Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1987/11/18 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, November 18, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of September 23, October 14 and October 28, 1987 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Co mmission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-F and P-88-5: Consideration to rezone 11.9 acres located on the southwest and southeast corners of East 'H' Street and Rutgers Avenue, from R-1-H to R-1-H-P and Precise Plan for 40 single family attached units Kelton Title Company 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-14 and ZAV-88-6: Request to establish church offices and fellowship meeting place at 110 Third Avenue Calvary Chapel 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-E: Consideration to rezone 1.67 acres located between 'C' Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue extended from R-1 to R-3-P-21 - Pioneer Mortgage 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-C: Consideration to rezone 0.59 acres located to the westerly side of Otay Lakes Road, between Ridgeback Road and East 'H' Street to P-C and C-C-P - Sudberry Properties, INc. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendments to the Certified Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Plan 6. REPORT: PCM-87-6: Report on additional consideration of Rancho Del Rey SPA-I Plan and related items AGENDA -2- November 18, 1987 7. REPORT: PCM-88-12: Consideration of a policy permitting reduced sideyard setbacks for single-family dwellings containing three-car garages DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of December 2, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers November 13, 1987 TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of November 18, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-F and P-88-5: Consideration to rezone ll.9 acres located on the southwest and southeast corners of East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue, from R-1-H to R-1-H-P and Precise Plan for 40 single family attached units - Kelton Title Company A. BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted the attached request to continue this item to the meeting of December 2, 1987, in order to make some refinements to the precise plan. Staff concurs with the request. Since this item is expected to generate a great deal of neighborhood interest, we have taken the liberty of mailing out a corrected public hearing notice in anticipation of the Commission's approval of the request. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to continue this item to the meeting of December 2, 1987. WPC 4512P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. L~uis L. Kelton List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Louis L. Kelton 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Louis L. Kelton 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No ~< If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--6-~]~[ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, dist. rict or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ('NOTE: Attach additi°nal pages as necessary'~ 4 · /~-/~- g7 Signature of applicant/~f~te A-110 type name or applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-14 and ZAV-88-6: Request to establish church offices and fellowship meeting place at llO Third Avenue - ualvary chapel A. BACKGROUND This item involves two applications: (1) Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-14 to establish church offices and a fellowship meeting place within a single family dwelling at llO Third Avenue in the R-1 zone, and {2) Variance ZAV-88-6 to vary from the lot size, setback and fencing standards required for churches in residential zones. An Initial Study, IS-88-27, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on November 6, 1987. 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-88-27. 2. Adopt a motion to deny PCC-88-14 and ZAV-88-6. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-1 Single family South R-3 Single family East R-3 Fredricka Manor West R-1 Single family Existing site characteristics The site is a 9,400 sq. ft. single family parcel located in an R-1 zone with an existing 1,340 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 2-bath residence. The lot measures ?l ft. wide by 132 ft. deep, with 6 ft. high solid wood fencing along the southerly and westerly {rear) property lines, and 5 ft. high chain link fencing along the northerly property line. The dwelling is situated on the front portion of the lot with setbacks of 20 ft. in the front, 58 ft. in the rear, and l0 ft. on the sides. Single family residences to the north and south are separated from the subject dwelling a distance of 40 ft. and 15 ft. respectively. The property has two curb cuts on Third Avenue; one 25 ft.-wide along the northerly boundary serving a two-car garage and parking pad, and another 12 ft.-wide along the southerly boundary serving an RV parking pad. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 2 Proposed use The proposal is to convert the existing dwelling for use as church offices, family and career counseling and small evening meetings. The church has a total congregation of 140, which holds Sunday morning and evening services in rented space at Southwestern College; they have no permanent location at this time. Please see the attached letter from Pastor Schock outlining the proposed use of the site. There would normally be two and usually no more than three staff on site between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., including the pastor, his secretary and occasionally his assistant. Counseling sessions involving only individuals and families -- no groups -- would occur between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., with one evening session per week lasting no later than 8:30 p.m. Small leadership meetings and prayer sessions involving approximately l0 parishioners would be held in the evening between 7:00 and 9:30 p.m. The Pastor estimates there would be no more than 3 to 4 cars on-site at any one time during the day. No estimate of evening parking demand is indicated. D. ANALYSIS Churches are listed in the Municipal Code as "Unclassified Uses" which allows for their use in any zone subject to review and approval of a conditional use permit. The Code further provides that "Any church, hospital, convalescent hospital or other religious or eleemosynary institution in any R zone shall be located on a collector street or thoroughfare with a minimum parcel of one acre, shall maintain a ten-foot wide minimum landscaped strip or solid six-foot fence or masonry wall on all property lines abutting said R zone...and shall have side yard and rear yard setbacks of at least twenty feet and a front yard setback of at least twenty feet." These standards have been adopted in order to allow for the location of such institutions in close proximity to the residents they serve, provided there are adequate protections in terms of site area, separation and access to ensure the preservation of the character and quality of the residential living environment. The only standard met in the present case is location on a collector street. Otherwise the proposal involves a typical single family dwelling on a standard single family lot surrounded by three other single family homes. We believe such a setting is inappropriate for uses other than single family residential use. While the impacts may or may not be great, or may be limited to certain hours of the day or week, the residential enjoyment of present and future residents of the area should be given paramount consideration over any non-residential use of the property. In terms of precedent, according to our records the City has processed only one City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 3 application for church use of a standard single family lot. The application involved a request for temporary quarters to serve a 9-member congregation at 422 East Oxford Street, and was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission in 1969 on the basis of the size of the property and the resulting potential for adverse impacts on adjoining residents. The applicant contends that the property is reasonably priced and will allow the church to forgo renting office space in favor of an equity investment to marshall funds for the later purchase of a larger site suitable to accommodate all the functions of the church. While we sympathize with the church's predicament, we do not believe this overrides the factors noted above, and the Municipal Code specifically provides that "financial difficulties ... are not hardships justifying a variance." For the reasons noted above, we recommend denial of the request. For the Commission's information, the following section lists the facts which must be found in order to grant a conditional use permit and variance. E. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit 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. 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. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. 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. Variance 1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual merits. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 4 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. WPC 4510/2652P , ~ ~ ~ ~ MFD ~ CONDos ~ ~ MFD RE~ID~N PROJECT AREA SFD SFD SFD ,FO~ SFE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL MFD .~. ~ ~ MFD MFD ~ ~ VAC. MFD SFD ~.~' ~"'~ M F...D ~. MFD ' LOCATOR PCC-88- 14 110 THIRD AVENUE negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Calvary Chapel PROJECT LOCATION: llO Third Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Calvary Chapel CASE NO: IS-88-27 DATE: November 6, 1987 A. The site is a 9,400 sq. ft. single family parcel with an existing 1,340 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 2-bath residence. The lot measures 71 feet wide by 132 feet deep. The dwelling is situated on the front portion of the lot with setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 58 feet in the rear, and 10 feet on the sides. Single family residences to the north and south are separated from the subjec~ dwelling a distance of 40 feet and 15 feet respectively. The property has two curb cuts on Fourth Avenue; one 25 feet wide along the northerly boundary serving a two-car garage and parking pad, and another 12 feet wide along the southerly boundary serving an RV parking pad. This is an urbanized area of central Chula Vista with all urban services available. B. Project Description The proposal is to convert the interior of the dwelling for use as church offices and small meetings. Functions would include administrative office use and family and career counseling during the day and early evening, and group study sessions/meetings involving approximately 10 people during the evening between the hours of 7:00 and 9:30 p.m. A variance from the required one acre minimum lot size is also requested. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and granting of the variance the project is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning of the property. D. Identification of Environmental Effects In accordance with the Initial Study of this proposal the project will not result in any significant impacts and therefore an Environmental Impact Report is not being prepared. city of chula vista planning department ¢I1YOF environmental review section (~HUL~ VI~A E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project site is in an urbanized area which is void of any significant natural environmental resources. The site is not near any earthquake zone or any other known natural hazards. 2. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project is in an urbanized area of Chula Vista and its impacts are so minor as to preclude any substantial cumulative impact. 4. The project will have to conform to all performance standards which will preclude any significant emission which could adversely impact human beings. