Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/07/25 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 25, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of June 13, 1990 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12 - Don Goss (continued from 6-27-90 meeting) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a. PCZ-90-N: Consideration of request to rezone 4.92 acres located north of 'C' Street, between Third Avenue extended and Del Mar Avenue to R-l-P-6 - Las Brisas Del Mar Limited (continued from 7-11-90 meeting) b. PCS-90-11: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Brisas Del Mar, Unit No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 90-11- Las Brisas Del Mar Limited (continued from 7-11-90 meeting) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-A: Consideration to prezone 68.30 acres south of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road between Paseo Ladera and Rutgers Avenue to A-8 (Agriculture) - City Initiated 4. PUBLIC HEARING: a. RV-90-01: Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-25-90 meeting) b. ZAV-90-12: Consideration of variance to allow driveway and parking areas to occupy more than 50% of the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-25-90 meeting) ELECTION OF OFFICERS OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT Joint Agency/Planning Commission Meeting (Bayfront) 9-6-90 COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 8, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates. Chula Vista Tract 90-12. Don Goss A. BACKGROUND 1. This item was continued from the Planning Commission's hearing of June 27, 1990. At that time, after considering the staff report and receiving public testimony, the Commission asked the applicant to conduct a follow-up meeting with affected property owners to review the subject project. The Commission also requested staff to report on the possibility of creating only three rear lots where four are now proposed, the neighborhood lot pattern, and the environmental aspect of the project relating to birds. The staff response to the foregoing referral is set forth in the discussion section of this report. 2. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, in order to subdivide approximately 1.19 acres, located at 54 and 56 F Street, into six single family lots, which range in size from 7,335 square feet to 10,530 square feet. 3. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-43, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-43. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-43. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, subject to the following conditions: a. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring road and landscaping maintenance of the common drive private access easement and fencing setbacks. b. Any fencing abutting or adjacent to the common drive shall be setback a minimum distance of 20 feet from the edge of the pavement and shall be decorative design per City standards subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 2 c. The dwellings on lots 3 and 4 shall be provided with fully automatic residential sprinkler systems acceptable to the Fire Marshal. d. The site plan and architectural design of the development of lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator. e. The existing garages on lots 1 and 6 shall be moved to a setback line 20 feet from the edge of the common drive, with access provided perpendicular to the drive. f. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of street improvements in "F" Street adjacent to the subdivision to provide a half-street width of 26 feet. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, street lights, sanitary sewer, fire hydrants and potable water facilities. Sidewalk construction shall match the existing facility which abuts the western property line. A deferral of street widening will be approved upon application by the developer. g. The final map for subject subdivision shall indicate a private access easement to subsequent owners of various parcels to the east pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Easements for guest parking shall be clearly delineated on the final map stating which parcels are granted the right to utilize the, easements. h. A private access road with alley type curb returns shall be provided from F Street to Parcels 3 and 4. Said access road will have two 12 foot lanes with a 4 foot wide landscape median for the first 50 feet south of the property line. Thereafter the road shall transition to a minimum of 20 feet wide. The access road shall be constructed of P.C.C. and shall include 2 pedestrian ramps at the public sidewalk. i. The developer shall submit improvement plans and bonding for the construction of the private access road and street improvements for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. j. Drainage shall be allowed to flow freely in a northwesterly direction through Parcel 3 as shown on the Tentative Map. Any fencing around said parcel shall be constructed so that natural drainage is unobstructed and the CC&R's for the project shall include a provision for this requirement. The remaining Parcels shall be so graded to drain to "F" Street or to an approved drainage system. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 3 k. The developer shall prior to final map approval, submit a letter to the City indicating that runoff from the site to adjacent properties will be significantly reduced by completion of the project. Calculations shall be submitted to verify said reduction. k. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. The following are requirements of the City Code: a. All utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. b. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees, prior to issuance of building permits. c. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. d. The developer shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. Residential Construction Taxes and Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. e. The amount of any fees applicable to the project shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. C. DISCUSSION Issues referred to staff from Commission hearing of June 27, 1990. Meeting with property owners. Staff met with the applicant for Gretchen Estates on July 5, 1990, and discussed with him the Commission's desire that he meet with the affected neighborhood property owners to review the project. He has advised staff that the meeting has been scheduled for July 18, 1990, which will be after the deadline for distributing this staff report. Therefore, the results of the meeting will be reported orally to the commission at its public hearing of July 25, 1990. Environmental concern regarding birds. The Environmental Review Coordinator has again reviewed this matter. He has determined, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that the proposed project has no significant biological impacts {birds). The project site is in an urbanized area and does not contain endangered native vegetation or wildlife. There are 54 trees on site which are three inches or larger in diameter. The project as submitted will require the removal of eight, or 15%, of these trees. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 4 Neighborhood lot pattern. Staff has analyzed the project's neighborhood lot size pattern. This is graphically presented on the attached Exhibit 1. A total of 74 lots were included in the sample, and for statistical purposes each lot was assigned to a lot size group. The results are listed as follows: LOT SIZE GROUP NUMBER OF LOTS PERCENT OF TOTAL 6,000- 8,000 sq. ft. 33 44.6 8,000-10,000 sq. ft. 22 29.7 10,000-15,000 sq. ft. 12 16.2 15,000 & larger __Z 9.5 TOTAL 74 100.0 The analysis indicates the project is located in a neighborhood that has mixed lot size pattern, with lots ranging in size from 5,227 to 78,844 square feet {1.81 AC). Fifty-five lots, or 74.3% of the total, are less than 10,000 square feet. The project proposes six lots, which range in size from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. These lots fall into the 6,000-8,000-10,000 square foot lot size groupings, which represent 55 lots, or 74.3% of the total. It is staff's opinion that the subject project's proposed lot sizes are compatible with the neighborhood's established existing lot pattern. Three new lots versus four. The project site measures 180 feet by 290 feet. Its long axis is perpendicular to F Street. There are two existing houses on the portion of the site fronting F Street. These will be retained. Given the size and shape of the site, retaining the existing houses on separate lots, and the fixed access point to F Street, there are few good alternatives to that proposed by the developer. Staff has prepared an alternative design which would reduce the proposed number of new lots from four to three, but does not recommend it. See attached staff sketch "C". Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Single Family Residential South R-1 Single Family Residential East R-1 Single Family Residential West R-1 Single Family Residential Existing site characteristics. The site proposed for subdivision compromises approximately 1.19 acres and is zoned R-1. It is located on the south side of F Street approximately 436 feet east of First Avenue. The site has a rectangular shape with 180 feet of frontage on "F" Street, and a depth of 290 feet. The rear portion of the site slopes gently toward the southwest. The existing land uses adjacent to the subject site and facing it across F Street consists entirely of good quality single-family homes. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 5 Tentative map. The proposal involves the subdivision of two contiguous parcels of land into six lots, which range in size from 7,335 to 10,530 square feet. All exceed the 7,000 square foot minimum lot size required by the R-1 zone applicable to the site in question. Lots 1 and 6 front on F Street. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 are panhandle lots. All six lots will receive access via a 20-24 foot wide common drive. The City Engineer has determined that the first 50 feet of this common drive, beginning at this interface with F Street is required to be 24 feet wide. Thereafter, it makes a transition to a 20 foot width to correspond to the City's panhandle lot access standards. Three large palm trees are growing on the approximate centerline of the common drive. Staff has concluded it would be appropriate to accommodate these in a median planter bed with a 12 foot access lane on each side. (Note: One palm tree must be relocated.) There are existing single family dwellings on lots 1 and 6. Both have detached garages. The developer has proposed moving the garage on Lot 6 to be located approximately 7 feet from the common drive. The plan shows the garage on lot 1 in its present location, which would create an access parallel to the common drive. This is not acceptable in terms of traffic safety and circulation. Inasmuch as there is adequate space, staff recommends both garages be setback from the common drive a minimum of 20 feet, and that the access thereto be perpendicular to the common drive (see staff sketch). Development of the panhandle lots is subject to the criteria contained in Section 19.22.150 of the Code, which specifies certain requirements for panhandle development. One of the requirements is for guest parking, which is shown on the plans. Another is Site Plan and Architectural Review, which will be required upon application for building permits. Since the common drive does not provide a turn-around for fire equipment, the dwellings on lots 3 and 4 will also be required to have sprinkler systems per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. D. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, lggO Page 6 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use The General Plan designates the property for Low Medium Density Residential development {3-6 du/ac). The project density of 5 du/ac is consistent with this designation. b. Circulation The development will be served by a local residential street and common access drive, both of which meet the City standard for single family use. c. Housing - The project will provide additional single family home ownership opportunities in an established, desirable section of the City. d. Conservation The site or surrounding area is not known to contain any irreplaceable natural resources or endangered species. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The subdivider is required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. f. Seismic Safety The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred geologic fault. g. Safety The site is within the General Plan standard for response time of both police and fire services. Lots 3 and 4 will be required to provide sprinkler systems in lieu of a turn-around for fire equipment. h. Noise - The dwellings will be required to meet the standards of the U.B.C. with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway The site does not abut a scenic route or gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - The adjoining public street is not a designated bike route. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned or proposed for the site. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 7 Pursuant to Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, development of the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 8037P PCC-90-12 GRETCHEN ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD LOT AREA COMPARISON- 6000 - 8000 SQ'- FT. 8000 - 10,000 SQ. FT. 10,000 - 15,000 SQ. FT. 15,000 & LARGER TOTAL 7-4 LOTS MOHTEBELLO ST. 1.81AC 1.14AC oF' STREET ::::::::::::::::::::: le, e8el I I 17,424 I-~----_--~ 22,661 :::~:::~ ;i:::i::;I; ' · "'ri I · I ' r- - -~2~22:~-- c E STATES 21,344 I:_--~ _----~__ [ _ 28,750 4-:. :-: :~ ~---_:_: ~:--_-:a ' I : ~ ..... I .66AC i.i..ii-iCENTER STREET I EXIHIBIT I -. 