, defined as
"unstable flow, high volumes, tolerable but fluctuating
~ t "
operating soeed and maneuverabili y, and is the border-
line with the ~.~ext, more severe level of service "E".
We are request!ny the Coun{y end you to initiate an area
traffic stu.y as soon as possible, including all entities
to be involved, and not to be accomplished by a concerned
developer.
Again, we would appreciate your reply.
.Sincerely,
S'.¥EE~ATER VALLEY CIVIC ASSOCIATION
Carol Freno, rres~dent
Enclosures: Attachments I & 2
cc: County Sucervisor Tom Hamilton
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY, THE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FROM ALT. 2 . WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON .THE CIRCULATION
SYSTEM. IT IS ASSUMED THAT IF THE STREET SYSTEM COULD ACCOMMODATE
THIS "WORST CASE" CONDITION, THEN LESSER TRAFFIC VOLUMES WOULD
NOT CREATE CIRCULATION PROBLEMS.
INTERSECTIONS ARE THE CONSTRAINT ON HOW MUCH TRAFFIC A
CIRCULATION SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE. THEREFORE, PROdECT GENERATED
TRAFFIC WAS ADDED TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC AT THE NEARBY
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY
BEING UTILIZED.
THE ANALYSIS METHOD USED IS "INTERSECTION CAPACITY
UTILIZATION" (lCU) WHICH IS A TECHNIQUE FOR ESTIMATING THE
OVERALL LEVEL OF SERVICE AT AN INTERSECTION. BASED ON TRAFFIC
VOLUMES AND INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS, THIS TECHNIQUE SHOWS THE
LEVEL OF SERVICE AT WHICH THE INTERSECTION IS OPERATING. THE
FOLLOWING TABLE COMPARES THE LEVEL OF SERVICE TO ICU VALUES.
LEVEL Of .~
ICU SERVICE DESCRIPTION
~.74 & BELOW A, B CONDITION OF FREE FLOW
~.75 - ~.84 C CONDITION OF STABLE FLOW
.~85 - ~94 D CONDITION APPROACHING
UNSTABLE FLOW
~.95 - 1.~4 E UNSTABLE FLOW; VOLUME~
NEAR OR AT CAPACITY
1.~5 & UP F EORCED FLOW; STOPPAGES
MAY OCCUR FOR LONG
PERIODS OF TIME.
THE ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT 2/3. OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING
INBOUND AND 1/3 BEING OUTBOUND FROM THE PROJECT DURING THE PEAK
HOUR.
THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS ICU VALUES FO~ THE INTERSECTION
OF BONITA RFAD/WILLOW ST. AND BONITA RD. OTAY LAKES RD. WITH
EXISTING TF.AFFIC VOLUMES AND WITH PROJECT GENERATED VOLUMES.
INCLUDING PROJECT ~
EXISTING GENERATED TRAFFIC
INTERSECTION .~PEAK HOUR) (PEAK HOUR)
BONITA RD./WILLOW ST. .73'' .~-~ .34 .77.
BONITA RD./OTAY LAKES RD. .E-~ .64-~ .66 .2--~.
(~ ½N~E~DES P~Pg~E~ gEVE~PMEN~ ~N S@~HEA~ ~RNER ANg FREE
R+~H~ ~RN EANE Fg~ EA~ B~Ng ~RAFF+G
THE TABLE SHOWS THAT EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED BY THE PROJECT, THE TWO INTERSECTIONS AT WORST WILL BE
OPERATING AT LEVEL OF SERVICE A-B. E-C.
DELETION ........ /
Ad~en~.w
3.13.3 MITIGATION
THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROJECT WiLL NOT DEGRADE'
THE CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE. (AyB~ THEREFORE, THE IMPACTS
............. RESULTING_FROM THE PROdECT WIlL NOT NEED MITIGATION.