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Tim P. Jones Indepth Drafting 2. Documents 1. Chula Vista General Plan 2. Chula Vista Municipal Code 3. PCC-88-14 4. ZAV-88-6 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. ~N~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 f, Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department (TIYOF " environmental review section CHULAVI A ~.o. ~ ~£$$ ~ ~, ~q ~£o~£ ~¢1~$-0¢¢5 To whom it may concern: This letter is an addend~ to the CUP and Zone Variance Application being applied by Calvary Chapel of Chula Vista. We are in the process of trying to purchase a residence at 110 Third Avenue, located just South of D Street. There will be many functions of this hc~e. One of the major uses will be for church functions as a ~all type of fellowship meeting place. We will use it as a small hc~e church. Approximately 10 people would meet in the evening between 7:00 and 9:30 p.m. During the day the hom~ will be used for administrative offices for the Calvary Chapel of Chula Vista, for the secretary's reception work for the church and typing, and for the pastor and his study. The hc~e will also be used for free pastoral counseling. This counseling involves family's inter-personal problems, drug/alcohol related probl~s, career counseling, etc. This counseling is not only open to our church, but also to the public of Chula Vista, if they ~uld like to take advantage of it. We use it as a means of lifting up and glorifying the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who cc~ands us to teach about Him to every person in all the nations. This hom~ is very needed for our church functions, as we will convert it to help organize and control the position of the church. Actually, the location is good for us. It is close to Southwestern College, where we are currently holding our sunday morning and evening services. Yet the location is on a thoroughfare which is busy, but not distractive to our work. During the day, we will have 3 to 4 cars in the two different driveways. The large driveway is very capable of holding 5 to 6 cars comfortably. There will not be a parking probl~, and with the placement of a stop sign just recently at D Street, it will make traffic in that area even safer. This purchase will be used as an investment for the church so members' money and tithes, which have been paying rent till now, will go back into equity to build towards purchasing property later on. I hope you can understand our intent and by no means will we take any advantage or abuse any of the privileges we would be allowed in using this home. I believe the neigkbors will not be disturbed by any loud or party type situations. They will not be disturbed by traffic, and w~ will do our best to ccmply with the neighborhood parking situation. We realize that if pulling out into the street could beccme a hazard, we could open up the recreation vehicle parking at the side of the house and put a gate in so we could actually put a loop style driveway through the backyard. It would not take away frc~ the appearance of the home, safety or the hc~e being used as a hc~s. If and when we decide to sell the house, unless the city has re-zoned it on their own doing, and not by ~ishes of ours, we would sell it zoned as R-1. We hope you will give us consideration and understand we are not working against the city, but rather, with the city. Our work within the c~:,~ni~¥ has been very extensive and we've helped many, many families in this area. We do hope you'll understand our dilemma. FiD~ncially, the h~me is the right price frc~ where our church is at on the limited budget we work with. We appreciate your help and consideration in this manner to speed things along. Sincerely, Don Schock Pastor CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Don Schock Rick Miller John Scalone List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. Don Schock Rick Miller John Scalone 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) I-Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district ~r othe~ political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: At tach add itl o na] pa ge sasnecessary.~ /~-~-~ ,./J~-~ . j~r}~//~ ~--x'~/'~ .r~- Signature of 'applicant/date WPC 0701P Don Schock/C~lvary Chapel of ChulaVista A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-E - Consideration to rezone 1.67 acres located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue extended from R-1 to R-3-P-21 - Pioneer Mortgage A. BACKGROUND 1. This item is a request to rezone 1.67 acres located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue extended from R-1 (Single family residential/7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to R-3-P-21 (Multiple family residential/21 dwelling units per acre/Precise plan) in order to construct 35 multiple family apartment units. 2. An Initial Study, IS-85-12(A), of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on November 6, 1987, who 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-85-12(A). 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 1.67 acres from R-1 to R-3-P-21 as shown on Exhibit A subject to the recordation of a final map for Las Brisas. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North I-L Light industrial uses South R-1 Vacant East R-1 Single family dwelling West M-H-P Mobile home park Existing site characteristics. The site consists of 1.67 acres located approximately 800 ft. north of "C" Street on a 30 ft.-wide partially improved extension of Third Avenue. The westerly 3/4's of the site is generally level and at-grade with a mobile home park to the west, the Sweetwater Industrial Park to the north and vacant property to the south. The easterly 1/4 of the site consists of a 2:1 (50%) slope which rises some 55 ft. to a single family dwelling located at the top of the hill directly to the east. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 2 The property is part of the Las Brisas Del Mar tentative subdivision map which authorized this site and four standard single family lots at the top of the hill to the east. Four new single family dwellings with access off Del Mar Avenue and Bayview Way would replace the existing home. The tentative map was approved in February 1986; the final map has not yet been submitted. General plan. The General Plan designates the site for High Density Residential (13-26 du/ac). The line of the slope generally represents the east-west General Plan demarcation in this area between High Density Residential on the west and Medium Density Residential (4-12 du/ac) on the east. Proposed project. The precise plan for the property involves a total of 35 apartment units in three separate structures; one 2-story building on the westerly portion of the site, and two 3-story buildings on the central/easterly portion of the property. The plan shows 64 parking spaces -- 25 in garages under the units and 39 open spaces distributed around the site. A common recreation area is shown to the east and south of the buildings. The plan indicates that a majority of the easterly slope would be retained as open space; some grading will occur at the toe of the slope and a retaining wall established in order to accommodate the project. The Third Avenue extension will be fully improved from "C" Street and cul-de-saced at the northerly boundary of the site to provide access to the project. The street will provide a 22 ft.-wide roadway with no on-street parking and sidewalk on the west side only. D. ANALYSIS The site is designated on the General Plan for multiple family use, and the request for 21 dwelling units per net acre is well under the 32 du/net acre achievable under the High Density Residential designation. The property is also in a transition area between industrial, mobile home, and single family uses; the 60 apartment units at the northeast corner of "C" Street and Third Avenue extended are developed at 29 du/ac. The precise plan has recognized the interface with the mobile home park to the west (developed at 13 du/ac) by providing a two-story rather than three-story structure along the westerly property line and at a distance of 60 ft. from the closest mobile home unit. The easterly slope provides a physical as well as a visual separation from the single family area to the east -- which is 80 ft. distant and 55'-60' above the developable portion of the proposal site. The precise plan is subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 3 Consideration was given to include in the rezoning the High Density designated portions of the R-1 properties to the south. Because of the variable slope conditions and thus developable areas available on these lots, however, we believed it would be inadvisable to establish a zone boundary or apply a blanket density without a precise plan proposal. For the reasons noted above, we recommend approval of the request. WPC 4516P/O837P H :'LOCATOR ~ PC=Z-EIS-E [ ExhibitA ) negati declaration PROJECT NAME: Las Brisas Del Mar PROJECT LOCATION: 188 North Del Mar Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Pioneer Mortgage Company 5605 E1 Cajon Blvd., San Diego, CA 92115 CASE NO: IS-85-12 DATE: October 26, 1984 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 2.34 acre parcel containing one single-family dwelling and a detached garage. The parcel is relatively level (elevation 80 ft.) at the easterly end where access to Del Mar Avenue and 'Bay View Way exists. A 43% slope occurs mid-way on the parcel which drops to elevation 15 ft., and a relatively level land area to the west. An earthquake fault, inferred through photographic evidence {Special Report 123, California Division of Mines and Geology) appears to traverse the property in a north/south trend. There are no endangered plant or animal species known to exist in the project vicinity. Adjacent land uses consist of single-family dwellings to the east and south, limited industrial to the north and a mobilehome park to the west. The lower portion of the project site (below elevation 25 ft.) is within the lO0-year floodplain of the Sweetwater River. B. Project Description The project consists of the division of a 2.34 acre parcel into' five lots. Four of the lots will total 9,000 sq. ft. or greater and be served by a private easement from Del Mar Avenue/Bay View Way. The fifth lot will be 64,515 sq. ft. in size and is proposed to be served via a private access easement to "C" Street. No structures or grading are proposed at this time, although four single-family dwellings could be constructed on the upper four lots and approximately seven dwelling units could be constructed on the lower lot. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed subdivision of property conforms to the R-1 zoning standards and the "medium density residential" designation of the General Plan. In order to construct more than one unit on the lower lot, the project must conform to the "dwelling group" provisions of the zoning ordinance. city of chula vista planning department environmental review section - 2 - D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Geologs Special Report 123, issued by the California Division of Mines and Geology {1975), identifies the presence of a north/south trending earthquake fault traversing the property. Prior to grading or site development, a geotechnical analysis should be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer. Recommendations of the report should be incorporated in development plans. 2. Soil s Alluvial soils may be present on the project site which could result in unstable foundation design if the structure is not properly researched and designed. The applicant will be required to provide a soils investigation upon any proposal for development. Recommendations of the soils investigation should be incorporated in development plans. 3. Drainage The lower portion of the lot (below elevation of 25 ft.) is presently located within the lO0-year floodplain of the Sweetwater River. Future residential development of this portion of the site will require raising the pad elevation one foot above the floodplain level as a standard engineering requirement. 4. Parks The proposed project site is located within Park District No. 1.04 which presently has no developed parkland. The developer of the subject property will be required to pay in-lieu park acquisition and development fees upon recordation of the final subdivision map. 5. Schools The local elementary (Rosebank) and junior high (Chula Vista) schools are currently operating above capacity levels. The developer of the project site will be responsible for assuring the local school districts that adequate classroom facilities will be available for students ultimately generated from this project. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects All potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through standard development regulations. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The site~i~ void of any significant natural or manmade resources, and standard development requirements will assure a level of insignificance for all potential impacts. - 3 - 2. The proposed lot division and ultimate development is compatible with the zoning ordinance and general plan and is not anticipated to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. No impacts are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. The project will not cause the emission of any harmful substance or create any significant traffic hazards. G. Consultation Individuals and Organizations 1. City of Chula Vista: Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Tom Dyke, Building & Housing Dept. Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Engineer: Nasland Enginering 2. Documents Special Report 123, California Division of Mines and Geology (1975) San Diego County Flood Plain Maps 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. REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 1424P EN 6 (Rev. 12/82) ~ city of Chula vista planning department environmental review section EN 6 (Rev. ]2182) ADDENDUM IS-85-12A A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT SETTING The project site consists of the westerly 1.67 acres of the 2.34 acres evaluated in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration processed in 1984. Two major changes have occurred in the interim since the initial evaluation. A more detailed geo-technical/soils report has been prepared which shows that no fault traces exist on the site, potential soil conditions and liquifaction problems are resolvable and therefore are non-significant. Major work has now been completed on the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. This facility now provides a major improvement in flood protection for this property. However, at a distance down stream, a delay has occurred in the completion of the facility. Because of the distance between the delay area and the project site, it is not likely that any impact will result. To establish that this condition exists, preliminary backwater projections Icalculations) should be made. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of 35 dwelling units in multi-family structures. Fourteen would be one-bedroom units, eight in one-bedroom/loft units, and 13 in two-bedroom units. There would be three structures; two at three stories and one at two stories. The gross density of the project would be about 21 du/ac. Sixty-three off-street parking spaces will be provided. The grading of the property would involve 200 cu. yards of excavation and 19,700 cubic yards of fill. Discretionary acts on the part of the City include rezoning, design review, grading permit and tentative subdivision map. D. ANALYSIS There is new information which has become available involving geo-technical data and improvements to the Sweetwater Flood Control facility. Subject to the submission of preliminary backwater inundation studies which will likely prove that the site is not subject to a lO0-year inundation, there will be no significant environmental impact. If the project is within the lO0-year flood plain at the time of consideration, the pad levels will have to be increased to protect the dwellings. E. CONCLUSION Based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the revised proposal will result in essentially the same impacts as the previous project proposal and recommend that the Design Review Committee adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration prior to taking action on the project. D~ugl as ~ Reid November 6, 1987 IS-85-12A WPC 4508P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES, The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--6E-f~T club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any .o~h~r county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subd~ws~on, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary. ) 'gna ute of ~pp)lcant/date WPC 0701P A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 88-C - Consideration to rezone 0.59 acres located westerly of Otay Lakes Road between Ridgeback Road and East "H" Street to P-C and C-C-P - Sudberry Properties, Inc. A. BACKGROUND 1. This is a request to adjust the zone boundary between the P-C (Planned Community) and C-C-P (Central Commercial with Precise Plan) zones in order to accommodate the proposed Bonita Point Plaza commercial center at the northwesterly corner of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road. The adjustment would rezone 0.48 acres from P-C to C-C-P, and O.11 acres from C-C-P to P-C. 2. The project is a Class 3(c) exemption from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 0.59 acres to P-C and C-C-P as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The entire Bonita Point Plaza site totals 10 acres with approximately 1,000 ft. of frontage on Otay Lakes Road and 550 ft. of frontage on East "H" Street. The property abuts multiple family units and a proposed 34-acre Rancho del Rey community park site to the west. Bonita Vista High School is located to the east, and Southwestern College is to the south. The rezoning is consistent with a tentative parcel map and precise plan currently in process. Approval of a final parcel map has been made contingent upon the approval of the rezoning and precise plan. D. ANALYSIS The proposed zone boundary adjustment will result in a more logical westerly boundary for the Bonita Point Plaza project, and is not inconsistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Consequently, we have recommended approval of the request. WPC 4150P/O837P TA (from P-~C to C-C-P) BONITA V~STA (from C-C-P t? STREET LOT I ,~ SITE / ~ .... ~.,"~ 85.,~5 VICINITY MAP LOT 1 ~'~,-~: '~'~'~:' LEGEND P.M. 10728 [~' PARCEL I " I~ ~.~ P.M. 13311 £X/$T/IV$ ,o,~op£,~7'¥//N£ #~o~,77,,£ ~, C.C.P. 7~.5~ ~ I~ ~ t~EZON_FI.) Z --/¢-~/5' "~ \ ,,. ~, '*../V~Z°5,~'<ZT,'E' ~,Sl ~.. ~ .' ~-' ¢~0', M~P~O. l~ [ '~ ~lT~°l~'dg"E - 770' 2 ~ - 13311 EAST "H" STREET---- \ NOTE: 1.THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINES ARE TO BE MODIFIED TO THOSE SHOWN AS PROPOSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PROCESS TA POINT PLAZA d. lY. 5G6.0O CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS ) WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. A. McMillin Financial~ Inc.~ National City, CA B. Home Capital Development Group~ a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan~ San Diego, C List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. E1 Rancho del Rey Partnership~ a California General Partnership composed of lA and lB above. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. McMillin Financial? Inc.: Macey L. & Vonnie L. McMi~lin (40%)~ Mark D. McMillin~ Laurie A. Ray and Scott M. McMillin (20% each) Home Capital Development Group: 100% by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego? CA 3. If any person identified pursuant to (]) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Con~nissions, Conmittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No × If yes, please indicate person{s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc--d~-f~% club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages asnecessary. )~ // ~v'--'~.~_~z,,w~'z'--~[ '~ ~'b~'//~/~-~. · [S~nat~re of appqi6ant/date wPC oTo P A-110 Print or type name of ~ppIicant CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. William P. Lee Union Bahk Andrew P. Huska ~homas W. Sudberr~ - Sudberry Properties, Dennis Pierce Huska Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Thnm~ W ~J~hm~y - Sudberrv Family Marcela Ritter Jane E. Sudberrv Trust A. James Flocke ,Jeff Rradley Stephen E. Avoyer Richard Simons Sudberry Properties, Inc. 2. If any person identified pursuant to il) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Sudberrv Family Trust - Thomas W. Sudberry & Jane E. Sudberry Sudberrv Prooerties, Inc. - Thomas W. Sudberrs 3. If any person identified pursuant to il) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. ~NONE 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) 'Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,I soc~a( club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trus~, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city! municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting~as~ unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~y/~ ~_y~ ~x.-~ ~~,~ 6/25/87 Sig~tufe~/of app'p'licant/date/ WPC 0701P Jeff Bradley, Vice President/Sudberry Properties, Inc. A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendments to the Certified Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The Local Coastal Program amendment was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 1987. The amendment was also approved by the City Council and forwarded to the Coastal Commission. Following receipt of the amendment by Coastal Commission staff, the question of whether the environmental review documents should have been circulated through the State Clearinghouse was raised. The Negative Declarations were circulated through the State Clearinghouse in October 1987 and additional comments were received from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Department of Fish and Game's comment letters and the City's response are attached as Exhibit E for your consideration prior to making an updated recommendation to the City Council. The following amendments to the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program are being proposed: 1. A temporary redesign of the approved intersection of the Interstate 5 southbound off-ramp at Bay Boulevard just north of "E" Street; and 2. Incorporating into the LCP a provision for granting special exceptions to the prohibition of grading between November 1 and April 1 each year on properties located within the Inland Parcel ISubarea 6). The mandatory six-week local review period for these amendments began on August 2, 1987 and will extend until November 24, 1987. Environmental review has been completed, and Negative Declarations IS-87-52 and IS-88-6 have been issued. A City Council public hearing will be held on November 24, at which time the Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to Council members. Subsequently, the amendments will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for review. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a motion recommending that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution: a. Finding that the proposed LCP amendments will have no significant environmental impact and adopting Negative Declarations IS-87-52 and IS-88-6; and b. Approving the proposed LCP amendments as presented. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION 1. Interstate-5 Southbound Off-ramp A loop configuration for the southbound Interstate-5 on/off ramp at "E" Street (Northwest quadrant) is planned in the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan. This improvement of the current "diamond design" was approved to accommodate increased traffic volumes anticipated to result from Bayfront development. The permanent ramp system when completed will include: l) relocation of the existing off-ramp to the west which will allow space to construct an on-ramp and will provide added vehicle stacking area; 2) addition of a loop on-ramp which will allow traffic moving west on "E" Street to enter southbound Interstate-5 without having to cross "E" Street; and 3) Bay Boulevard north of "E" Street will be closed and no longer be available to serve as a surface street or provide access to property located north of "E" Street. (See Exhibit A for permanent configuration.) On March 19, 1987, the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency approved an agreement with CALTRANS for the construction of the new on/off ramp facility. The Agency will provide the land and CALTRANS will undertake the construction. CALTRANS' funding has been approved and the work is scheduled to begin during the Spring of 1988. Delay of construction could jeopardize funding. Since major Bayfront development has not occurred to date, which will entail a street system providing access to commercial property located north of "E" Street, the ramp improvements had to be modified to use Bay Boulevard as access to the north (Exhibit B). Also, the off-ramp has been redesigned to "T" into Bay Boulevard until future bayfront street improvements are installed. At that future date, Bay Boulevard will be closed to through traffic and will become part of the southbound off-ramp then to intersect directly into "E" Street (Exhibit A). Although this modification is a temporary situation, it requires an LCP amendment prior to project implementation. The following amendment to the Bayfront Land Use Plan is proposed to allow the temporary redesign of the off-ramp intersection with Bay Boulevard and use Bay Boulevard for north and south vehicle traffic: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 3 A. Add new section to page III-19 of Land Use Plan following last paragraph under heading of Bay Boulevard connectors and Freeway Ramp. Interim Off-ramp Design at Bay Boulevard and 1-5 Until the permanent on- and off-ramp improvements, as described on Figure 7, are installed at the northwest quadrant of 1-5 and "E' Street an interim design for the southbound off-ramp shall be permitted. Interim improvements shall consist of the southbound off-ramp intersecting with Bay Boulevard and opening Bay Boulevard Inorth of "E" Street) to northbound and southbound traffic as shown on Figure 7a. B. Add Figure 7a following Figure 7. (Exhibit C of this report.) Figure 7a shows Bay Boulevard open to north and southbound traffic. Vehicles driving north on Bay Boulevard will be able to access the freeway on-ramp Isouthbound I-5) or continue north to future commercial development. Vehicles exiting I-§ will intersect Bay Boulevard and be able to turn north to the commercial site or south to "E" Street. Traffic signal control devices will be installed at both the intersection of the on-/off-ramp and Bay Boulevard and "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. The City Engineer and Traffic Division have reviewed the proposed amendment and find that the temporary redesign should facilitate existing traffic circulation at the I-5/"E" Street interchange. When major Bayfront development occurs the increased traffic anticipated as a result will warrant implementation of the permanent off-ramp improvements. 