12 ft. 4 ft. 12 fL ~- h ) decorative ardscape 12 ft. ~ medim with I ;~'"- ' '~' ~"~:~:~ ~' ~ :'- ~"- ~,* curb ;~: ~ : ::'i'~':, / asphalt concrete transition zone down to 20 feet Staff Sketch 'A" ~ ,~.-.-.- ' ..... June 1990 Gretchen Estates Driveway w/Median F ST_R_EET ~~ STO. G~RAGE RELOCATED _ ,__~"~,_..~,_._~ 20FT. BACII FROM OUTSIDE ~, ; 1!- lEDgE OF DIW : Gretchen Estates Staff Sketch June 1990 GRETCHEN ESTATES PCC-90-12 [ ~,. go' ~ t .. go' ~ EXISTINQ PALM TREES 1 I ClSTIN~ 5 f ~ STAFF SKETCH NOT TO SCALE July 11, 1990 Dear Commissioners: I wanted to write you this letter to make sure that you are aware of our desire to improve our property at 54 "F" Street as designed by the applicant of Gretchen Estates. The property has been in my late husband's family for over fifty years and it was my husband's desire to develop the property knowing that it was zoned appropriately to do so. As I understand it, the city staff has reviewed the project and given its recommendation of approval based on the fact that the applicant has met all zoning requirements and staff's recommendations regarding the property. With this in mind, I do hope that you as Commissioners will see fit to recommend to City Council the approval of Gretchen Estates as soon as possible. Yours truly, Jane Browne Owner 54 "F" Street Chula Vista, CA · ~- ETWAT E R AUTHOf~---' 505 GARRETT AVENUE POSt OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 92012.2328 May 7, 1990 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attention: Mr. Steve Griffin Reference: WATER AVAILABILITY MA y PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS-90-12 GRETCHEN ESTATES A.P.N. 569-171-14, 15 Gentlemen: The above referenced property is within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is an 8" A.C. main in "F" Street fronting the proposed development. Our records indicate two existing services to the proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 124 which shows these facilities. A main extension will be required to service this development. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the City fire agency stating fire flow requirements along with a deposit for engineering design. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure range from maximum of 58 p.s.i, to minimum of 33 p.s.i. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hector Martinez at 420-1413, ext. 239. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Richard A. Reynolds Chief Engineer RAR:JLS:ln encl. 1/4 SEC. 124 Se~'~?tff ,Vationa/ Ct~v, Chu/a l ~;'ta and SurroundtT(~ ,treas MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista ~ ! L E Robe~ O. Z~mw~. C~k ~ 276 Fourth Ave.ue M~ ~]~SO Attn: Doug Reid ~ ' _ NOTICE ) OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~ (FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Negative Declaration (finding of no significant impact) and the Initial Study, which supports the proposed findings, are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. These documents are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration should provide their written comments to the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. This proposed finding does not constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it only determines if the project could have significant environmental impact. Pr--d-j-~cts which could have significant impact must have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence. For further information concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Maryann Miller at (619) 691-5101. This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for a period of not less than thirty {30) days. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 569-171-14 & 15 PROJECT LOCATION: 56 "F" Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 Lot Subdivision, Single Family Residential ~ ' o DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Chula Vista Planning Commission INITIAL STUDY NO. IS-90-43 DATE: April 23, 1990 FILleD IN Tm OFFIC~ OF THE COUNTY EN ? (Rev. ]/90) 8A~D]FI~GOCOUNTY~N ~,,)~, 0~ DEP~U , ~ ~ negative declaration PROJECT NN4E: Gretchen Estates PROJECT LOCATION: 54 and 56 "F" Street Assessor's Parcel No.: 569-171-14 & 15 PROJECT APPLICANT: Don Goss CASE NO: IS-90-43 DATE: April 27, 1990 A. Project Setting The subject property consists of two rectangular shaped parcels Of land each approximately .59 acres located on the south side of "F" Street at 54 and 56 "F". Street. There are currently 2 single family residential uses located on the northern portion of the site. The existing residence on the northwest corner of the site is designated as an historical site although it is not subject to the historical site permit process, as provided in the Municipal Code. Adjacent land uses include single family residential to the north, south, east and west of the project. B. Project Description The project involves subdividing the existing 2 lots into 6 single-family residential lots with 4 new homes to be constructed for a total of 6 single-family units. The lots will range in size from 7,335 sq. ft. to 10,530 sq. ft. Access to the subdivided parcels would be provided by a 20' access driveway off Street transecting the center of the site. The project population is estimated to be approximately 15 people based upon 2.5 people per household., As part of the project conditions, school development fees will be required. In addition, street widening along "F" Street will be required; pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be installed to provide for 26 foot half width improvements from centerline to curb. The installation of one street light is also required. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The proposed 6-lot subdivision complies with the existing R-1 residential zone since the project density will be 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project falls within the density allowed by the low-medium density residential (3-6 du/ac) designation of the General Plan. city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section [HULA VIS-I'A -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The threshold/standards policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within five minutes in 75% of the cases and seven minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is 1 mile from the nearest fire station and the Fire Department's estimated response time is 3 minutes. The provision of a turnaround for fire apparatus or the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all new construction is required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 2. Police The threshold/standards policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five minutes in 75% of the cases and within seven minutes in 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there would be adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The threshold/standards policy requires that a Level of Service {LOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic {ADT) is estimated to be 5,080. Upon project completion, the ADT would be expected to be 5,120. The estimated LOS would be "A" both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Street widening on "F" Street is required; pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed to provide for half width improvements of 26 feet from centerline to curb. In addition, one street light will be required to be installed. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The estimated project population is approximately 15 people. The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that the project will not create significant impacts to City park and recreation facilities. Appropriate Park Area Development fees will be assessed. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed compatible with the City's policy. -3- 5. Drainage The threshold/standards policy requires that water flows and volumes must not exceed City Engineering standards. Drainage from the project site currently flows over the site to the west into "F" Street. The existing drainage improvements are considered by the City Engineering Department to adequately serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 6. Sewer The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project could generate an estimated 90 pounds per day of solid waste and an estimated 1,060 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by an 8-inch sewer line in "F" Street. This line is considered to be adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 7. Water The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed development projects. The Sweetwater Authority has been notified and has not identified any problems with providing adequate water supply to the project. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of the Initial Study conducted on the site, that any significant environmental effects will be created as a result of the proposed project. Although impacts to cultural resources were identified, they have been deemed to be less than significant. Cultural Impacts The existing single family residence located on the site at 54 "F" Street is designated as an historical site by the City's Resource Conservation Commission. This site is listed on the City's list of historical sites which is on file with the Planning Department. The proposed project would not adversely this residence. The historic site will remain, therefore, it is not subject to the historical impact site permit process, as regulated by the Municipal Code. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Because there is no substantial evidence that the project will create any significant environmental effects, mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary. -4- G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site will not impact any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. Portions of the project site have already been developed as single family residential uses and the remaining project area is in disturbed grasses. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project is consistent with uses designated by the zone and General Plan. The proposed project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, since long-term goals will be achieved through compliance with the City's Threshold Standards and conditions of project approval. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is relatively minor in size and scope, and will not create significant environmental impacts that are cumulative in nature. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not result in any significant increases in hazardous substances, the release of emissions, nor any significant increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed project will not create any substantial adverse effects to human beings. -5- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Alex Saucedo, Building and Housing Roger Daoust, Engineering Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Robin Keightley, Advance Planning Steve Griffin, Current Planning Lee McEachern, Planning Intern Applicant's Agent: Algert Engineering - Jim Algert 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR {P&D Technologies, 1989) Chula Vista Historic Sites List This determination that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study, and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ' ~NTAL REVI~NATOR EN 6 (Rev, 3/88) WPC 7506P -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North (7~) ~t ~c~Jc~,c--- .~-'~+.~{ South ~ cxJc~L~ ~,( ~ East ~~ ~ L~ West ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~, ~. 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) '~_ ~7~t( (c~_~l~ b.Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) ~.9 ~ . Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. FOR OFFICE uSE Case No. INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec' d City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form. Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Gretc~hen ~q~a~e~ 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 56 "F" ~qereet Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 569-171-14 & lB 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 lot subdZv±s±on. ~ingle fmrnily re sidenti al 4. Name of Applicant Don Goss Phone Address 5130 Bonita Road State CA Zip 92002 City ~oni ~a 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Alqert EDoineeri. ng~Tno- Phone 420-7090 Address 428 Broadway State CA Zip 92010 City Ch~l ~ Relation to Applicant Engineer 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning x Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design RevieW Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review -Variance __Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report 'Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study "' Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study 'Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan ~ Tentative Subd. Map "Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or-- Soils Report Other ' Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage ~'~10~--) or acreage I~I~ If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family v~ Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights ~Z. ~l-7~J~ c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms ~ 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range ~_~o,~o h. Square footage of floor area(s) 'Lo~~ ~ i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures I(~ j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. )L~f~. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure{s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? O,~q~- d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill ~,'~' --~ Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energ~ consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lai~_r conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. Will highly flan~able or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? Y~JO . 