3.13.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
USING THE VISITOR COMMERCIAL CENTER AS THE "WORST CASE"
CONDITION, THE PROdECT WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 133~ TRIPS
PER DAY. AT THIS TIME THE STREET SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE THE
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC PRODUCED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT
LOWERING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE· ALTHOUGH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC
WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, THE FOLLOWING PROBEEMB
GENERA~E~ BY ~HE PRg4EG~ W+EE RE$~= oco~ be antioiDated aa a result
gf the project.
1. Incremental INCREASE IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ON
BONITA ROAD.
2. £norementa~ INCREASE IN DELAY TO VEHICLES ENTERING
BONITA R~AD ~ROM DRIVEWAYS AND FROM ALLEN SCHOOL RD.
THESE PROBLEMS WHICH WILL RESULT DUE TO THE INCREASE
OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROJECT AREA ARE SMALL. EXAMINING THE
iSSUES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED~ THE FROJECT~ b~ ~eZ~ WILL HAVE AN
INSIGNIFICANT EFFECT. ON TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. - .~
· However~ ~t ~o~Zd be not~ that the c~c~uZative effeot o~ [
~ncreased traffic generated o~ this pro~ect along'with ot~r lucre ~ro~e~t~ ~
in ~his ~ea maE ~ve ~ignificant negative 'traffic ~act~. ~
DELETION .......
Addendum
3. FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Description of the Environmental Settinq
The subject property is located on the south side of
Bonita Road approximately 1200 feet east of 1-805, 500 feet
east of Plaza Bonita-Lynwood Drive, and one mile southwest
of willow Road. Commercial and residential mixed develop-
ment exists south of Bonita Road between Plaza Bonita Road
and Willow Road. The rural open space land uses on the
north side of Bonita Road are not anticipated to change
since this area is designated regional park land and owned
by the County of San Diego.
The property has frontage on Bonita Road and Glen Abbey
Boulevard with potential access onto both roadways. Bonita
Road consists of four lanes separated bY a continuous left
turn lane with a total average daily traffic (ADT) of
28,800 vehicles per day (vpd). This road is designated as
a Major Road by the County of San Diego Circulation Element
of the General Plan. It primarily provides access to the
community of Bonita from I-.805 and the northern sections of
Chula Vista.
Glen Abbey Blvd. is a narrow two-lane County maintained
local road which forms a one-half mile long loop south of
Bonita Road. Having two ~intersections with Bonita Road,
Glen Abbey Blvd. serves roughly 65 residences with an
estimated ADT of 650 vpd. The westerly intersection is
'approximately 200 feet east of the Plaza Bonita/Bonita Road
intersection. Although vehicles attempting to enter Bonita
Road from Glen Abbey Blvd. may experience occasional
delays, there are no traffic congestion problems on Glen
Abbey Blvd. due to its low traffic volumes.
Traffic congestion in the project area occurs at two
locations along Bonita Road: Plaza Bonita-Lynwood Drive,
and Bonita Road/I-805 (see Figure 3). The 1-805 connection
with Bonita ~oad is a diamond interchange with traffic
signals and left turn lanes for the north and south bound
on-ramps to the freeway. During peak hours occasional
queuing on Bonita Road occurs at these locations. Plaza
Bonita Road is a four-lane divided road connecting Boaita
Road with the nearby Plaza Bonita Shopping Center to the
northwest. Lynwood Drive is a narrow local road serving a
small residential area south of the project. The existing
level of service for the fully signalized intersection at
Bonita Road and Plaza Bonita-Lynwood Drive, as determined
by the "Critical Movement Summation" technique, is "D".
Level of Service "D" is defined as "unstable flow., high
-ll-
volumes, tolerable but fluctuating operating Speed and
maneuverability?. According to the traffic study performed
by William j. Robens (see Appendix B) this intersection is
on the borderline with the next more severe level of
service, "E", which is characterized by "unstable flow,
high volumes approaching roadway Capacity, limited speed
intermittent vehicle queuing". ,
The projected opening of East "H" Street which
currently does not extend east of 1-805 is expected to
s.ignificantly reduce traffic volumes on · .