2. Exception to Grading Prohibition In a letter dated February 13, 1987, Mr. John Fischer, District Design Engineer for CALTRANS, requested an exception to Section 19.87.07 of the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan which prohibits grading activities within the period from November 1 to April 1 each year. Prior to granting approval for the requested exception, the City of Chula Vista must amend its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The exception was requested by CALTRANS because the contractor working on the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel/State Route 54 project would like to place fill on the property just east of Broadway and south of the flood control channel. That property is referred to as the Inland Parcel ISubarea 6) in the City's LCP. Exhibit D shows the precise location of this site. The proposed amendment entails modifying the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan Iwhich is also the zoning ordinance for the Chula Vista Coastal Zone) to allow grading and stockpiling activities on all properties located within the Inland Parcel between November 1 and April 1. Approvals for City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 4 grading between November 1 and April 1 will be granted only following a review of specific grading Ior stockpiling) plans to ensure that adequate protection from siltation in wetlands will be provided. The landscaping requirements in Section 19.87.07 of the Specific Plan will continue to apply to the Inland Parcel with the exception of the requirement for planting prior to November 1. In this area, landscape planting will be required to coincide with specific conditions for each proposed project. The following amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan is proposed: A. Modify Section 19.87.07 Grading and Drainage on page 38 as follows: All grading activities ~d~//b~e//~/,//~l~$~ and installation of erosion sedimentation devices shall be prohibited within the period from November 1 to April 1 of each year} with the exception of grading and stockpiling activities on properties located within the inland parcel located east of Interstate 5. Permits issued for grading on properties within the inland parcel may include a special provision for grading and installation of erosion control devices between November 1 and Apri~ 1 based on a case-by-case review of grading plans for adequate protection from siltation in wetlands. Prior to deposition of dredged material, dikes must be constructed to safely contain the fill material. Silt fences or other acceptable preventive measures shall be required to minimize the potentia~ for siltation in wetlands from other grading and stockpiling activities. Because of the potential for siltation in wetland areas that could result from grading during wet months, the following additional measures will be required for grading within the Inland Parcel - Prior to issuing Coastal Development permits or amending existing Coastal Development permits to allow grading and installation of erosion control devices, grading plans will be reviewed for adequate protection from siltation in wetlands. - Prior to the deposition of dredged material, dikes must be constructed to safely contain the dredged material. - Silt fences or other acceptable measures for the prevention of siltation will be required to minimize the potential for siltation in wetlands. All permanent erosion control devices shall be developed and installed prior to any on-site grading activities. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 5 All areas distur~b~%ed by grading shall be planted with 60 days of the initial- disturbance and prior to November 1, (within the Inland Parcel the date shall be specified) with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods. Such planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization and irrigation adequate to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated if the required level of coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to all disturlb~ed soils including stockpiles~ and properties within the ~nland parcel. The requirement for planting prior to November 1 shall not apply, however, to properties within the Inland Parcel for which specific exceptions to the grading period are granted through the coastal development permit process. WPC 3246H EXHIBIT "A" ./~e-~ ', o /_~.× Io, I ,, SOUTHBOUI~ ~" ~_. __ /L FUTURE MARINA PARKWAY 'E' STREET (~FUTURE PERMANENT SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMp 'C ONFi GURATI ON r EXHIBIT "B" I SOUTH BOUN¥'~,, n- STREET TEMPORARY SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP/BAY-BLVD INTERSECTION .... ~' ~ 'E' STREET " (. ~ Ex~ZT "o" INLAND PARCEL /' ~ Subarea #6 ~," o, EXHIBIT "E" $TA~ Of: CALIFORNIA-~OFI:ICE OF THE G .NO~ GEORGE DEUKM~JIAN, OFFICE,,,~o J~Nm sT.Et-?OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · Douglas D. Reid October 30, 1987 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth AV~U~ San-Diego, CA 92010 b-'~lhject: I-5/JE' Street Interchange Modification SCH# 87093020 Dear Mr. Reid: The State Clearinghouse submitted ,the above named proposed Negative Declaration ~o selected Sate a~encies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(les) is (are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked whick a~encles have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion ~o ensure that you~ cc~nent package is complete. If the. package is not in order, please notify the Stmte Clearinghouse t.,,ediately. Your eight-digit Sta~ Clearinghouse n,~,ber should be used so t~at we m~y respond prcmptly. Please note that recent le~isIation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive co~Eents on a project which are within, the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 258S, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984. ) These comments are forwarded for your use in adopting Four Negative Declaration. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you conrmgt the cc~nenting agency mt Four e~rlies~ convenience ~ Please contact Glenn Stober at 918/S23-7480 if you have any questions re~arding the environmen~sl review process. Sincerely, C~ef Office of Permit Assistance Enclosures ....... l OVl 3' 1981' .h en orandum ~ : 1. Projects Coordinator D~e : October 21, 1987 Resources Agency 2. Community Development Director City of chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 From : Depaffment~FishandGame Subject: Negative Declaration: I-5/'E' Interchange Modification, City of Chula Vista (City!, San Diego County - CCH 87093020 The Department of Fish and Game finds the subject Negative Declaration incomplete because it does not contain Exhibits A and B or plan diagrams which are referenced in the Project Description. Due to the short review period, we were unable to obtain those necessary documents from the City for use in our review. We cannot effectively evaluate the proposed project without this essential information. From the narrative description, it appears that the proposed placement of the access road and the hotel on the project site may impact sensitive coastal wetland resources. In summary, we find that the Negative Declaration which was circulated by the City is insufficiently detailed to permit responsible agencies, such as the Department to assess potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Therefore, we find that the subject Negative Declaration conflicts with the requirements of CEQA regarding requisite specificity. We recommend that the City recirculate the subject Negative Declaration with Exhibits A and B attached. Finally, we recommend against certification of the Negative Declaration at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. ~e~ Bohtadelli //~ '~>~ ~.~ ~ Acting Director Vacant and Visitor Co~rcial On ramp will be a loop configuration underneath E Street bridge to provide a 'T' intersection in Bay Blvd. Bay Blvd. will pe~it two-way traffic and CL~RINGHOUSE CONTA~: N/C & ...... ~BD: ........... Y STATE Of CALIFORNIA-~OFFIC~ OF THE ~OVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Oo~'n OFFICE,,~o Tram ST,E~tOF PLANNING /-~rqD RESEARCH ~.. Douglas D. Reid October 30, 1987 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chul'a Vista, CA 92010 ~bject: Local C6astal Plan Amendment for Exceptin to Grading Prohibition SCH# 87093019 I~ Mr. Reid: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state a~encies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(les) is (~re) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of C~upletion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your c~ent package is complete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse ~mediatel¥. Your eight-digit S~ Clearinghouse m~her should be used so that we may respond prc~ptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible a~ency or other public agency sh~]l only ms~e substantive co.neats on a project which are within, the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to a2tivities ' which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984.) These comments are forwarded for Four use in adopting your Negative Declaration. If you need more i/~for~ation or clarification, we suggest you contact the cc~enting age-~cy ~t yO, l-Z- ~_~rliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/323-7480 if you have any questions re~arding the environmental review process. Sincerely, O~f±ce of ].:~£~Ji.t Enclosures cc: Memorandum ~ ~ 1. Projects Coordinator Date : October 21, 1987 Resources Agency 2. City of chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Douglas D. Reid From ~ De~ment of Fish and Game Subi~: Negative Declaration: Local Coastal Program Amendment for Exception to Grading Prohibition, San Diego County - SCH No. 87093019 The Department biologist familiar with the project area has reviewed the subject Negative Declaration for an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan to allow a provision for making special exceptions to the prohibition against grading between November 1 and April 1 on properties located within the inland parcel (east of I-5). We do not concur with the proposed amendment and offer the following comments for your consideration. Our August 5, 1987 letter expressed concern regarding the potential for erosion on the inland parcel and subsequent siltation of the Sweetwater Marsh complex. The proposed erosion control measures (silt fences, dikes, etc.) will only be effective if their maintenance is strictly enforced, but this does not seem likely since municipal grading inspectors are not always able to regularly visit all projects to conduct proper inspections. Past experience has shown that even with the best of intentions, silt · fences and other erosion control methods fail quite frequently without continuous, vigorous enforcement. We believe the only truly effective method for keeping sedimentation of the marsh to a minimum is for grading and stockpiling to be prohibited during the rainy season. Therefore, we recommend against the proposed amendment to the Local Coastal Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350, Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. ~eEe Bon~a~ cc: Chuck Damm, District Director Actin~ California Coastal Commission I ~. ~j~tr~t~,= to Gradtno Prohibi:lg~ CL~R[NG~USE CO.ACT: W[C N[C W/C N/C STATE R~IEW BE~N: / O/ ~/~ ~ ' CONSERVATION ~ ...... "~ ~E DEPT. R~IEW TO A~NCY:/~/~ AGENCY ~IEW TO SCH:/o/~/~-- -- ----DEPT-- WATER RESOURCES , 'mnmm~T ....... oev ¢ PA~KS & REC / OHP ~M CI'IY OF CHUIA VISI'A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 6, 1987 Mr. Fred Worthley California Department of Fish and Game 245 W. Broadway, Ste. 350 Long Beach, CA 90802-4467 Dear Fred: I am writing in response to two letters, both dated October 21, 1987, signed by Pete Bontadelli, Acting Director of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The letters were regarding two Negative Declarations that were circulated for public review through the State Clearinghouse. These Negative Declarations comprise the environmental review for a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment proposed by the city of Chula Vista. The letter regarding the I-5/E Street Interchange Modification stated that the Negative Declaration was incomplete because it did not contain the exhibits referenced in the project description. Unfortunately, neither the State Clearinghouse staff, nor City staff was contacted during the public review period on this project in an effort to rectify the accidental deletion. The State Clearinghouse was contacted in an effort to determine whether the graphics were omitted from all of the copies of the Negative Declaration that were provided by the City and to inquire about the best course of action to rectify the problem. The response from Mr. Keith Lee was that the State Clearinghouse did not have a copy of the Negative Declaration, so there was no way to determine what material the other agencies had received. He also stated that the best course of action would be for the City to work with CDFG individually by providing the requested information and soliciting comments. A complete copy of the Negative Declarati6n and the text of the proposed LCP amendment are enclosed for your review and comment. The concern was expressed that the access road and hotel site may impact sensitive coastal wetland resources. Both of these facilities are located upland of the 100-foot Sweetwater Marsh buffer in the Midbayfront and this would not impact sensitive coastal wetland resources (see enclosed Figure 1). Mr. Bontadelli's second letter was regarding the Negative Declaration on the proposed LCP amendment for the Exception to the Grading Prohibition between November 1 and April 1 on Properties within the Inland Parcel (east of Interstate 5). The concern was expressed that the erosion control measures specified in the amendment will only be effective if their maintenance is strictly enforced. The letter further states that strict enforcement does not seem likely since 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5047 municipal grading inspectors are not always able to visit all projects to conduct proper inspections and that past experience has shown that even with the best of intentions, silt fences and other erosion control methods fail quite frequently without vigorous enforcement. The City of Chula Vista continually monitors projects for which Coastal Development Permits are issued separately from the normal construction inspections by the Engineering Department. I feel that the City has the in-house expertise and the demonstrated commitment to the protection of wetland resources needed to provide the vigorous enforcement required. As you may be aware, the California Coastal Commission issues Coastal Development Permits for grading during the rainy season in special circumstances. Unfortunately, the City's certified LCP is strict in prohibiting grading during the rainy season and does not allow for exceptions in special circumstances. City staff is, however, in a much better position to monitor compliance with special permit conditions than California Coastal Commission staff because of proximity to the project sites. The proposed LCP amendment was drafted to respond to a special circumstance resulting from the freeway/flood control project. The City's LCP, which was certified after the California Coastal Commission issued the Coastal Development Permit for the freeway/flood control project, prohibits the placement of fill between November 1 and April 1 each year. The Coastal Development Permit for the freeway/flood control project issued by the California Coastal Commission prohibits excavation between May 1 to August 15 each year (least tern nesting season), but allows excavation during the rainy season. The inland parcel was identified in the FEIS on the freeway/flood control project as a location for deposition of excavated material (see enclosed Figure 3 from the FEIS). The conflicting prohibitions of the Commission issued Coastal Development Permit and the City's certified LCP leave only a short period of time each year when fill can be deposited on the site. The enclosed letter from Mr. John Fisher of CalTrans reiterates this problem. The specific language of the proposed amendment and the Negative Declaration are provided for your information. Public Hearings will be held for the adoption of both Negative Declarations on November 18, 1987 by the Planning Commission and on November 24, 1987, by the City Council. Both meetings are at 7:00 p.m. If you have additional comments after reviewing the enclosed information, those comments can either be provided to me in writing one day prior to the Public Hearing(s) on the adoption of the Negative Declaration so that the comments can be provided to the Planning Commissions and/or City Council members, or a representative of CDFG may appear at the Public Hearing(s) to give oral testimony. CITY OF CHULA VISTA If I can provide you with additional information, please contact me at (619) 691-5120. Sincerely, Robin Putnam Principal Community Development Specialist RP:sgl cc: Denyse, Racine, California Department of Fish & Game Pete Bontadelli, California Department of Fish & Game Enclosures CITY OF CHULA VISTA I '~ 9 [] DEPARTMENT OF ~ANSPORTATION ~ DISTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85406. SAN DIEGO 9~1~--5406 M~D 9 5 1eR7 March 23, 1987 mmunity Development pt. 11-SD-5/54 11208-046521 Paul Desrochers, Director Community Development City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Our letter to you of February 13, 1987 requested an exception to your "Bayfront Specific Plan" to allow placement of fill between August and May. We now understand this will require an amendment to your Coastal Plan. We request such an amendment. The problem is as follow: As part of the Caltrans going project for construction of Route 54 and the Sweetwater Channel, the project contractor wishes to place fill on the property just east of Broadway and south of the channel. The Coastal Plan precludes placement of fill between November 1 and April 1 each year. Caltrans' coastal permit precludes excava- tion between May 1 and August 15 each year. We need the ability to excavate and place the fill between August and May. We believe your restriction is caused by concern with eroded materials being washed into the marshes during rain storms. The operation we propose would use dikes to control runoff since the material is to be dredged from the channel. Caltrans in controlling the Contractor's operations will exercise silting, oil and chemical spill restraints. Special care will be taken to eliminate the problems of contamination of the stream waters flowing into the marsh area and the bay. Permanent erosion control devices shall be developed and installed prior to any on-site grading activities. In addition, all areas disturbed by grading shall be planted with temporary or permanent erosion control methods. The planting would be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed land- scape architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertiliza- tion and irrigation adequate to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. w. R. DOTSON District Director J. U~. FISCHER District Design Engineer JDF: pb cc: NGLar sen/Files JDFi scher/DWi 11 iams negativ-! declaration PROJECT NAME: I-5/"E" Street Interchange Modification PROJECT LOCATION: North of "E" Street, between I-5 and Bay Boulevard PROJECT APPLICANT: Community Development Director 276 Fourth Avenue _ Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-87-52 DATE: July 13, 1987 A. Project Setting The project site is located north of "E" Street, between Bay Boulevard and I-5. The area has been previously used for an automobile recycling facility ~nd is void of any natural or cultural resources. Previous tests have shown that no significant archaeological or biological resources are present. Soil tests in the project vicinity and on-site have indicated that it is not likely that any adverse soil conditions are present that could adversely affect any development of the property. Being adjacent to I-5, the area is subject to acoustical impacts due to traffic noise and also air quality impacts from the freeway could take place. There are no wetlands or waterway of the United States present that could be affected by the proposed project. However, because the site was previously used as an automobile wrecking yard, the upper 4 inches+ of much of the soil has been contaminated with automobile related liq~ids. These liquids included oil, gasoline, brake and power steering fluid. B. Project Description The circulation system of the' Local Coastal plan would be modified to provide that the southbound "E" Street off-ramp would "T" into Bay Boulevard and Bay Boulevard and on an interim basis access to a hotel site north of the project would be provided by Bay Boulevard until Tidelands Avenue is extended to the north of "E" Street (see Exhibit "A" and "B"). This Negative Declaration is intended to evaluate all actions regarding this proposal from Coastal Plan Amendment through actual construction of the facility (see attached plan diagrams). c. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans The General Plan only delineates an interchange at "E" Street and I-5, there are no details regarding its configuration; therefore, no change in the General Plan is required. city of chula vista planning department CIWOF environmental review section_ CHULA VIEI-A -2- D. Identification of Environmental Effects There are four areas of potential impact that could result in potentially significant impact, they are: 1. Expansion soils. Although there are expansion soils in the project vicinity which could adversely impact the proposed development project, soil tests on this site have shown that there are no significant soil conditions present. 2. Hazardous Materials. Soil tests have also shown that the upper few inches of soils were contaminated by automobile related fluids. These substances are not of a concentration to make them a potentially si§nificant impact. These soils can be managed on-site. If any substantial concentration is encountered, it may be necessary to transport the material to a suitable disposal site; this is unlikely. 3. Mobile Air Quality. Because the project site is adjacent to I-5, it is subject to potential adverse air quality impacts. The proposed project will not change this condition, and because of its nature la change in interchange configurations), no significant impact will result in this physical change in the environment. 4. Noise levels. The realignment of the interchange system brings the southbound off-ramp slightly closer to the visitor commercial site to the north of the project site. This shift is very slight and will not substantially be more adverse than the existing condition. In any event, the visitor commercial site will be subject to an acoustical study which will avoid any significant impact. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The following mitigation measures will assure the avoidance of any substantial and adverse environmental effects: 1. Expansive Soils - Standard Development Regulation - Implementation of all recommendations of the Soils Engineer for the project will avoid any substantial environmental impact. 2. Hazardous Materials - a. Standard Development Regulations - Any hazardous materials found on-site will be disposed of on-site in an area which would avoid any runoff potential impact on wetlands. b. Mitigation. If any substantial concentration of hazardous materials are found, they will be contained and transported to a suitable disposal site. All soils will be examined and tested during the grading operation to assure the discovery of any potential concentration. -3- 3. Mobile Air Ouality. No significant impact nor change in impacts will result from the interim nor permanent interchange facility. 4. Noise Level. - Standard Development Regulation The acoustical analysis and regulation required by the Building Code (for both the tempora~ and permanent configurations) will assure no significant acoustical impact due to this alignment change. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the above discussion and the Initial Study for this project, it found that all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level: 1. The project will not degrade th~ previously developed nature of the site. There are not natural nor cultural resources present which could be adversely effected by the proposed interchange modifications. Any potential down stream runoff impact from the site and its previous use will be mitigated through the development improvements of the site. 2. The project is in basic conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan and constitutes a minor temporary Local Coastal Plan circulation element change. There will be no achievement of short term to the disadvantage of long term goals. 3. All cumulative impacts of this and other projects in the vicinity have been addressed in the other environmental documents noted below (see G.2.). There are some cumulative impacts which could be significant, however, mitigation identified in those documents and which are being implemented will avoid any cumulative impact. 4. Because all acoustical impacts from transportation noise will be mitigated through State (Building Code) regulations, there will be no change in air quality impacts because of the interchange re-configuration and all potential hazardous materials will be adequately disposed of on- or off-site. There will be no adverse impacts on human beings. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Community Development Department -4- 2. Documents EIR-77-4 Bayfront EIR EIR-79-6 Bay Boulevard EIR EIR-85-1 Bayfront Specific Plan EIR EIR-86-1 Mid Bayfront Specific Plan Amendment EIR Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan (all Elements) Bayfront Local Coastal Plan Bayfront Specific Plan Bayfront Land Use Plan 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. ENVIRON~/~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) wPC 4231 P/WPC ol city of chula vista planning department CIh'OF environmental review section CHULA VIS-I'A,. Illl j~ EXHIBIT "A" $OUTHBOU~ FUTURE MARINA PARKWAY ~ ' 'E' STREET ' ' ' ~/ _. ~ EXHIBIT "B" i~1. *~ ,,i ..- ,SOUTH BOUND'~'~ n.. TEMPORARY SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP/BAY BLVD INTERSECTION negati ) declaration PROJECT NAME: Local Coastal Program Amendment for Exception to Grading Prohibition PROJECT LOCATION: Chula Vista Coastal Zone -- Inland Parcel (east of Interstate 5) PROJECT APPLICANT: Mr. John Fischer CalTrans, District ll P.O. Box 85406 San Diego, CA. 92138-5406 CASE NO: IS-88-6 DATE: August 7, 1987 A. Project Setting In a letter dated February 13, 1987, Mr. John Fischer, District Design Engineer for CalTrans, requested an exception to Section 19.87.07 of the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan which prohibits grading activities within the period from November 1 to April 1. each year. Prior to granting approval for the requested exception, the City of Chula Vista must amend its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The exception was requested by CalTrans because the contractor working on the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel/State Route 54 project would like to place fill on the property just east of Broadway and south of the flood control channel. That property is referred to as the inland parcel in the City's LCP. Figure 1 shows the precise location of the inland'parcel. B. Project Description The proposed project entails amending the Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan (which is also the zoning.ordinance for the Chula Vista Coastal Zone) ~ . to allow grading and stockpiling activities on properties located within the inland parcel between November 1 and April 1. Approvals for grading between November 1 and April 1 would be granted only following a review of specific grading (or stockpiling) plans to ensure that adequate protection from siltation in wetlands will be provided. The landscaping requirements in Section 19.87.07 will continue to apply to the inland parcel. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Grading in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 each year by Section 19.87.07 of the Bayfront Specific Plan (the zoning ordinance). The proposed LCP amendment would allow for exceptions to the prohibition on grading within the inland parcel between November 1 and April 1 each year following a case-by-case review of grading plans to ensure adequate protection from siltation in wetlands. ,-- city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section _(~HUL~ VISTA D. Identification of Environmental Effects The potential environmental effects of amending the Bayfront Specific Plan to allow exceptions to the grading prohibition between November 1 and April 1 on properties located within the inland parcel include: - Siltation in wetlands may occur if grading is allowed between November 1 and April 1. Fill material may not be adequately contained (resulting in siltation in wetlands) if deposition of dredged material is allowed between November 1 to April 1. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following circumstances, the potential environmental effects were found to be less than significant. Prior to issuing Coastal Development permits or amending existing Coastal Development Permits to allow grading and installation of erosion control devices, grading plans will be reviewed for adequate protection from siltation in wetlands. - Prior to the deposition of dredged material, dikes must be constructed to safely contain the dredged material. - The potential for siltation in wetlands resulting from allowing grading and stockpiling activities between November 1 and April 1 will be minimized by requiring silt fences or other acceptable preventive measures. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer Robin Putnam, Community Development Applicant: Mr. John Fischer, CalTrans District Design Engineer 2. Documents EIR-85-1, Bayfront Specific Plan · Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan ; (Sedway Cooke Associates 1983) Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan (City of Chula Vista 1984) 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, Chola Vista, CA 92010. WPC 3065H/0175P EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF environmental review section CHUL~VLq'[ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 6. REPORT: PCM-87-6 - Report on additional consideration of Rancho Del Rey SPA-I Plan and related items. A. DISCUSSION: At your Commission meeting of November 4, 1987, your Commission certified the Supplemental EIR for the above referenced project and made a motion to deny the Rancho Del Rey General Development Plan. That motion passed by a 4-3 vote. This item will be heard by the City Council on December 8, 1987. Under consideration at that meeting were four other items that your Commission did not consider since the first item to deny the General Development Plan had passed. It has been suggested that Council could benefit by hearing any opinions and comments you might have relating to the four remaining items prior to their consideration by Council. Those recommendations were specifically as follows: 1. Based upon the findings attached to this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I plan, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this report. 2. Adopt a motion recommending approval of the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis and the Development Agreement. 3. Adopt a motion approving in concept the preliminary residential, landscape, and employment park design guidelines. 4. Direct staff to continuing reviewing with the applicant the preliminary design guidelines for resubmittal to your Commission with the consideration of the first tentative map within Rancho Del Rey SPA I. 5. Forward any comments you might have regarding the draft Development Agreement. We have attached the staff report of the meeting of October 28, 1987, at which time this project was first heard so that your Commission can review those recommendations in the context of the entire report. Again, our concern is that the Council has the benefit of your complete recommendations relating to those other four items. In addition to the SPA Plan consideration, the developer of this project has been moving forward on a parallel track with his tentative maps. The tentative maps are presently scheduled for your Commission consideration on December 2, 1987. Those maps will be presented as two separate tentative subdivisions. The employment park is one subdivision map while the residential development is a second subdivision map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 2 The question in staff's mind at this point is whether your Commission would feel more comfortable reviewing and making a recommendation on the maps subsequent to Council's action on the SPA plan on December 8, 1987, or whether it doesn't make any difference one way or the other. The issue hinges around the possibility of a favorable map recommendation from the Commission if the Council should decide to approve the SPA plan. As noted previously, too, there are separate maps for the employment park and the residential allowing for separate consideration as well. We would like the Commission to advise us if they have any preference for delaying the map consideration to December 16, 1987, or simply to go ahead as scheduled on December 2, 1987. WPC 4507P Attachment City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-87-6 - Consideration of Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan, Public Facilities Plan, Development Agreement, and PC Regulations; Rancho del Rey Partnership A. BACKGROUND This item involves the consideration of the Rancho del Rey I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and related items for a 808-acre portion of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in 1985 and this submittal represents the first phase implementation of that project. Included in your consideration is the Rancho del Rey General Development Plan, Sectional Plan Area Plan, the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis, the Planned Community Regulations, Development Agreement, and Preliminary Design Guidelines. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the findings attached to this report (Attachment 1), adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Rancho del Rey General Development Plan; and 2. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment 2), adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this report; and 3. Adopt a motion recommending approval of the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis and the Development Agreement; and 4. Adopt a motion approving in concept the preliminary residential, landscape, and employment park Design Guidelines; and 5. Direct staff to continue reviewing with the applicant the preliminary design guidelines for resubmittal to your Commission with the consideration of the first tentative map within Rancho del Rey SPA I. C. DISCUSSION 1. The Rancho del Rey General Development Plan The Rancho del Rey General Development Plan (SPA-I Plan, Exhibit #2) is a required exhibit for any planned community zone and is intended to show the general location of all proposed uses and the general City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 2 circulation system. Its main purpose is to serve as a bridge connecting the land use and density categories of the Specific Plan and the more detailed descriptions proposed in the Sectional Planning Area.- The General Development Plan map is detailed as Exhibit 2 in the SPA Plan document. It details that within the 808 acres of Rancho del Rey SPA I, there is proposed 2,201 residential dwelling units, a 102.4-acre employment park, an elementary school site, 66.8 acres of park and recreation facilities, and 292.2 acres of natural open space. The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan contains both general and specific criteria for the implementation of sectional plans. It also permits deviations when the more detailed planning justifies it. As that relates to Rancho del Rey SPA-I, that relates to circulation, public facilities and housing products. a. The Rancho del Rey loop road which connects all of the residential areas and public facilities to the main access roads is proposed to be altered in alignment to connect the road to Rice Canyon. This serves to open the project up to the natural features on the site as well as to separate the specific neighborhoods within the project. The goal with this change is to create a more natural setting while accenting the major amenities contained on-site. b. The elementary school site has been moved from north of the community park to an area more centrally located within the project. The reason for the relocation is based on input from the school district concerning the proximity to the SDG&E power lines. Based on State of California standards, the location shown on the Specific Plan was too close to those power lines. c. The Specific Plan proposed approximately 220 more single-family cottage and small-lot products than will be proposed within this SPA Plan. To accommodate the mix of land uses, there has been a reduction in the cottage and townhouse product with an increase in the single-family conventional and multi-family units {SPA-I Plan, Exhibit ~6). 2. Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) I Plan The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan requires the preparation and approval of a Sectional Planning Area plan before subdivision maps and site plans are considered. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to more fully define the various land uses, circulation system, and housing types proposed for this project area. In addition to that, the SPA Plan provides the planning framework {land use, density, open space, circulation, public facilities, and design guidelines) to guide the preparation of individual project plans. The details contained in the SPA Plan would not only assist the City in requiring conformance with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, but also assist in implementing the purpose and intent set forth in the SPA Plan. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 3 The following discussion is a more detailed description of the E1 Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan. Plan Structure and Design There are many factors influencing the design of Rancho del Rey SPA-I (SPA-I Plan, Exhibit #4). The main natural feature is Rice Canyon. In addition to being a major visual feature, Rice Canyon serves as a primary drainage way within the project area and contains several sensitive biological resources. These existing landform characteristics serve as the basis for the physical planning of the SPA Plan. Basically, residentially developed areas are located on higher elevations, while the canyons remain as natural open space with a passive system of trails. The one exception to that is in the eastern portion of Rice Canyon where a community park will be located with active recreational uses. On the southern edge of SPA I and adjacent to East "H" Street is the employment park. That park will primarily feature industrial uses with support commercial and office development. As with the residential development on the ridges, the employment park design will attempt to orient itself and take advantage of Rice Canyon, which runs along the northerly boundary of the park. Adjacent to East "H" Street, primary consideration will be the visual impacts from the employment park to the passing motorists. Special setbacks and design standards are contained in the project to mitigate and enhance the visual features along East "H" Street. Circulation The uses mentioned above are supported by publicly maintained internal and external circulation roads. There is only one road proposed on the north side of SPA I in the estate area that would be a private road with controlled access. Based on the uses depicted in the SPA Plan, this project will generate 39,634 trips per day onto the local and regional street system. That is more fully described in Chapter 3 of the SPA Plan document and the improvements that are needed to serve this project are defined in the Public Facilities Plan. As noted in the previous EIR discussion, traffic circulation is a major consideration with this project. To mitigate traffic impacts, Rancho del Rey proposes that lO,O00 ADTs (average daily trips) that are projected to be generated primarily by the employment park will be "held in reserve" until the commencement of a roadway in Route 125. With this stipulation, the projected level of service on all roads, especially East "H" Street, will be at least Level of Service City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 4 Public Facilities The Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis has three major features. It describes in detail the proposed public facilities that are impacted by this project and the measures being taken to respond to that impact. In the case of impacted facilities, the developer will either be required to construct those facilities in their entirety, or participate in the construction/financing of those facilities if this project does not fully' warrant said construction. Secondly, the Public Facilities Plan also addresses the phasing of the required improvements. In the case of facilities that affect public health, safety and welfare such as roads, sewer and drainage facilities, those improvements need to be completed prior to occupancy of a given phase. For example, if a road is required in Phase -3~, then before any units could be occupied in that phase, the road must be completed. In the case of park and recreation facilities, those improvements must be completed prior to the end of the development allocated for any phase and prior to the start of development in a subsequent phase. A third feature of the Public Facilities Financing Plan is the regional transportation phasing program. The EastLake Development Impact Fee Program adopted by the City in February 1986 and currently applying to EastLake and Bonita Long Canyon identifies the required regionwide transportation facilities, develops cost estimates, and calculates an impact fee. As a part of the Rancho del Rey Public Facilities Planning Program, this project will be required to participate in that regional transportation facility phasing program. This plan proposes development thresholds set for the regional improvements that will outweigh any limits for the local phasing of Rancho del Rey. Therefore, for example, if regional development dictates that Otay Lakes Road, between East "H" Street and Bonita Road, be constructed before development can proceed it must be improved prior to future development occurring within Rancho del Rey, even though SPA I's local phasing limit for Otay Lakes Road may not have been reached. In addition to the above, other facilities impacted by this project and the measures undertaken to respond to that impact are as follows: a. Parks and Recreation - There are 45.7 acres of public park uses included in SPA I. This includes a community park, two neighborhood parks, a staging area for pedestrians and equestrians at the east end of Rice Canyon, and a trail system which links all of the major open space and residential areas to the park facilities. All of the parks and recreation facilities will be dedicated and maintained by the public. In the case of the natural open space features, those will be maintained by an open space maintenance district. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 5 b. Fire Protection - The E1 Rancho del Rey SPA I has reserved up to three acres within the East "H" Street Park for a fire station and training facility. Until the City Fire Department determines the need for construction of a fire station on this site, the Southwestern College Fire Station will serve the needs generated by this project. c. Library ~ Based on the City-approved Public Library Master Plan, a need for a sub-regional library facility is identified in this area. To assist in implementation of that study, a parcel of up to two acres is shown adjacent to the proposed fire station within the East "H" Street Park. If the City determines a need to build the library at this location, then the site would be available. d. Schools - The project proposes the dedication of a school site to the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Since the capacity of an elementary school is projected to be 730 students and approximately 594 students will be generated from SPA I alone, the School District is requiring that the developer assist in the construction of a school site within the timeframe of SPA I. Relative to the middle school and high school requirements of the Sweetwater Union High School District, that District has presently indicated that they are at or over capacity in many of their facilities. Since the School District does not desire a school site within this project area, the developer will be required to financially assist the District in providing school facilities to serve Rancho del Rey SPA I. Design Guidelines A major feature of Rancho del Rey SPA I is the preliminary design guidelines for residential, landscape, and employment park areas. The guidelines are provided to your Comission as a preliminary draft to obtain any input you may have prior to the consideration of the first tentative map for this project. The design guidelines will serve as a bridge between the Sectional Planning Area criteria and the approval of subsequent projects. In many cases, they are quite detailed relative to the specific development of neighborhoods and industrial uses. The purpose is to graphically illustrate the proposals of the SPA plan to assist staff, the Commission and the City Council in review of future discretionary permits. Implementation In addition to the standard implementation techniques utilized for this project such as tentative map considerations and site plan approvals, there are several programs unique to this project that should be noted. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 6 1. Development Agreement - When the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan was approved, it was intended that a development agreement be executed between the City and the developer. The development agreement is a part of this project and is a tool which assists the public agency and large scale developer to identify the rules inherent in the approval of a project before major investments of public and/or private monies are expended. The development agreement certainly does not take the place of zoning or subdivision considerations. It does, however, set forth developer and City obligations commensurate with the approval of the project. In summary, the development agreement acknowledges that the Rancho del Rey Partnership agrees to provide the facilities and improvements identified in the SPA plan and its support documents while the City agrees on certain approval parameters contained in the same documents. 2. PC Development Regulations - The Planned Community (PC) District Regulations adopted as a part of this approval provide site specific standards and regulations to guide the development of E1 Rancho del Rey SPA I. These development regulations, although they are specific in nature, should be utilized hand-in-hand with the design guidelines for both the residential and employment park uses. The PC District Regulations provide the parameters and with utilization of the design guidelines will provide the precise implementation standards for this project. 