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? z~ ~J~-~-~J t-ZJ_~-~, e~L~ --- z~-O 'T-/Z/~/~.A~ 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian an~bicycle-facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? ~,_~). (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? }k,_)0. (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? /'.Jc~. (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? Y~9~ . b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? AJO - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or~ m d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? 4. Biolo~ a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past tFse of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? k. JO~J~ b. Nave there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. ~ t~C:r?F?AW~ ~'rx.~- ~-¢~4-~'/' -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ~ ~ ,~c~,~-~ South ~ (xJc..CE ~,[ ~ East ~~ West ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~, 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b.Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) ~ ~ . Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant ~ Y HEREBY AFFIRM, tha~ to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ,~,. ?_~3. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No, /f~_~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1, Current Zoning on site: ~2-/ - Does the project conform to the current zoning? _ ~,~ 2. General Plan land use Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? . Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? /~/O Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista,) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as ~.m in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/1000 pop,) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) __~ -9- 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity. From Project E1 ementary FZo ~ Jr. High r/,' I ~ r~ ..... Sr. Hi§h ~,'()~-~ /~?~ )'~ ;C~. ~ Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) /u0 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ~,~0 Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director o¢ Planning or Representative Date - 10- Case No. ~ qo-~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. ?aina9~ a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~0 d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities?~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project?_ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? I~ ~o ~ ..... +. _ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. ~ransportation -- a. What roads provide primary access to the project? _~. b. What ~s the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project ~per day)?~ c. What ~s the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. ~ L.O.S. A A -- d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project~ If not, explain briefly. . e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? If so, specify the general nature of the ~r~ a~t-ions. -11 - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards?~ / Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage~ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project si te? b. If yes,.what_are these adverse soil conditions? 6/~ c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? -12- Case Ho. 7. ~ir Quality -- If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle . (per day) ~i~'sioh Factor Pollution CO ....... 40 X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons mo NOx (NO2) mo ........ X X 20.0 Particulates 4~ X 1.5 Sulfur 4~-~--~ .... 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per UaY? J~hat is the location and size of existin ' ' - ' to the s~te? ~ ~, ~ .... ~. ..~ g ~ewer lines on or ad, ace-+ Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, ~tc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures -------- - 13- Case No. ?_~-~--///__~ H. FIRE DEPART~IENT 1. What is the distanc.~ to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? / /~l -- ~.~ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for th.e proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? fJ ~jj/ 3. Remarks .~ ~~~~~f)~-~- Fire Marshal -i3(a)- Case No. /3 F.~- ~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks / 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council,policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative ~J 31 M~CH.199O SIRS, WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 26, 1990 CONCERNING THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL FOR 5~ AND 56 "F" STREET IN CHULA VISTA. WE FEEL,VERY STRONGLY, THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ~ SINGLE- FAMILY , 3-BEDROOM, 2-STORY HOUSES ON THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THIS WOULD HAVE A DIRECT NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE DENSITY ISSUE~ VISUAL IMPACT, COMMUNITY CHARACTER, CERTAIN TREES AND VEGETATION REMOVED, AND A COMPLETE CHANGE IN THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE WHICH EXISt% AT PRESENT, IN TH~REAR PROPERTIES. THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN (1) VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONGESTION, (2) pARKING PROBLEMS WITH TOO MANY CARS IN THE LIMITED ~N PARKING AREAS, (3) BOISTEROUS NEIGF~BORS AN~ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LOUD BARKING DOGS, DAY AND NIGHT. ALSO, THE WATER PRESSUP~. WOULD BECOME EVEN LOWER THAN IT IS NOW. TADEUSZ PIEKNIK ~ · JEANNETTE PIEKNIK 72 "F" STREET CHULA VISTA, CA. CASE NO. IS-90-43 60 F Street Chula Vista, Ca. April 5, 1990 Dear Mr. Reid, The proposed subdivision plan for 56 F Street causes me great concern. As a homeowner and resident of 60 F Street, my concern is personal. As a resident of Chula Vista, my concern is for the community. The density of the area would be greatly affected by the subdivision plan. The addition of four more homes would stress the air quality ( automobiles and fireplaces), refuse system, noise level and water systems of the area. During the current period of drought, other communities have issued building moratoriums in an effort to curb water usage. I would like to think of Chula Vista as an environmentally conscious community that would be able to investigate and implement creative solutions to our current drought situation. Continued building only contributes to the problem; not the solution. The month of April is dedicated to environmental concerns and thousands of new trees will be planted to commemorate Earth Day. It would be a shame to destroy mature trees in a natural habitat, even if they were to be replaced by saplings. A number of species of birds and other wildlife also inhabit the lot at 56 F Street. The lot provides a respite to the encroachment of urbanization and the dwindling amount of open spaces in Chula Vista. I strongly oppose the subdivision plan and would like to be included in any discussions on the matter. Sincerely, Patri¢ia Kelly ?1 F. Street Chula Vista, CA 92010 April 5, 1990 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula ¥ista, CA 92010 Dear Sirs In response to your NOTICE OF INITIAL SURVEY dated 26 March 1990, I wish to state emphatically that I am OPI~SED to the 6 lot subdivision at 56 F. Street. CASE NO, 1S-90-~3 This development would greatly affect the most desirable character of this neigh- borhood in a NEGATIYE manner. This area ~annot properly support a higher population density. The street is already too narrow and heavily traveled as evidenced by the numerous incidents of parked cars being struck while parked on the street. On three separate occasions guests at my home hav~ had their car hit in front of my house. Additional residents would only result in the inevitable widenin~ of the street which could only be accomplished by extensive tree removal. Just the construction of 6 homes would reduce the greenery considerably. We need this foliage to help reduce air and noise pollution as you must know. We need to preserve the attractive nature of Chula Vista. The sewer and water facilities were sized to fit the present home density. Granting this proposed variance 'would only open the door for additional construct- ion resultin~ in severe overtaxing of the present facilities and requiring considerable expensive renovations at the homeowners' expense. I sympathize with Mr. Goss' desire to make a financial gain, but it should not be at the expense of the residents and to the efficient operation of the city. This is NOT an area to be made into a high density population. Please DO NOT grant this variance. The zoning regulations were made to preserve this area. DON'T CHANGE THEM. APRIL 5, 1990 ~.3 ,Jr Chula ~ ~t~ We would like to register our deep concern regarding U~e proposed property rezoninga[.56FStreet. This isasln.q!e family,~esidentialneiohborhood. Many of the !ors are deed and couid accornmoda[e more U~an one residence. However, allowing this kind of irresponsible development to occur would establish a brecedent that would cause a drastic chanae in the character of ~ne area and cause increased traffic in a nelghb0rh00d which is already feeling the effect of the development east of inters~,ate 805. Mar, y of the homeowners in ~his neighbOrhOOd nave chosen to stay in the area and add on to their homes rather than move to a new home. We, forexamole, have been m our nome for 30 years and have upgraded the propert, y considerably. All0wmg Six homes to be built where one ex!sted before effects our property values and ourlivingconditions. Therefore, we request thattt~e proposed zone variance be denied. Douglas Reid 4 April 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator, City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Subject: Environmental Effects of Case Number IS 90-43 Dear Mr. Reid, As an owner and resident of 60 F Street, Chula Vista, I an expressing the following concerns about the subject project at 56 F Street, Chula Vista: · Density - The density of the block containing this project is high and much higher than it may appear from the street because of the considerable number of previously subdivided lots. The large number of apartments on F Street between Hilltop and Broadway add to the density of the entire area. · Noise - The construction and occupancy of four additional single family homes will dramatically increase the noise for all surrounding residents. · Open Space - Chula Vista is being developed at an alarming rate. Approval of this project will further reduce open space in the city and will probably destroy the last open space in the vicinity of the project. · Habitat - The current lots in this project provide habitat for native birds and other animals and also contain large, mature trees. · Drainage - The property in this project currently absorbs rainfall and causes no drainage problems for my property. The addition of an access road and roofs and patios on four houses could have a negative impact on drainage and runoff. Traffic - The add~onal housing un ts in this project will add at least eight cars to thb~ already crowded F Street. I trust that your office will give careful~ consideration to these concerns internally and in any subsequent public meetings concerning this project. I wish to be informed of any public meeting on this project. Sincerely, 60 F Street ~ Chula Vista, CA 92010 (~ ~-990 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE)~NT APP~ANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS~ I~HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNI [COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. NG The following information must be disclosed: -----'----------- 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. · Don Goss Jane E_ Brnwne Arthur N. ~nK~nzie Sayuri McKenzie List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Arthur W. McKenzie _,Sayuri McKenzie _Jane E. Browne 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, ]ist 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 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.. X If yes, please indicate person(s) · ~ as: "An~-~ndivid,~ ~.~ ~ .... )socia! club, fraternal or~anizatio~"~o'ri'j}h~upar:neFsp'P,.J°~: v_e?tuFe, asso~ ' .... '--' "- , p ~on, estate, trus:, receiver, syndicate, )this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, dtst, rict or other ~ca] s~'~di~}'j]~nF"~j anyother group or combination acting as a ~n~i~t~i~ts~di~i I (NOTE. Attach additional pages as necessary.~/f~4/ ~ ~ / ~ ~ignature of applicant/date WPC 0701P A-ll0 ._~on Goss Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) Pcz-go-N: Consideration of reeuest to rezone 4.92 acres located north of "C" Street, between Third Avenue extended and Del Mar Avenue, from R-1-7, M-H-v and I-L to R-l-P-6 - Las Brisas Del Mar Limited (b) PCS-90-11: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Brisas Del Mar (Unit No. 2). Las Brisas Del Mar Limited A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Las Brisas Del Mar (Unit No. 2), Chula Vista Tract 90-11, in order to subdivide 6.88 acres into 34 lots. This proposal includes rezoning the westerly portion of the property to R-l-P-6 (single family/precise plan/6 dwelling units per acre), and subdividing this area into 26 single family lots, 3,600 sq. ft. minimum, and three open space lots. The portion of the property adjacent to Del Mar Avenue would remain in the R-1-7 zone and be subdivided into six lots of 7,000 sq. ft. or greater in size. On August 16, 1988, the City Council considered a staff report on zoning options for a 14 acre R-1 zoned residential area north of "C" Street between Del Mar Avenue and Third Avenue extended, which included the property in question. The study was conducted at Council's direction following their denial in December of 1987 of a proposal to rezone a two-acre parcel at the northerly end of Third Avenue extended from R-1 to R-3-P-21. The report discussed three alternative zoning pattern scenarios for the area. All three scenarios would have increased the permitted dwelling unit density for the area in question. In conjunction with the study staff met with residents of the area. These residents expressed support for retaining R-1 zoning for the entire study area. It was their opinion that the neighborhood has been overburdened with non-single family uses which are eroding away the single family character of the neighborhood. They cited the industrial area to the north, the mobilehome park to the west, the condominiums and mental health facility to the northeast on Second Avenue and, more recently, the senior housing project and the South Bay Pioneers multiple family project directly to the west and south of the area on "C" Street. Upon concluding its review, the Council chose to take no further action on the report. Thus, the Council indicated its policy was to retain the existing R-1 zoning pattern for the study area and that the Council would not initiate a rezone to increase the density thereof. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, lg90 Page 2 The proposal now under hearing has been presented to the residents of the area by both the applicant and staff. At the public meeting initiated by staff there was general acceptance of the small lot single family dwelling product type, as presented. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-42, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be significant environmental impacts, which can be mitigated to a level of less than significant and recommends adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-42. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration, find that this project will have significant but mitigable environmental impacts, and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-42. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 4.92 acres from R-1-7, M-H-P and I-L to R-l-P-6, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Las Brisas Del Mar (Unit No. 2) Chula Vista Tract 90-12, subject to the following conditions: a. The property owner shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements to current City Standards in Del Mar Avenue and North Glover Avenue along the entire frontage of subject property. Del Mar shall be improved to provide an 18' paved roadway westerly of the centerline. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to: AC pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water facilities, drainage facilities, street lights, pedestrian ramps, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements. b. All streets within the subdivision shall meet City Standards for private streets. Plans for said streets shall be a part of the improvement plans for the Subdivision for approval by the City Engineer. Private streets shall be paved with Portland cement concrete, 6 inches thick and be a minimum of 24 feet in width except the private street providing access to lots 26-31. Said street shall be constructed to meet the private street section shown on the Tentative Map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 3 c. Private street entrances from "C" Street and Del Mar Avenue shall be so treated as to clearly indicate that they are entrances to private streets. Design shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and Director of Planning. d. Guard rail shall be constructed along the westerly side of Street "A" adjacent to the mobile home park as determined by the City Engineer. e. The property owner shall request the vacation of North Third Avenue northerly of "C" Street. The vacation shall be completed in conjunction with Tentative Map approval by City Council. f. The storm drain shall be private except where public water is conveyed in the pipe. Location of public storm drain shall be approved by the City Engineer. g. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets shall be 4.5 feet wide minimum, measured from face of curb to back of sidewalk. h. Improved driveable access as determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to all public sanitary sewer manholes. i. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures as determined by the City Engineer. j. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. k. The subdivision boundary shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI (1983). 1. Lot "X" shall be granted to Lots 1 through 25 whereby each subsequent owner will own 1/25th of Lot X. Easements shall be granted as determined by the City Engineer. m. The property owner shall provide a minimum of one on- street parking space per residential lot as required by the City Engineer. n. Minimum curve radius for sewer access shall be 20~ to provide for sewer truck turning movements. The final map shall provide adequate area adjacent to Lot 21 to provide a driveable sewer access road as determined by the City Engineer. o. The property owner shall grant sewer and drainage easements for all public sewers and storm drains. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 4 p. The property owner shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. q. The property owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the site will drain to an approved drainage system and not impede the flow of stormwater from the mobile home park or adjacent properties. r. All buildings shall meet current City and Federal flood plain management standards. Pads shall be constructed 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation as shown on the current FEMA Maps or the developer shall obtain a Letter of Map Amendment prior to approval of the Final Map. s. The property owner shall be responsible for relocating the fire hydrant on "C" Street near Third Avenue as required by the City Engineer and shall be shown on improvement plans for the subdivision. t. The sewer near Lots 27 and 28 shall be extended to the most easterly subdivision boundary to provide gravity sewer to the upstream properties. The property owner may request the formation of a reimbursement district and a reimbursement agreement in accordance with Chapter 15.50 of the Municipal Code. u. The property owner shall obtain ownership as required by the City Engineer for all property within the 32 foot private road easement intersecting Del Mar Avenue prior to Final Map approval. Alternately, the property owner shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that easement rights exist over the off-site portion which permits the proposed use as shown on the tentative map. v. Lot "Y" shall be granted to Lots 26 through 31 whereby each subsequent owner will own 1/6 of the lot. Easements shall be granted as determined by the City Engineer. w. Parking adjacent to sewer manholes shall be located a minimum of 6' from the centerline of the manhole. x. The developer shall construct a six foot high wood fence along the common lot line of lot 26 and lots 10, 11, 14 and 15. y. An open space easement shall be granted prohibiting construction and limiting grading over a portion of Lots 26 and 27, as determined by the Director of Planning and City Engineer. Elevation 60 ft. shall be used as the basic reference point. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 5 z. Grading on lots 7, 8, g, 25 and a portion of Lot X shall be graded to drain as directed by the City Engineer. aa. On the condition that City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense, the subdivider/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approvals by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision. bb. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot within the subdivision. However, developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television company(ies) who are and remain in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Cable Company to insure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. cc. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Said landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: The open space maintenance lot(s). Wall/fencing program and details. A retaining wall shall be constructed along the southeast portion of Lot 10 and along the toe of slope below Lot 26. Style, materials, and location shall be subject to approval of the City Landscape Architect. The open space activity area at the northeast corner of A and B Streets shall incorporate an active recreation element for children, and site amenities such as picnic tables and outdoor cooking arrangements. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 6 Mitigation for removal of Eucalyptus trees resulting from construction of "A" retaining wall along Street A, as depicted on the tentative map, shall include specimen size )lanting material. The open space maintenance program shall include provisions for cleaning and trimming the Eucalyptus trees which are to be preserved. dd. The approval of a final map by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. ee. The property owner shall enter into a three-party agreement with the Environmental Review Coordinator to retain the services of a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator to fully implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program for IS-90-42. ff. The property owner shall reach agreement with the Chula Vista City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District with regard to adequate school facilities prior to approval of a final map. gg. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in Section F of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-42 are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. hh. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all common areas including landscaping, streets, driveways, and drainage systems. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as a party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration including parking limitations in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. ii. Detailed development standards which include tabulation of the exact lot size and and coverage for each lot as well as proposed standards for setbacks, building height, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall be submitted as a single document and shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. The following development restrictions shall be included within the standards: a. Lot coverage shall be limited to 40%, excluding open sided patios with an area not greater than 200 square feet. b. No additions to structures shall be permitted. c. The maximum allowable floor area ratio shall be .55 for lots of 4,000 square feet or greater and .60 for lots of less than 4,000 square feet, excluding open sided patios with an area no greater than 200 square feet. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, lggO Page 7 d. Building height shall be limited to 28 feet in accordance with current R-1 standards. jj. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall include notice that Lots 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are panhandle lots, and the development thereof is subject to site plan review and the City's panhandle lot requirements and conditions as set forth in the Municipal Code. 4. The following are Code requirements: a. The property owner shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. b. The property owner shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including, but not limited to, the Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. c. The property owner shall underground all existing overhead facilities within the subdivision and shall underground all utilities serving the subdivision as required by the Municipal Code. d. The property owner shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. Residential Construction Taxes and Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. e. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. f. The property owner shall install street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of Chula Vista Municipal Code. g. The property owner shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of Final Maps and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. h. The amount of any fees applicable to the project shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, ]990 Page 8 C. DISCUSSION Proposed project. The proposed project consists of a 31-unit, single-family residential development on 6.88 acres. The project is comprised of 25 two-story single-family detached dwellings, with double garages, on lots ranging in size from 3600 to 4500 square feet, three architectural styles are provided. This will all be within the context of a precise plan. It also includes six standard subdivision lots ranging in size from 7,000 to approximately 26,900 square feet. Two of these lots contain single family residences, which will remain with the project. The six standard subdivision lots will receive access only from Del Mar Avenue via a 32 foot wide private panhandle street, with parking permitted on one side only. These lots will be subject to the City's panhandle lot standards. Significant stands of eucalyptus trees exist on-site, and although the development will entail substantial grading and replanting, these stands will be preserved. The project has been determined to have significant environmental effects which, through project design and implementation of project mitigation measures can be reduced to a level of less than significant. These include biology, geology/soils, drainage, visual, and traffic impacts. Proper addressment of the project's mitigation measures has been made a condition of approval of the tentative map. Upon reviewing the conditions of approval, the applicant has indicated condition "A" requiring concrete street paving and condition "y" requiring an open space easement over a portion of Lots 26 and 27 are not acceptable, and will be appealed to the Planning Commission. Adjacent zoning and land use. North - I-L - Industrial center South - R-1 & R-3-G-D - Single family & multi-family East - R-1 - Single family West - M-H-P - Mobile home park Existing site characteristics. The 6.88 acre site receives access from both Del Mar Avenue and Third Avenue extended. The only access to the six lots on the higher easterly portion of the site, is from Del Mar Avenue. The primary access to the remaining lots is from the Third Avenue extension, via a private street system. The site drops sharply from east to west. The site is abutted by an industrial park on the north, a mobile home park on the west, and multiple family and single family dwellings on the east and south. There City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 9 are existing houses on lots 27 and 28. The site's topography, access and abutting land uses create significant development problems. REZONE Pcz-go-N The project site is presently zoned R-l-7 (single family/7,000 square foot lot size), I-L and MHP. The proposal includes rezoning the westerly portion to R-l-P-6 (single family/precise plan/six dwelling units per acre), and retaining the R-1-7 on the easterly portion of the site. Please see attached Exhibit A. The R-l-P-6 Precise Plan Modifying District is being employed because it will provide a means to create a better development than could be achieved under the existing zoning and traditional subdivision approach. The subject site is unique by virtue of its topography, access, configuration, environmental impacts, and traffic circulation. It is adjacent and contiguous to zones allowing different land uses. The precise plan will require a proper interface relationship with the adjacent land uses, provide flexibility for the developer, and give the City appropriate control to insure the public interest is protected through the systematic addressment of the sensitive development issues related to the subject site. TENTATIVE MAP Pcs-go-II LAS BRISAS DEL MAR (UNIT NO. 2) The tentative map is divided into two sections: Lots 1 through 25 and the three open space lots will be developed within the context of a precise plan, lots 26 through 31 will be developed as standard subdivision lots. Access to the project is provided from Del Mar Avenue and Third Avenue extended. The six standard subdivision lots will have access only via Del Mar Avenue. The remaining lots will access only via the Third Avenue extension. Internal circulation within the project will be via a private street system. Approximately 91 parking spaces will be provided on-site. D. FINDINGS - REZONE PCZ-gO-N The "P" Precise Plan Modifying District may be applied to areas within when the following is evident: The subject property, is unique by virtue of topography, access, configuration, traffic circulation, which requires special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. The easterly part of the property is much higher than the westerly portion with a steep transition area in between. Traffic circulation is constrained by the somewhat landlocked configuration of the site and its steep topography. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 10 The property to which the P modifying district is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise be incompatible. There is industrial zoning to the north, mobilehome park zoning to the west, and multi-family zoning to the south. The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. E. FINDINGS - TENTATIVE MAP PCS-90-11 Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Las Brisas Del Mar (Unit No. 2), Chula Vista Tract 90-12, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use The General Plan designates the property for Low Medium Density Residential development (3-6 du/ac). The project density of 4.5 du/ac is consistent with this designation. b. Circulation The development will be served by a local residential public street system and a private street internal circulation system, both of which meet the City standard for single family use. c. Housing - The project will provide additional single family home ownership opportunities in an established, desirable section of the City. d. Conservation The site is known to have significant environmental impacts, which can be mitigated. Such mitigation is a condition of approval of the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 25, lggO Page 11 e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will be required to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to approval of a final map. Approximately 35,000 square feet will be retained as permanent open space, in addition to an open space easement over a portion of Lots 26 and 27. f. Seismic Safety The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred geologic fault. g. Safety The site is within the General Plan standard for response time of both police and fire services. h. Noise - The dwellings will be required to meet the standards of the U.B.C. with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway The site does not abut a scenic route or gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - The adjoining public street is not a designated bike route. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned or proposed for the site. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. Pursuant to Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, development of the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 8010P/OO11Y ! I , REZONE I-L. ~ I I /' TO R-l-P-6 ________.,__,_,,__,__-. ~i .\ . ..... ~v.v.v.v.'.'.'.'.v.v.v.'.'~ v.'..1 ', !~.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.*.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' '.'.*.'.II ~, ' ~:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:-:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:v.....-~ RE~ONE M-H-P ~.'.'.v.,.'.'.v.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~ TO IR-l-P-6 ~.'.'.v.'.'.'.'.v.v.'.'.'.' ......... ! , ~ ~..:.:.:.:.:.'..'..'..'...............: I --iii BAYVIEW WAY I ~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-~ ...... IL __ ! ~ ~ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~E ......... ~' , ~I~'~'~ ~ ~ ~v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v...v.. I ! ' Z ~-.'.-.'.-,'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'['.'.'.'.'.-.'.-.'.-.'.'.'.' ~ ~- ~ ~.~-~-.E~.~.~.~ - .~,~o~ , ~ ~ ~-.~z~ ~ ~ ~ [~-~)) ~ , i ~ ~ ' SHIRLEY "C'"- ' --!. STREET I I i I I~ I I I I I I JT- I ~ s~uot[;~q'a~ W ~I¥1Ai 'I~tCI 5¥$I~Ifl 5V~I © ® r ~ I I . s~uoflogtl5~ v~/ ~VIAI 'I~O SVSIkIl~ MITIGA$.ED r~ ~ negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Las Brisas Del Mar - Unit 2 PROJECT LOCATION: Third Avenue Extension (off of C Street) and North Del Mar Avenue (APN # 563-290-04, 10, 11, 13, 14) PROJECT APPLICANT: Income Property Group 1060 Eighth Avenue, Suite 405 San Diego, CA 92101 CASE NO: IS-90-42 DATE: June 11, 1990 A. Project Settinq The 6.88-acre site is located immediately south of the intersection of Trousdale Drive and Press Lane in Chula Vista {see Exhibit 1). The site consists of relatively flat terrain on the west with an average elevation of 13 to 15 feet Above Mean Sea Level {AMSL). Site topography on the east consists of a natural 2:1 slope, with a maximum elevation of 85 feet Above Mean Sea Level {AMSL). Site vegetation consists of annual grassland, coastal salt marsh, and eucalyptus woodland habitat. A portion of the site on the north has been previously disturbed due to grading and the site is vacant except for two single-family residences on a total of .50 acres which will remain. Surrounding land uses include a mobilehome park to the west, an industrial park to the north, single family residences to the east and multi-family residential uses to the south. B. Project Description The proposed project is a 31-unit, single-family residential development on 6.88 acres. The proposal consists of 25 single-family residences on 3,600 to 4,500 square foot lots, 2 existing single family residences on 7,000 and 21,000 square foot lots, respectively, and four additional estate lots ranging from 7,000 sq. ft. to 26,925 sq. ft. Three open space lots totalling 35,000 square feet will also be provided. A total of 91 parking spaces will be provided on-site for the project. Infrastructure proposed in association with the project includes storm drain improvements at the northeast segment of the site and the connection of a new, private internal circulation system with C Street. city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF environmental review section CHULA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans The site is presently zoned Single-Family Residential {R-1-7), Mobile Home Park {MHP) and Limited Industrial (IL). The General Plan designation is low to medium residential (3-6 du/ac). Surrounding, existing land uses include an industrial park to the north, a mobilehome park to the west, single-family residential to the east, and multi-family residential to the south. The proposed project would be rezoned to R-l-P{6) which allows up to 6 single-family dwelling units per acre under a precise plan, which is compatible with the General Plan designation. A portion of the existing R-1-7 zoning will be retained on the eastern portion of the site. The discretionary actions required for the proposed project include a rezone, precise plan, landscape and irrigation plan, and a tentative subdivision map. The applicant is requesting a street vacation for Third Avenue. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 95% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The estimated distance to the nearest fire station location is 1 mile, with a corresponding response time of 5 minutes. The proposed project complies with this Threshold/Standards Policy. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department has not indicated that they would be unable to service this project, therefore, it complies with this Threshold/Standards Policy. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection -3- may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed project, as well as, the traffic analysis performed by an outside consultant and has indicated that the project complies with the Threshold/Standards Policy. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. This threshold standard applies only to residential projects. The Parks and Recreation Department has been contacted regarding this project and has indicated that with the requirement that the applicant pay appropriate Park Acquisition and Development {PAD) fees, prior to recordation of the final map. This project complies with this Threshold/Standards Policy. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards [PI. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan{s) and City Engineering Standards. The City Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and has indicated that drainage improvements will be required in conjunction with the project. With compliance to the requirements and conditions of the Engineering Department, the project will meet this Threshold/Standards Policy. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards [PI. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with respect to sewage capacity and has indicated that existing sewer lines adjacent to the site are adequate to serve the project. The applicant would, however, be required to pay all applicable sewer fees prior to the issuance of building permits. This project would meet this Threshold/Standards Policy. -4- 7. Water The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project falls within the boundaries of the Sweetwater Authority for the provision of water facilities. They have indicated that water service would be available to the proposed project, with the construction of a mainline extension to the site. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design and implementation of project mitigation have enabled these effects to be reduced to a level of less than significant. The project, as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is included as Attachment A. The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant and are required to be reduced to a level of less than significant: noise, biology, geology/soils, drainage, and traffic/circulation impacts. A discussion of each of these potentially significant impacts follows. Also included is a discussion of those impacts deemed not significant, which are visual quality and land use. Noise A noise study was conducted by Engineering-Science, Inc., in May 1990 and refined in July, 1990 to address the noise impacts created by the proposed project (see Attachment B). Particular attention was paid to the potential noise impacts to the project from surrounding land uses including a light industrial park to the north of the site. Noise measurements were taken at the site on April 27, 1990, indicating an existing ambient noise level of 52 dBA on the average. The noise study projected that noise levels between 56 and 59 dBA would be generated with the proposed project, which would exceed the City's Noise Ordinance Standard of 55 dBA for single-family residential uses for exterior noise limits. The noise study conducted for the proposed project, however, indicated a 45 dBA interior noise limit for residential land uses, in accordance with State requirements. -5- Noise measurements were taken on site at 100 feet south of the adjacent industrial park which is the primary source of noise in the project vicinity. An existing seven-foot high solid, masonry wall separates the project from the industrial park to the north and will provide some minor noise attenuation. The City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance Standards are as follows: lOp.m. 7 a.m. Receivinq Land Use Cateqor¥ to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekdays) (Weekdays) 10 p.m. 