F~gure 3). At Dr ~n~ ...... Bonita Road (see
Southwestern Colie~e~-~'_~_~c,h ~ ~he traffic bound for the
9= ~L=~, xocatea southeast of the subject
property, uses Bonita Road from 1-805 due to the limited
alt .ernat .e a cc.ess .r out e.s. to the aP?,,roximat ely 2,000
~uenS~ed~n~atlheU%S~y (oif'%'hu~Ca°lv~gt~,EcSotnast~S) .in this area.
Street from 1-805 to Ora- Lake . ruction of East "H"
expe.cted to be complete~y over St~Oad ~as commenced and is
opensng of this roadwa,, :- _ ~.e next .few months. The
~ ~ 'ancscspateo to divert 5600
vehicles per day from Bonita Road (see Appendix B).
A recent study of traffic volumes for the year 2000
completed by the City of Chula Vista shows 27,000 ADT on
Bonita Road adjacent to the project site. This is
essentially unchanged from .the present 28,000 ADT at this
location. However, an increase in ADT from 34,000 to
48,000 between 1-805 and'the Bonita Road/Plaza Bonita Ro'ad
intersection is projected for the year 2000; indicating a
decrease in the level of service at this intersection.
Significant Environmental Effects Of the Pro_p_osed Pro'e/~q~
Development of the 5.47-acre site to the proposed
density of 26 du/acre would generate approximately 852
additional daily trips on ~Bonita Road (based on a trip
generation rate of 6 trips per unit) . According to the
traffic study these trips would be distributed as follows:
80% (or 682) trips would proceed west toward the freeway,
and 20% (or 170) trips would proceed east toward Bonita.
Depending on the circulation pattern selected for
future development of the subject property, there is a
potential for localized traffic impacts to occur.
Providing a single access road Connecting onto Bonita Road,
or directing all pro3ect traffic to the western Glen Abbey
Blvd. intersection, would likely cause congestion and
confusion due to the minimal separation from the existing
intersections.
-13-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 13
6a. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-84-B, Consideration to rezone 0.62 acres located
between "C" Street and Sea Vale Street ~60 feet east
of North Glover Avenue from R-1 to R-3 - Greenwich
Development Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting that two vacant landlocked parcels
located between "C" Street and Sea Vale Street, 660 feet east of
North Glover Avenue and 146 feet south of "C" Street {see locator) be
rezoned from R-1 to R-3.
2. An Initial Study, IS-$4-5, of possible environmental impacts of ~the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator who on
October 28, 1983, concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects and recommended the adoption of the Negative
Declaration.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-84-5.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
to rezone the subject property from R-1 to R-3-G as shown on attached
Exhibit "A". Said change of zone to become effective upon the
consolidation of the subject property with the R-3-G property located
immediately to the west.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 South Bay Pioneers {AA)
South R-1 Single family dwellings
East R-1 Single family dwelling {vacant rear yard)
West R-3-G-D Vacant
2. Proposed Development
The applicant has also submitted an application for a conditional use
permit for the development of the subject property and the property
to the west with a 207 unit senior citizen low and moderate income
project {Canterbury Court - PCC-84-5).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of November 30, 1983 Page 14
3. Existing Site Characteristics
The two vacant parcels are the rear 141 feet of 3 previously
subdivided lots fronting on Sea Vale Street as well as a portion of
Third Avenue which has been vacated. The division of the lots into
landlocked parcels occurred prior to present subdivision regulations.
The subject properties are lower in elevation than the adjacent (R-l)
properties to the south and east and are part of a small draw which
drains westerly into the Sweetwater Flood Plain.
D. ANALYSIS
1. The two parcels are located in an area of the General Plan where two
land uses (High Density Residential 13 to 26 DU's/acre and Medium
Density Residential 4 to 12 DU's/acre) interface and may be
designated as one or the other depending on the orientation of the
property.