3. Monitoring Program - As a part of any project, there are certain assumptions that are made when considering the impacts that project will have on the city. These assumptions are based on the best information available at the time the plan is prepared, but it is the actual location, amount, type, and timing of development that will determine the need for specific facilities. With that in mind, there are two areas that need to be monitored relative to E1 Rancho del Rey. Those are fiscal and traffic impacts. Each year the developer should submit updated development summaries, forecasts, and development data, such as actual traffic counts, and building permit information to the City for evaluation and comparison to the Public Facilities Plan as adopted. This annual update and re-evaluation will allow the City to more accurately predict public facility needs and if necessary, restrict building activity to prevent adverse impacts on existing facilities. Specifically, relative to traffic circulation Rancho del Rey will need to monitor daily trips along East "H" Street to identify the on-going impact of this project prior to the commencement of a roadway along Route 125. A total of lO,O00 ADT will need to be "held in reserve" until such time as that route is constructed. In addition, a maximum of 56,500 ADT's will be permitted on East "H" Street to maintain a Level of Service "C." City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 7 The annual monitoring program should also review the fiscal impacts on the City's Operating Budget. The fiscal impact analysis prepared as part of this project detailed an overall positive fiscal impact to the City. That fiscal impact analysis was based on the timely development of the employment park as well as the residential areas. Should the development phasing of the project change, then the fiscal impact to the City may change. With that in mind, an annual update and re-evaluation will all ow the City 'to more~ clearly determine its fiscal impact. Similar to traffic impact, should the fiscal impact to the City be negative, then Rancho del Rey will be required to contribute an amount necessary to cover the short fall. 4. Additional Development Impact Fee Programs - There are certain facilities identified in the Rancho del Rey Public Facilities Plan that serve development on a regional level. Those facilities identified in this plan include the police communication facility, the fire training facility, the City library, and the City corporation yard. Those facilities are not required simply by Rancho del Rey SPA I, but are required by the cumulative development occurring in the region. This development as well as others point out the need for other financing methods to allow the construction of needed regional facilities without burdening existing developed areas. To assist in that implementation, the Public Facilities Plan recommends the consideration of additional Development Impact Fee Programs or Facilities Benefit Programs to assess new development for the provision of these facilities. The development agreement for Rancho del Rey will require their participation in any future program that may be adopted by the city. 5. Design Guidelines - As stated above, the design guidelines are an integral part of the approval of this project. They are presented to your Commission in preliminary to assist staff additional time to review those guidelines as well as to obtain input from your Commission prior to consideration of the first tentative subdivision within SPA I. Those guidelines will assist in the review of not only the residential and employment park uses, but also the review of any open space, park, and recreational improvements contained within the very large network of open space and park uses. The guidelines will be administered by the Planning Department and will not be adopted by ordinance. By this means, the guidelines will serve as a detailed measure to review future projects while at the same time promoting innovative techniques. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 28, 1987 Page 8 Conditions of Approval of Rancho del Rey SPA I The Rancho del Rey SPA I and supporting documents are approved subject to the following conditions. 1. Residential areas adjacent to open space system should provide both visual and pedestrian access to those systems. Specifically, R-11b and R-13b should provide pedestrian access to the community park via the SDG&E right-of-way. 2. The final lot and street design shown within the SPA Plan for the remaining residential areas may be modified by the Planning Commission and City Council during tentative subdivision map consideration. 3. With City consideration of the Master Plan for the community park, detailed plans should investigate the feasibility of widening the entrance to the park adjacent to the loop road by extending into the open space area described as OS-4. The purpose of this widening is to provide a more usable and visually attractive setting for the proposed community park facility. 4. The public facilities plan and financing analysis and the conditions contained therein will further govern the subsequent approval of any tentative maps or other projects within SPA I. WPC 4411P ATTACHMENT 1 RANCHO DEL RE¥ GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The General Development Plan is consistent with the original intent and purpose of the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and is therefore, in confomance with the 'provisions of the General Plan. The General Development Plan proposes minor modifications in the circulation system that enhance the visual appearance of the project. The plan also proposes density allocation changes which will reduce the number of lots within the small lot cottage development while dispersing those numbers to the multiple family and single family detached products. 2. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. The applicant has submitted tentative subdivision maps to be processed within 30 days of approval of this Sectional Planning Area plan. 3. IN THE CASE OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PARKS ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION IN APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. The General Development Plan proposes a mixture of housing types, providing housing opportunities to a wide range of community residents. In addition to that, those housing units will be served to buy significant amounts of a natural and manmade open space and park systems. All public facilities have been responded to and the needs generated by this project have been met by the standards and requirements stipulated in the public facilities plan and financing analysis. 4. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The General Development Plan proposes the establishment of an employment park adjacent to East "H" Street with circulation and access standards consistent with City requirements. The overall quality of the employment park area will be controlled by the Planned Community District Regulations as well as the design guidelines contained in the SPA Plan. 5. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVERALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH. The General Development Plan proposes the maintenance and enhancement of two major legs of Rice Canyon which traverse the site. In addition to this preservation, the plan provides for active recreational needs of the residents of this project by providing two neighborhood parks, a community park, and a system of trails that will connect all major uses to these open space areas. Master Plans will be required prior to the development of these parks to ensure the high quality development of these parks as well as protection of adjacent areas. 6. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The conditions contained within the public facilities plan and the SPA Plan will require the timely improvement of all necessary streets and thoroughfares serving this project. 7. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). The amount and location of proposed support commercial development is depicted on the site utilization plan. There is adequate commercial development in the vicinity of this project to serve the general needs of the area residents. 8. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBLITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The General Development Plan will not alter the planned land use of adjacent areas. With respect to those adjacent areas, considerable effort has been made to coordinate development of SPA I in such a way to ensure compatible development within close proximity to any adjacent neighborhood. WPC 4412P ATTACHMENT 2 RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSGD SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RANCHO DEL REY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PC ZONE AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Rancho del Rey Planning Area Plan reflects the land uses, circulation system, open space -and recreational uses, and public facility uses consistent with the Rancho del Rey General Development Plan. 2. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA Plan and the Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis contain provisions and requirements to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project. The Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis responds not only to the improvements required because of SPA I, but also the regional facilities needed to serve this project. 3. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. All of the land uses within Rancho del Rey SPA I have taken into consideration existing land use and topographical constraints in order to protect those features and areas from adverse intrusion. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has reviewed not only the development contained within SPA I but also the offsite impacts to ensure that all impacts generated by this project would be responded to in a manner not detrimental to existing uses. WPC 4413P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 1 7. REPORT: PCM-88-12; Consideration of a policy permitting reduced sideyard setbacks for single-family dwellings containing three-car garages. A. BACKGROUND At the regular City Council meeting of June 16, 1987, the City Council requested a report outlining a proposed policy for the allowance of reduced sideyard setbacks for single-family dwellings with three-car garages. Two subdivisions (Casa Del Rey and Bel Air Ridge Estates) have been previously approved subject to conditions that permit the reduction of sideyard setbacks from 10 feet and 3 feet to 5 feet and 5 feet for the allowance of three-car garages. A maximum limit of 33% of the lots in each subdivision was approved for this reduction. The current R-1 (Chapter 19.24) zoning standards for single-family dwellings require a minimum sideyard setback of 10 feet on one si de of the dwelling and 3 feet on the other side. In addition, a total of 10 feet is required between adjacent structures. The primary justification for the 10 foot and 3 foot sideyard setback requirement is to provide at least one sideyard with ample width for vehicle access to the rear yard. This was designed to provide homeowners with the necessary distance to get recreational vehicles out of the front yard area. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the Council establish the following policy with respect to reductions in sideyard setbacks for single-family residential units containing three-car garages: 1. Sideyard setbacks for lots containing three-car garages may be reduced to 5 feet on each side, provided that each sideyard area does not exceed a 2% grade and a minimum separation of l0 feet remains between structures. 2. A maximum of 33% of the lots in a proposed subdivision may provide reduced sideyard setbacks for units containing three-car garages. 3. Garage conversions shall not be permitted for three-car garages where reduced setbacks occur. C. DISCUSSION Permitting sideyard setback reductions for a percentage of 3-car garage units within single family subdivisions can result in a reduction in the number of on-street parked cars and cars that are parked within driveway areas. In addition, the third garage is a means of providing security for small recreational vehicles as well as visually concealing them. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of November 18, 1987 Page 2 If the number of lots permitted to reduce setbacks for the 3-car garages is held to a maximum of 1/3 of the subdivision, a diversity in architectural appearance can be obtained without a wholesale change in sideyard setbacks. Garage conversions are presently prohibited in new subdivisions. In order to obtain the advantages, as discussed above, garage conversions should also be prohibited for third car garages on lots with reduced setbacks. The Subdivision Manual and Municipal Code have no requirement that sideyard setback areas be graded level, and although the largest sideyard setback (10 feet) may not be level, it is assumed that the homeowner has the ability through re-grading efforts and/or constructing retaining walls to utilize this area for rear yard access. With a reduction of the sideyard setbacks to 5 feet, it becomes necessary to provide level (2% maximum grade) sideyards for general pedestrian access. A minimum of l0 feet of building separation should be required regardless of the resultant building setback. A subdivider could design lot widths to contain 3-car garage units and maintain existing required setbacks when establishing the tentative map design but often unit models are not selected at this stage of design, there are changes in the product design or it is unknown whether there will be a market for 3-car garages at the eventual time of unit sales. Staff has conducted a visual survey of the Casa Del Rey Subdivision, where units with reduced setbacks for 3-car garages have been constructed and are occupied {see attached exhibit). The results of this survey did not reveal any adverse aesthetic impacts with reduced setbacks. Other observations include the fact that only 12% of the lots in the subdivision actually utilize the l0 ft. sideyard for vehicle access to the side or rear yard. WPC 4402P