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Weekends) (Weekends) All residential (except} 45 55 multiple dwelling) The proposed project will be required to mitigate potentially significant noise impacts to a level of less than significant through the implementation of noise attenuation measures. Mitigation of potential significant noise impacts is set forth in Section F of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program {Attachment A). With compliance to the required mitigation, potentially significant noise impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Bioloq¥ A biological survey was conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. on May 4, 1990 to determine potential biology impacts (see Attachment C). The biological survey indicated the presence of annual grassland, coastal salt marsh, Eucalyptus Woodland, and sage scrub habitat on site (see Figure 2, Attachment C). Although no sensitive plants were discovered during the site survey, one sensitive animal species--the Red Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)--was expected to utilize the Eucalyptus Woodland habitat on site. This species is blue-listed by the Audobon Society and is a species of local concern. Development of this site will result in an incremental loss of habitat utilized by this sensitive species. This is considered to be a potentially significant, adverse impact, therefore, project specific mitigation will be required to reduce biology impacts to a level of less than significant. -6- Loss of approximately one-half acre of relictual Coastal Salt Marsh habitat on site is also considered to be a potentially significant, adverse biological impact and mitigation is required to reduce this biology impact to a level of less than significant. With compliance to the biological mitigation set forth in Section F of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, potentially significant biology impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Traffic A traffic analysis was conducted by P&D Technologies, Inc. in May, 1990 to assess traffic impacts associated with the proposed project (see Attachment D). The analysis consisted of collecting data to assess current traffic levels on C Street, as well as, incremental traffic impacts created by the proposed project. It also reviewed the status of current plans to improve C Street, as well as, general circulation in the project vicinity. Because the traffic study was based on a slightly lower number of units (27) than now being proposed {29}, traffic impacts will be slightly greater than what is indicated in this study. P&D Technologies placed count equipment on C Street to obtain hourly directional traffic volume data on May 16, 1990 and May 17, 1990. The specific count location was approximately 300 feet west of the proposed Third Avenue extension. The data is summarized below: Table 1 Existing C Street Traffic Volumes AM PM 5/16 5/17 Averaqe Peak Hour Peak Hour Eastbound C 1525 1430 1500 55 172 Westbound C 2069 2011 2050 192 134 TOTAL 3594 3441 35500 247 306 This represents an approximate 60/40 split between westbound versus eastbound traffic. These volumes reflect a minor increase in traffic from the previous count of 3360 in 1988. The proposed development will generate approximately 290 trips based upon the latest SANDAG rates for single family residences housing at 10 trips per dwelling unit per day. These 290 trips will access the project via the proposed driveway on the extended Third Avenue alignment. The directional distribution of project traffic on C Street is assumed to be 60% westbound and 40% eastbound based on the existing split. Peak hour traffic with the proposed project is based on factors included in the SANDAG manual. These specify the trip generation and direction (in/out) split. This data is summarized below. -7- Table 2 TRAFFIC GENERATION/PEAKING AM PM Land Use Ouantitv Trip Rate Daily Trips In/Out In/Out Residential 29 units IO/D.U. 290 4/17 19/8 The result will be an increase of approximately 170 trips on C Street west of the project driveway representing an approximately 4.5% increase in total traffic. East of the project the increase in volume on C Street will be approximately 120 ADT or 3.0%. The proposed project is associated with potentially significant traffic/circulation impacts which require project specific mitigation. With compliance to the mitigation measures as set forth in Section F of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A), potentially significant traffic/circulation impacts will be reduced to level of less than significant. A geotechnical investigation performed for the site in January, 1990 revealed the potential for significant geological impacts associated with unstable soil conditions on site. The project site consists of relatively flat terrain on the west, with steeper elevations on the east. The site elevation varies from 13 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) on the west to 85 feet Above Mean Sea Level {AMSL) on the east. Soils encountered on the site include alluvial deposits, topsoils, slopewash, and soils of the Bay Point Formation. Because of the potential for settlement associated with alluvial soils and topsoils and the unstable conditions associated with slopewash, geology/soils impacts were deemed to be potentially significant for the project. There are no active fault traces located on the site, and the Rose Canyon Fault lies 4 miles to the west. Project specific mitigation to reduce potentially significant geology/soils impacts to a level of less than significant are set forth in Section F of the document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With compliance to these Mitigation Measures, potentially significant geology/soils impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Drainaqe The project site currently lies within the lO0-year floodway boundary of the Sweetwater River. However, once the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps undergo revision, the site will be outside FEMA~s lO0-year floodplain boundary (Gena Franco, Engineering Dept.). The site -8- contains west facing slopes with two primary drainages and drainage improvements are being done on the northwest portion of the site for the Las Brisas-Unit I subdivision. The Engineering Department requires a hydrology study for any new development in the City. A hydrology study is required for this project. As part of the conditions of project approval, adequate drainage facilities will be required for this project in conformance with the standards imposed by the Engineering Department. Specific project mitigation for potentially significant drainage impacts is set forth in Section F of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With compliance to these mitigation measures, potentially significant drainage impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. Impacts Deemed Less than Siqnificant The proposed project will introduce an incremental amount of light and glare to an existing residential area. Additionally, the project will change an open, natural area to a developed parcel, thereby creating a change in the visual environment. Potential visual impacts have been deemed to be less than significant due to the urbanized nature of the surrounding area. Although there will be a loss of visual resources for residents of the surrounding areas who enjoyed the natural, open views and the visual relief the site provided, visual impacts are not significant since they are confined to a small parcel in an already developed area. No mitigation is deemed necessary for visual impacts, although visual impacts will be minimized by onsite landscaping, retention of some on-site vegetation, and creation of three, open space lots totalling 35,000 square feet. In addition, the building height and overall design will be in conformance with the surrounding community and the R-1 subdivision standards. Land Use/Community Character The proposed project would create a change in land use from a natural, undeveloped site to a 29-1ot single family residential subdivision, with three open space lots. The two existing single family residences would remain with this project. Due to the already urbanized nature of the surrounding area and the project's conformance to the R-1 zoning standards and the General Plan designation, land use impacts are not deemed to be significant. Community character will be retained through conformance to the R-! Subdivision Standards and the design standards implemented through the precise plan for the site. F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have been required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation measures have been -g- incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval for the following impacts: biology, geology/soils, drainage, and traffic/circulation. Mitigation measures are also separately outlined in the mitigation monitoring program (see Attachment A). No mitigation is required for visual quality and land use issues since they have been deemed to be less than significant. Mitiqation of Noise Impacts 1. To reduce potentially significant noise impacts, the existing seven foot high wall along the northern property line shall be increased by a total of five (5) feet. 2. Noise mitigation shall also be provided through the installation of mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all lots fronting the industrial park to the north to ensure that windows may be kept closed during warm weather. Mitiqation of Bioloqy Impacts 1. To reduce potentially significant biological impacts to the Salt Marsh vegetation, it will be required as a condition of project approval that the Parishes Glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis) be salvaged and replanted offsite. Arrangements shall be made to transplant this species onto property undergoing enhancement in association with the CalTrans project at I-5 and State Route 54 at the applicant's expense. 2. It shall also be required as a condition of project approval that drought tolerant tree and shrub species shall be planted in landscaped areas. 3. All utility lines on site shall be properly marked out on curbs to allow residents to plant additional trees without danger of damaging utility lines. 4. A qualified Biological Consultant shall be retained to oversee the biological mitigation for the proposed project in compliance with AB 3180 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for this project. The City shall select a qualified environmental consultant from its certified list to oversee off-site transplantation and to ensure compliance with the required mitigation measures of the applicant's expense. 5. Removal of any existing eucalyptus trees on site shall be mitigated through their replacement with specimen size planting materials, and their maintenance through the provisions of the open space maintenance program. -10- Mitiqation of Geoloqv/Soils Impacts 1. All of the site preparation recommendations set forth in the January 8, 1990, Geotechnical Report (Geocon, Inc.) shall be complied with to reduce potentially significant geology/soils impacts to a level of less than significant. These are separately outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Attachment A). 2. Compliance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance Standards, No. 1797, as amended. Mitiqation of Drainaqe Impacts 1. A hydrology study shall be submitted to the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. 2. All applicable Engineering Department standards for drainage shall be required for this project, including, but not limited to an erosion and sedimentation control plan, the construction of a retaining wall along Lot 10, the submittal of a landscape and irrigation plan for city review, and the approval of public storm drain locations by the City Engineer. Mitiqation of Traffic/Circulation Impacts 1. In order to help mitigate turning conflicts, landscaping at the project driveway at C Street should be low enough {30 inches maximum} to ensure clear sight distance to the adjacent driveways. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for full street improvements according to City standards in Del Mar Avenue and North Glover Avenue along entire property frontage. G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. lhe project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment or eliminate sensitive plant or animal species, with strict compliance to the mitigation measures set forth in this document and its attachments. -11- 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project would not achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, since long-term goals will be achieved through strict compliance to the Mitigation Measures outlined herein. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is not associated with cumulatively considerable impacts, since project specific mitigation has been implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project is not associated with any significant, adverse impacts to human beings. No human health impacts were identified in the Initial Study conducted for this project. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Jim Dyar, Fire Captain, Inspector Shauna Stokes, Sr. Management Assistant Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Sweetwater Authority: Engineering Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shursen, Director of Planning Engineering Science, Inc.: Arland Hale, Acoustician Applicant's Agent: Income Property Group, 1060 8th Ave., Suite 405, San Diego, CA 9210! -12- 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan EIR, 1989 Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, Chapter 19.68 "Report of a Biological Assessment of the Las Brisas Del Mar, Unit No. 2, Chula Vista, California", May 4, 1990, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Las Brisas Del Mar..." Geocon, Inc., January 1990 "Noise Study for Unit 2, Las Brisas Del Mar..." Engineering Science, Inc., May 1990. 