2. In this instance, the two parcels are much lower than the properties
to the south (of which they were originally a part of) and the east.
Because of this topographic difference and the fact that the property
to the north is already developed with a non-residential land use,
the most logical manner for the two parcels to be developed would be
as the applicant intends, that being, as part of the development of
the R-3-G-D property to the west.
3. The applicant has requested R-3 zoning which would permit a density
of 32 units per acre. The density of the R-3-G zone is 17 units per
acre. Therefore, it is appropriate to rezone the parcels consistent
with the R-3-G zoning of the adjacent property to the west.
4. Because the two parcels are presently landlocked, they should become
part of the adjacent property to the west concurrent with any
rezoning action. For this reason, the rezoning should not be
effective until the properties are consolidated either through a
parcel map or consolidation plat.
WPC 0572P
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Canterbury Court Senior Citizens Housing Development
PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 5 acres located south of "C" Street within
the 200 and 300 block of "C" Street
PROJECT APPLICANT: Greenwich Development Company
CASE NO: IS-84-5 DATE: October 31, 1983
A. Project Setting
The project si'te is located within the flood plain of the Sweetw~ter
River. Therefore, the provisions of the Federal flood insurance program
apply to this project and the residential structures will have to be
raised to one foot above the projected flood level. Because the property
is located in the flood plain, groundwater is also present. However,
given the proximity to the bay area, the water has a high salinity content
and therefore is not potable water.
A minor amount of drainage flows across the property and in an area
immediately adjacent to "C" Street there is a depression that retains
water after rainfall. This produces a potential problem for a vector
infestation.
The geology of the vicinity poses two potential development problems for
the property. Because the site is located within the flood plain and
there is groundwater present, there is a potential for the liquification
process to take place during, an earthquake. Additionally, there is an
inferred earthquake fault which is located along the western boundaries or
just to the west of the property. This fault is a minor one which is not
associated with the La Nacion earthquake fault system.
Again, because the project site is located in a flood plain, there are
heavy deposits of alluvial soils along the lower elevations of the
property. This factor will have to be taken into consideration during
grading and construction of pads for buildings on the property.
The project site, with the exception of the extreme western portion which
is currently utilized for parking for an existing one story office
building, is characterized as having steep slopes, some bluffs and a swale
which generally runs from an east to west direction. As was previously
noted, the central portion of the site adjacent to "C" Street has a
depressed area which frequently ponds after rainstorms.
The project site also has several mature California Pepper and other
trees. There are no rare or endangered plant species on the property.
city of chula vista planning department ~
environmental review section
According to information provided by adjoining property owners, the site
is frequented by several animal species. However, no rare or endangered
animal life has been identified on-site nor is known to utilize the site
during transitory trips.
B. Project Description
The project consists of a 207-unit senior citizens apartment project. The
proposed units would be located in structures ranging from one to three
stories in height and will be provided with approximately 140 parking
spaces and be served by one bus stop. The density of the proposed project
on the five acre+ site is approximately 41.5 dwelling units per acre. The
dwelling units -would be split between 171 one-bedroom units and 36
two-bedroom units. A recreation building and associated uses would be
provided along the frontage of the property on the extension of Third
Avenue which has various office and commercial uses.
The entire site would be graded with a balance of cut and fill invoIFing
21,500 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and filled. The maximum depth
of cut will be about 15 feet and the maximum depth of fill would be
approximately 14 feet.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project site is currently zoned R-l, R-3-G-D, and C-O. The project
applicant proposes a rezoning of the R-1 area to an R-3 classification to
permit the proposed use. In accordance with the provisions of the zoning
ordinance regarding senior citizens housing, the density of this
classification of projects may exceed the density specified in the zoning
ordinance and maps. Therefore, the proposed use is in conformance with
the zoning ordinance of the City of Chula Vista.
As is specified in the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan,
the proposed use may exceed the density provisions of the Land Use Element
subject to the provision of senior housing facilities with a percentage
provided at an affordable rate.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
1. Drainage
As was previously noted, the project is located within the flood
plain of the Sweetwater River and therefore, it must abide by the
provisions of the national flood insurance program. This would be
accomplished as is shown on the grading plan by raising the pad
elevations for the dwelling units above the lO0-year flood level.
2. Groundwater
The project site involves a minor drainage swale and a drainage
problem regarding the ponding of water on the property. The proposed
grading plan would solve the issue of ponding of water on the site
and the project would be required to tie into existing drainage
facilities subject to the approval of the City Engineer. This would
avoid any significant impact due to on or off site drainage.
Although groundwater is present, it has a high salinity content and
is not suitable for human consumption. Therefore, the project will
not significantly impact this resource.
3. Geology
Geological maps of this vicinity indicate an inferred earthquake
fault along the western property line of the project or just to the
west of the project site. Additionally, because the project is
located within the flood plain there is high groundwater present and
there are alluvial soils, the project will be subject to some level
of the liquification process. These potential impacts upon the
project are typical of development in this vicinity and can be easily
dealt with during standard development regulatory processes which
will include the submission of a soils and geotechnical report.
Implementation of recommendations from these reports which will be
required by the City will avoid any significant environmental impact.
4. Biology
There are no significant biological resources on the project site and
therefore development of the property will not have an adverse impact
on these resources.
5. Noise
The project is not of a nature that would create any substantial
acoustical impact. However, continuing compliance with the City's
performance standards and nuiscance regulations will be required and
that will avoid any substantial impact. The dwelling units closest
to Third Avenue extension may be subject to an acoustical impact due
to traffic volumes on Third Avenue extension. This may require the
submission of an acoustical report specifying mitigation measures to
avoid significant impact. All of these measures will avoid any
substantial adverse impact resulting from the project's
implementation.
6. Transportation/Access
The City's Traffic Engineer has estimated that approximately 680
trips would be generated by the project and in assigning these trips
to various streets in the vicinity of the project, it was found that
no street would be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
Current levels of service on adjoining streets is "A" and this will
not change after implementation of the project as proposed.
E. MitiQation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation measures are recommended since standard development
regulations and the implementation of all recommendations proposed within
both a geologic/soils and acoustical report on the project site will
reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
F. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. There are no significant natural or manmade resources within the
project area which could be adversely affected by project
implementation.
2. The proposed senior housing project is in conformance with the
General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage to
the long term environmental goals.
3. All potential impacts can be mitigated through standard development
regulations and the implementation of geologic/soils and acoustical
report recommendations. No impacts are anticipated to interact and
cause cumulative effect on the environment.
4. The project will not create any source of significant noise or odors,
nor will any hazards to human being result.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Tom Dyke, Building Department
Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Engineer: Dan Biggs
2. Documents
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps {FIRM)
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVI/~J COORDINATOR
WPC 0175P
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
,,,-,.T o~ '~ ~ (R-i)
MOTOR , <_. ~ '<
VEHICLES /
,.
'' ~'Jll
·
~1,~'~1
REI'AI~ SF
SHOPS ~ ;,
~wr s~o~s, sr Js~ I s~' I s~
' ~ SEA --.VALE
I
KIMBALL
I
----q I
I , J [ I I I I I I
I ~ , [ J I I I I I
I I I I I~ I I
J "D" STREET --
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Pa'ge 15
6b. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-84-5; request to construct
a 207 unit senior citizen apartment complex at 334 "C"
Street - Greenwich Development Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 207 unit senior
citizen apartment complex on 5 acres located at 334 "C" Street in the R-3-G-D,
C-O and R-1 zone. The applicant has also filed an application to rezone the
R-1 area to R-3 which is the preceding item.