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration obtained during the public review period. Further information regarding the environmental review process conducted for this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7942P MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Las Brisas Subdivision IS-90-42 This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Las Brisas single family residential project, in order to comply with AB 3180. This legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented on mitigated negative declarations, such as IS-gO-42. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant or significant impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for Las Brisas ensures mitigation for the following potentially significant impacts: - Noise Impacts - Biology Impacts - Geology/Soils - Drainage Impacts - Traffic/Circulation Impacts Due to the scale of the proposed project and the nature of the issues involved, the applicant shall be required to hire a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) upon approval of the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for the City of Chula Vista to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in this document. The responsibility of financing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program shall be left to the applicant. Noise Mitiqation 1. To reduce potentially significant noise impacts, the existing seven foot high wall along the northern property line shall be increased by a total of five (5) feet. 2. Noise mitigation shall also be provided through the installation of mechanical ventilation or air conditioning for all lots fronting the industrial park to the north to ensure that windows may be kept closed during warm weather. Bioloqv Mitiaation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant biology impacts on the site. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Biology Impacts will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. To reduce potentially significant biological impacts to the Salt Marsh vegetation, it will be required as a condition of project approval that the Parishes Glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis) be salvaged and replanted offsite. Arrangements shall be made to transplant this species onto property undergoing enhancement in association with the CalTrans project at I-5 and State Route 54 at the applicant's expense. 2. It shall also be required as a condition of project approval that drought tolerant tree and shrub species be planted in landscaped areas. 3. All utility lines on site shall be properly marked out on curbs to allow residents to plant additional trees without danger of damaging utility lines. 4. A qualified Biological Consultant shall be retained to oversee the biological mitigation for the proposed project in compliance with AB 3180 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for this project. The City shall select a qualified environmental consultant from its certified list to oversee off-site transplantation and to ensure compliance with the required mitigation measures at the applicant's expense. 5. Removal of any existing eucalyptus trees on site shall be mitigated through their replacement with specimen size planting materials and their maintenance shall be ensured through the provisions of the open space maintenance program. Geoloq¥/Soils Mitiqation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant Geoloqy/Soils Impacts on the site. Mitigation of these impacts will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. All of the site preparation recommendations set forth in the January 8, 1990, Geotechnical Report {Geocon, Inc.) shall be complied with to reduce potentially significant geology/soils impacts to a level of less than significant. 2. Compliance with the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance Standards, No. 1797, as amended. Drainaqe Impacts The proposed project is associated with potentially significant Drainaqe Impacts on the site. Mitigation of these impacts will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. A hydrology study shall be submitted to the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. 2. All applicable Engineering Department standards for drainage shall be required for this project, including but not limited to an erosion and sedimentation control plan, the construction of a retaining wall along Lot 10, the granting of drainage easements, the submittal of a landscape and irrigation plan, and the approval of public storm drain locations by the City Engineer. -2- Traffic/Circulation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant Traffic/Circulation Impacts on the site. Mitigation of these impacts will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. In order to help mitigate turning conflicts, landscaping at the project driveway at C Street should be low enough (30 inches maximum) to ensure clear sight distance to the adjacent driveways. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for full street improvements according to City Standards in Del Mar Avenue and North Glover Avenue along the entire property frontage. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. WPC 8038P -3- EXHIBIT 1 File No. D-3665-W04 January 8, 1990 1 VICINITY LAS BRISAS DEL CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ATTACltMENT B UNIT 2 - LAS BRISAS DEL MAR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION NOISE STUDY BETWEEN 3RD AVENUE EXTENSION AND DEL MAR AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA - 1. PURPOSE - The site topographical map and the project Tentative Map (Lambert, 1990) for Unit 2 of the Las Brisas Del Mar Residential subdivision have been reviewed to determine compliance with the City of Chula Vista noise control requirements. The following _ assessment and recommendations are provided as a result of the review and analysis of potential noise impacts on the proposed residential development due to the existing noise ,- from nearby industrial and light manufacturing land uses. Noise measurements have been conducted to document the existing ambient noise at the proposed site. Figure 1 shows the project site vicinity. The site is situated between the extension of 3rd -- Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. Existing residential commnnifies are presently located to the east, south and west of the site. On the east side are single family residences, to the south are apartment buildings, and to the west is a mobile home park. An industrial park is located to the north and is separated from the site by a wall, which from the side of the proposed site is approximately seven feet high. -- However, the wall is only about four feet high from the industrial park side, due to site elevation differences. FIGURE 1. PROJECT SITE VICINITY POSED - SlT'E FIGURE 2. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2. NOISE CRITERIA Thc City of Chula Vis~:~ has a Noise Co~!trol Ordinance (Chm'.a Vis,a, 1988) cs~.ddi>l~es an outdoor nt~isc c~ite~ia. It states thai the cxlcrio~ m~i~c exposure levc~s eventually be reduced to a Da~-Night noise level (1~.) of 55 dBA tx lc:,~ b) meda. icgulato~y ami plmming recalls. In addilio, thc clt> of Chula Vista ;c,4ulrc~ a 55 I gttidcEnc~ for interior no,se compatibility be considered (Califoi ma, i988). Thc Siatc guideline specifies thai the interior noise for residemial lan~ usc sh~:,kl *:,*t exceed Commtm~Iy Noise Eqmvalent l~vel (CN[~k) of 45 dBA in order t~ pc~mi~ rc.idemial actiG~ies. These noise limits ~ould apply to lee pro}~OScd ;'es[denii.t] [x>ise ge~erated by th: surroullding community and industrial actb. it;c... The l dn de~c[ip~r is nearly ide~tical (within I dB) to the CNEI.. qm)tcd in mao~ mt, nicip:~] state document% h)r ma~y residential communities ~3qercfore, with rcspecl t,~ the proposed development, ~he %}I~, v[,~,; c:itcr~a considered applicable: !) Exterior Noise I imll .... 55 dBA (~n or CNE[). 55 dBA (t~q, h) 2) Interior Noise timil ..... 45 dBA (Mln or CNEI.). When thc intrusive no/se exceeds these criteria within lbo prol>~sve~ r'esidcr community, means to reduce the noise impacl should be implemented. 3. EXISTING NOISE Noise measurements were omducted at the site. 100 feet south · .p~, z.,, lq90 Table 1 givcsthe resutts of the mcasu~ acre used to calculate the expected l~n, assuming no signi~2canl ii1 I}iC area ilflel 10 pm. The ~esuhanl existing I dn TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF NOISE MEASUI~]MEN'fS FOR 13tS BRISAS DEL MAR SITE (Noise Storey on Friday, April 27, 1990) S'[AR YING ENDING BACKGROUND MAXIMUM AVERAGE TIME 'YIME LEVEL, dBA' I.EVE[. dBA lEVEl, dBA' 11:57 am 12:12 )m 46.4 61.1 51.2 12:12 pm 12:27 )m 46.4 643 50.0 12:27 pm 12:42 ~m 46.4 69.0 53.8 12:42 pm 12:57 ~tn 46,4 68.1 53.5 (52 12:5v pm 1:12 ~m 46.4 00.4 SO 2 1:12 pm l:27 ~m 46.4 56.2 49,0 1:27 pm 1:42 ~m 46.4 67.2 52.{; 1:42 pm l:57 tm 47.0 59.4 49.9 (>0 5) 1:57 pm 2:12 )m 46.4 59.3 506 2:12 pm 2:27 >m 46.4 69.2 527 2:27 pm 2:42 ~m 45.4 06.4 51.9 2:42 pm 2:57 pm 45.4 63.1 '4/8 (51.5) 2:57 pm 3:12 pm 46.4 61.0 50.1 ' L90 - 00% of the measured sound exceeds this level, · ' Leq - thc c~ergy equivalent sound level. '°* I x~q(hour) During the nolsc meastlJ'cmcnt pe~io~ of seYeFal h~;Lnf, il wab ~loted lbat n~ s~gnl;'~ t:affic related nois~ was detectable al thc site. Thc d,nuiaant mnsc x, as do,: to thc indUMlia] pa~k, none of which could be cor~qdc~cd excessive dtH in~ the pe~ iod. Experience fas shown, ]lOWgVt~f, that such light industry activhies can vu:y t, ttd expected that this impact wo~ild increase in futm'e years unless !and ,.~es chat;ge significandy. Nole, however, tlm~ the measured impact is below the CTq,'~ noise cr,leri:; rcs:,iemial developments, but that a possibility exists thai it mlghl be exc,-edcd b*; acti, &:scribed by existing residents. The il2dt~strial property ~hm masonp2' wall is abotll seven feet bah on the project side Rrlti doc~ provide some noise shielding t~ benefil the proposed si~e. Altho~tgh not ~ for *t,;i~c n'itiga6op, improvemems to this wall by increas;ng its bcigh wotfld a&5' ,:;;I txfi>e benefits as well as reducing the potential visual m~p:tc; ot an 4. CONCIJiSION$ _X'oise n:casur,: merits have bce~ performed to determine lbo li~ site of t m;t 2 oflhe proposed I ag Brisas Del Mat residewlal extension ~.f ?,:'d Average aad Del Mar Avem;e in Chula Vi>?L thc mca>ur,'mcms :,im~, ti'al existiag noise level3 ~i[I not exceed il~c c< dB.X Lx-q(h ~ exterior noi<e ':hnil However, exterior noise could re'~cl~ 56 to potential i~ [:,~ mc~ e:tses from the h~dustrial park, as described by S:nce the noise impact also is bdow 6$ dBA [~, ~hc interS~r l.zln r( ~idc~ccs '~id; 5iam~:.! J ,ons~rucrion, will be belo,~ a 45 dBA imerim l .dh and CNLI ~q~en win&>ws :~re c~; ...',', ~:~ qle &~eiling units. However, ah]ce reach 50 to 5~ dBA a~ ~me, (ff in,::eased industrial park acnvilm~., tho i~veri~r wo~]!d exceed 45 dB& .,.}~,m windows are open. Accordingly, ~ AT TAC H.~ E~'!T C PSB$ REPORT OF A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LAS BRISAS DEL MAR, UNIT NUMBER 2 _ CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Las Brisas Del Mar, Ltd. 1060 Eighth Avenue, Suite 405 San Diego, California 92101 (6'~9) 234-431.6 -- Prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. _ Post Office Box 985 National City, CA 92050 Phone: (619) 477-5333 FAX: (619) 477-1.245 4 May 1990 This Biological Survey Report was prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. and to the best of our knowledge and belief, thc information contained in this document is accurate and current. R. Mitchel Beauchamp, Principal Co~t~ltant PSBS #A60 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .................................................................... INTRODUCTION ................................................................ M~THODS ..................................................................... 1 LOCATION ..................................................................... 2 FIGURE 1. PROJECt VICINITY MAP GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 2 BOTANICAL RESOURCES ........................................................ 2 VEGETATION .............................................................. 2 FIGURE 2. VEGLa'rATION Annual Grassland .................................................... 2 ]~beatus Woodland ................................................. 5 Relictual Coastal Salt Marsh ............................................ 5 FLORA ................................................................... ZOOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 5 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT ................................................. 5 Eucalvntus Woodland ................................................. 6 Annual Grassland .................................................... 6 AMPHIBIANS .............................................................. 6 REPTILES ................................................................. 6 BIRDS ................................................................... 7 MAMMALS ................................................................ ? SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................. 8 SENsmvE HABITATS ........................................................ 8 SENSmVE PLANTS .......................................................... 8 SENSrlIVE PLANI~ KNOWN FROM THE AREA BUT NOT FOUND ON-SITE ................. 8 SEaNSITIVE VERTEBRATES ..................................................... 8 SENSITIVE VERTEBRATES EXPEc:it~D TO OCCUR BUT NOT FOUND ON-SITE ............... 8 EXPELq'IzD BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ................................................ 9 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ............................ 9 LITERATURE Cf rED ........................................................... 10 TABLE 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST .................................................. 11 TABLE 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED ................................................ 