2. An Initial Study, IS-84-5, of possible adverse environmental impacts
of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
October 31, 1983. The Environmental Review Coordinator 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-84-5.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-84-5, to
construct a senior citizen apartment complex at 334 "C" Street subject to the
filed precise plan and the following conditions:
a. The westerly half of Building #6 shall be reduced to two stories.
b. The westerly half of Building #4 shall not exceed two stories.
c. The parking ratio of one space for every two bedrooms shall be
provided on-site, with a minimum of 98 standard size parking
spaces.
d. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained from the "C"
Street right-of-way:
(1) one-story and two-story building 15 feet
(2) three-story building 20 feet
C. DISCUSSION
1. Adjacent zoning and land use.
North MHP Mobile home park
South C-O and R-1 Commercial offices and single family dwellings
East R-1 South Bay Pioneers (AA) and single family dwellings
West C-O Commercial office and Department of Motor Vehicles
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 16
2. Existing site characteristics.
The project site consists of four parcels (totalling approximately 5
acres) located on the south side of "C" Street just east of North Glover
Avenue. The site extends through to Third Avenue Extension with 156 feet of
frontage along that street and 660 feet along "C" Street. There are two
existing single-family dwellings on the subject property as well as an
existing parking area once used by the Department of Motor Vehicles prior to
their relocation to the northwest corner of Third Avenue Extension and North
Glover Avenue.
Topographically, the site is characterized as very irregular having steep
slopes, some bluffs and a minor natural drainage swale which runs generally
from an east to west direction. The most prominent topographic feature i6 a
small knoll (at approximately 37') which is located near the middle of The
property. Portions of the property lie within the Sweetwater lO0-flood
plain. The site ranges in elevation from a low of 15 feet at the west end to
a high of 60 feet at the east end.
3. Proposed use.
The applicant proposes to construct a 207-unit senior citizen apartment
project consisting of 171 one-bedroom units and 36 two-bedroom units. The
units will be housed in 6 buildings ranging from one story to three stories in
height. The building at the northwest corner of the site (near North Glover
Avenue) will be a three-story structure and is located approximately 16 feet
from the front property line. The other buildings along the "C" Street
frontage will be one and two stories in height with the one-story portions of
the building located nearest the street. The one-story portions of the
building set back approximately 16 feet from the property line and the
two-story portions approximately 25 feet. The Building Line Map has
established a 25-foot setback along "C" Street whereas the Municipal Code
requires a 15-foot setback for R-3 zoning. The remaining structures will be
located along the southerly portion of the site and will be one, two and three
stories in height. The portions of the building nearest the south property
line will be one and two stories. The three-story buildings will. have
elevators. The southeasterly portion of Building #5 is set at one story
because the pad level is 9 feet higher than the adjacent pads. The building
heights of the southerly buildings were reduced to provide more light and air
within the interior court of the building complexes extending along the south
property line.
Parking for 139 cars and one bus stop will be provided on-site, a ratio of
approximately 2 spaces for 3 units. The parking will consist of 92 standard
size spaces and 47 compact spaces. Access is provided by two driveways along
"C" Street and one driveway on Third Avenue Extension, serving 12 parking
spaces. The remaining parking is located in the center of the project and at
the entry driveway creating an interior circular circulation system on-site.
In addition, parking for approximately 22 cars can be accommodated along "C"
Street within the public right-of-way.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 17
Other amenities include a single-story recreation building near the
southwest corner of the site and open space courtyard areas located throughout
the project. Each unit will also have a private balcony or patio.
Grading will result in a maximum depth of cut at 15 feet and the maximum
fill of approximately 14 feet. Since a portion of the site lies within the
Sweetwater flood plain, the building pads will be at elevation 22 feet (one
foot above the lO0-year flood level) or higher.
D. ANALYSIS
1. From a locational standpoint, the project site is well suited for a
senior citizen housing development. It is located on a local bus route (Third
Avenue Extension) and near the San Diego Transit line (Fourth Avenue). Except
for grocery shopping, there are a number of commercial services in the
immediate area. It is also near a community park (Eucalyptus Park).
Therefore, the staff supports the development of a senior citizen housing
project on the subject property.
2. The Planning Department surveyed a number of existing senior projects
in the City of San Diego to study parking. It was determined that those
projects which had a parking ratio of one space for every two units
experienced little or no problems, whereas those with a parking ratio of one
space for every three units did have limited problems. The survey supports
the adequacy of providing one parking space for every two one-bedroom units.
It should be noted that only one project surveyed had two-bedroom units and
that was two units out of 29 units. The "C" Street project has 36 units or
17% two-bedroom units. For this reason the staff has calculated the parking
ratio based on the number of bedrooms rather than units, recommending a
parking ratio of one space for every two bedrooms.
3. The 139 spaces provided on-site represents a parking ratio of one
space for every 1.74 bedroom, which is a higher ratio than recommended.
However, this ratio includes 47 compact parking spaces which is 34% of the
total parking. The Code allows 10% of the required parking in multiple-family
projects to be compact spaces. Using a parking ratio of one space for every
two bedrooms, 122 spaces would be required on-site, 12 of which may be compact
spaces. The 17 excess spaces may also be compact spaces bringing the total of
compact spaces to 29. Because of the location, it is suggested that the
number of standard spaces be increased from 92 spaces to 98 spaces (or a
maximum of 20% compacts for the required parking). As noted previously, the
660 feet of frontage on "C" Street provides for approximately 22 standard
spaces at the curb which, to some degree, offsets the higher percentage of
compact spaces provided.
4. The staff had two areas of major concern with the original design of
the project. These concerns were: 1) adequate light and air for residents of
the three-story units; 2) the visual impact of the project from the public
streets and upon single-family dwellings to the south.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 18
On November 17 the project was presented to the Chula Vista Design Review
Committee to review and provide input to the Planning Commission. Prior to
the meeting, the Planning Department provided the applicant and Committee
members with an analysis of the plan citing problems relating to the lack of
light within the common courtyard areas and the need to reduce building
heights to protect view sheds.
The applicant's architect prepared a revised plan which was pres6nted to
the Review Board at the meeting. The revised plan addressed the vast majority
of the Planning Department's concerns and received the support of the Design
Review Committee.
5. The Planning Department is supportive of the plan; however, two
portions of the plan need further examination: (1) The northwesterly portion
of Building 4 remains at three stories in height causing a loss of view to the
west now enjoyed by single-family dwellings located on the north rim of
Seavale Ave. Reducing the structure to two stories would preserve those
views; however five units would be lost. (2) The applicant largely addressed
the issue of visual impact from the street providing one- and two-story
buildings adjacent to "C" Street with the three-story buildings located to the
rear of the site. However, Building 6 located at the northwest corner of the
site remains at three stories in height with the building pad elevated 7 feet
above the adjacent street. Because of its prominence, it is recommended that
the west half of Building 6 be reduced to two stories in height. This would
cause an additional reduction of five units. Implementing both changes would
likely result in a total loss of 10 units.
E. CONCLUSION
As of this writing the applicant's architect is in the process of making
the necessary changes to the site plan which will address the concerns and
conditions of approval outlined by the Planning Department.
A copy of the revised site plan will be available for the Planning
Commission's review at the public hearing on November 30.
F. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the 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 is near public transportation, commercial services
and a public park. Approval of this request will provide needed
housing for the senior citizens in the community.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of 11/30/83 Page 19
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 conditions of approval will preserve the existing view shed
enjoyed by the single family residences and improve the visual impact
of the project from the street. The interior livability will also be
improved.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposed use is in keeping with the regulations of the code and
the policies established for senior housing projects regarding
parking and income requirements.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
The proposed use is in keeping with the "omnibus" amendment of the
General Plan relating to senior citizen housing.
AL:fp
WPC 0592P/0015Z