14 PSBS #A60 SUMMARY A biological survey of the 6.67 acres Las Brisas Del Mar property indicated open field, relictual Coastal Salt Marsh, Eucalyptus woodland and sage scrub habitats on the site. - INTRODUCTION A biological survey of the 6.67 acre Las Brisas Del Mar property in the northern area of the City of Chula Vista was performed at the request of Las Brisas Del Mar, Ltd. The purpose of the site survey was to determined the extent of woodland and wetland habitats and impacts to that and other biological resources identified on the property from the proposed development for single family residences. METHODS The botanical portion of the survey was conducted by R. Mitchel Beauchamp on 20 April 1990. The on-foot survey covered all slope aspects, soil types and drainages on the site and adjacent properties. Particular attention was given to the wetland and woodland habitats. Vegetation categories were delineated in the field ~ and mapped on a 1' = 40" topographic map of the site. The zoological portion of the survey was conducted by David A. Mayer on 20 April 1990 from 1030 to 1145 hours. Skies were mostly cloudy with a temperature of 65' at 1100 hours; winds were 0-3 mph. Prior biological surveys of the immediate region were examined to assess sensitive resources known from the vicinity of the site (Beauchamp 1970; PSBS 1989) _ Scientific nomenclature used in this report is from the following references: vegetation, Holland (1986); flora, Munz (1974) and Beanchamp (1986); birds, American Ornithologists' Union (1983, 1989); reptiles and -- amphibians, Stebbins (1985); and mammals, Jameson and Peeters (1988). Wildlife habitat delineations generally follow that of Mayer and Laudeuslayer (1988). _ ~5/o4/~) 1 PSBS #A60 LOCATION The site is a west facing slope and adjoining level lowland situated in the Section 34, R2W, T17S, S.B.B.M. on the U.S.G.S. National City 7.5' quadrangle (Figure 1). Access to the site is by way of the Del Mar Avenue or a dirt driveway off of C Street. GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY The property consists of a generally west-fac'rog slope with two drainages. The elevational range on the site is from 13' at the northwestern corner of the site 60' on the upper southeastern knoll. Soils mapped for the site are Chino silt loam, saline and Huerhuero loam (Bowman 1973). Surficial geology mapped for the site is Pleistocene Baypoint Formation (Kennedy 1977). BOTANICAL RESOURCES VEGETATION Three vegetation categories can bc delineated on the Las Brisas Del Mar property (Figure 2). These plant associations are in response to the hydrological, soil and past disturbance conditions of the site. Annual Grassland (2.3 acres) The open field habitats of the site are largely dominated by non-native Mediterranean grasses and forbs. These plants include Crete Hedypnois (Hedypnois cretica), Smooth Cat's-ears (Hypochoeds glabra), Field Mustard (Brassica geniculata), Wild Radish (Raphanus satires), Red-stem Fllaree (Erodium cicutarium), Slender Oak (Avena barbata), Ripgut Grass (Bromus diandrus) and Soft Chess (Bromus mollis). Wild-Hyacinth (Dichelostemmapulchellum) occurs along with some relictual shrub elements of former Diegan Sage Scrub, such as Coastal Sagebrush (~4rtemisia califomica), Flat-top Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), which no doubt occupied the upper portion of the site prior to human disturbance. V~qthin the Annual Grassland area are small patches of native Purple Needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) which were probably much more extensive about the site, having been reduced in extent by past overgrazing or fires. _ o$/o~/~o 2 PSBS #A60 N - FIGURE 1. -~ PSBS #A60 ~ Eucalyptus Woodland ~ Cut/Fill: Recently Graded Areas ~7~ Disturbed Area [] Salicornia: Relictual Saline Marsh r~ AnnuaJ Grassland ~ Residential Landscaping FIGURE 2. VEGETATION PSBS #A60 Eucalyptus Woodland (2.7 acres) The site has extensive plantings of Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and Murray River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) which have started to naturalize by the growth of volunteer seedlings. Understory vegetation is nll in these dense plantings and leaf letter is very thick in places. Relictnal Coastal Salt Marsh (0.5 acre) The lowlands of the site contain an isolated relictual stand of halophilic salt marsh vegetation. The plants of this association include Alkali Weed (Cressa tru.ffllensis), Alkali-Heath (Frankenia salina) and Pariah's Glasswort (Salicomia subterminalis). This wetland occurrence ia further complicated by the presence of Deergrass (Muhlenbetgia tigens) which is not an alkaline associated grass. Other portions of the site include residential areas (0.5 acre), recently graded areas (1.6 acres), and access roadways (0.3 acre). FLORA The obse~ed flora of the site totals 51 plant taxa, 30 of which are non-native and associated with the open field, annual grassland or wetland areas (Table 1). The site flora is characteristic of near coastal, central San Diego County settings. The presence of the alkaline lowland adds an element which is common in the area but which has largely been eliminated by development. ZOOLOGICAL RESOURCES GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT Two main wildlife habitats are identified on the Las Brisas site: Eucalyptus Woodland and Annual Grassland. Additionally, the exotic vegetation surrounding the residences on-site and in adjacent areas is also attractive to several species of birds which are tolerant to human activities. Also worth noting is the relictual salt marsh vegetation on-site; however, this area ia only a remnant of the historical vegetation on the site, having been cut off from salt water influence for quite some time. Salt marshes are the preferred habitat for several spedes, particularly the sensitive Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) which was searched for but not found. As no vertebrates were detected within this limited salt marsh vegetation, it is not discussed separately as a wildlife habitat. o~/on/5o 5 PSBS #A60 Eucalvntus Woodland Although often neglected because it is non-native, eucalyptus can be of value to several species of vertebrates, particularly in the absence of other woodlands in the area. Warblers, tanagers, and orioles all feed on the nectar in eucalyptus blossoms, and tall trees such as those on the subject property serve as perch and nest _ sites for Red-tailed Hawks (Buteojamaicensis), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), and Black-shouldered Kites (Elanus caeruleus). The woodland on the subject property contains a number of sizeable and tall trees -- which provided habitat for many birds. House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) were particularly common during the survey, and three species of warblers were also noted in this Annual Grassland Grasslands tend to hold a lower diversity of animals because of the low diversity of microhabitats; -- however they are of excellent value to raptorial birds because of the excellent viewing provided of their prey. Pocket Gophers are typical inhabitants of such locales, particularly when surrounded by residential development. The relatively small amount of habitat in relation to the amount of surrounding residences, and high likelihood of interactions with humans, has probably eliminated many species such as rabbits, and larger predators such as Coyotes, Bobcats, Gray Fox. Birds such as the Western Meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), Horned Lark _ (Eremophila alpesttis), and Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) are typical inhabitants of grasslands. AMPHIBIANS No amphibians were detected and only a few species are likely to occur in the area. The California Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus) is a common resident of the area and often occurs in and around grasslands. The Garden Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus major), a secretive species which often occurs in many _ habitats including residential areas, may also occur on-site. REPTILES No reptiles were observed, and due to the lack of suitable reptile habitat such as rock outcrops, few are expected. The Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), common in a variety of habitats and often seen climbing in trees, and the Southern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), fond of grasslands and low lying -- vegetation, may both occur on-site. Also possible is the Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansbuda~a) and Western _ o5/o4/~o 6 PSBS #A60 Skink (Eumeces sla'ltonianus). Snakes are particularly persecuted by humans and many species have probably been extirpated on the property. Possible inhabitants are the Gopher Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis gem/us), and Southern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus vitidis helleri). BIRDS Seventeen species of birds were observed on or flying over the Las Brisas site (Table 2). Of these, only the Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) is considered to be a winter visitor. No species particularly associated with gi'asslands were observed; however, House F'mches, a California Towhee (Pipilo ctissalis), and three Lesser Goldfinches (Carduelis psaltria) were noted in this environment. Several species noted to utilize residential areas were observed: the Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), House Finch, and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus). In addition, Ring-billed Gulls (Lams delawarensis), Common Ravens (Corvus corax), and Rock Doves (Columba livia) were seen flying over the site. The Eucalyptus Woodland contained the ~eatest amount and diversity of avian fauna, highlighted by three species of warblers: the Orange-crowned Warbler (Verrnivora celata), Wilson's Warbler (I4qlsonia pasilla), and Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla). In addition to those species mentioned in the Wildlife Habitats section, bird species observed among the eucalyptus were the Anna's Hummingbird, Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinemscens), European Starling, Northern Mockingbird, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Hooded Oriole (Ictems cucullatus), and Lesser Goldf'mch. The Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) has also been reported from the wooded areas. No raptorial species of birds were observed during the survey;, however, hawks have been noted in the eucalyptus trees by residents and a Red-shouldered Hawk is reported to have nested in a nearby area. MAMMALS Only one species of mammal was detected on the property, the Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae). Burrows of the California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) were also detected, but it was uncertain if these represented current inhabitants. Small rodents of the genus Perognathus and Peromyscus, may also reside on the property. No rabbit droppings or scat of larger mammals, such as Gray Fox (Urocyon cinemoa~enteus), Coyote (Canis latrans), or Bobcat (Lymc rufus), were detected. These species have probably 0~/0n/~o 7 PSBS #A60 been crowded out during thc history of residential development. Other possible mammals on the site are the Striped Skunk (Mephitis) and Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginianux), two species which have been able to persist despite human encroachment. __ SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SENSITIVE HABITATS The relictual salt marsh vegetation is considered a sensitive plant association duc to the limited extant of such vegetation. The site, however, is very isolated and the value of the vegetation is principally academic in that it indicates that the floodplain of the Sweetwater River sustained such vegetation this far inland. Similar -- situation have been encountered along the Sweetwater River as far upstream as Bonita Mesa Road. SENSITIVE PLANTS No sensitive plants were found during the field survey of the site. SENSITIVE PLANTS KNOWN FROM THE AREA BUT NOT FOUND ON-St'rE The site has been known to have formerly supported a small population of Snake Cholla (Opuntia parryi -- var. serpentina), but this was salvaged by the residents when grading associated with a project to the northeast eliminated the habitat. SENSITIVE VERTEBRATES No sensitive vertebrates were detected on the subject property. SENSITIVE VERTEBRATES EXPEcT~<D TO OCCUR BUT NOT FOUND ON-SITE Only one sensitive species is expected to periodically use the site, i.e., the Red-shouldered Hawk. Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatux) LISTING: Audubon (Tare 1986) - Blue List SDNGWS (1976) - Species of local concern -- DiKrRIBUTION: Wide-spread in the east; restricted to California west of the deserts in the western United States. HABITAT:. Woodlands and, in California, exotic tree plantings. STATUS: Uncommon to fairly common resident in woodland habitats. This species often occurs in Eucalyptus Woodlands such as those on the subject property, and a pair was -- reported to have recently nested nearby. It may occasionally utilize the woodlands and grasslands on-site. _ 0~/0n/v0 8 PSBS #A60 EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS Development of the 6.7 acre site will result in the elimination of a substantial number of exotic large eucalyptus trees. Their removal will eliminate habitat diversity from the site which now allows for the presence of several bird species. The loss of these trees is an incremental regional loss of cultural tree landscape. The filling of the Iow-lying portion of the site will eliminate a half acre area of relictual Coastal Salt Marsh. Loss of this habitat is considered a significant adverse biological impact. RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS To reduce the impact of the lowland fill on the salt marsh vegetation, horticultural salvage of the Salicornia is recommended. The restoration of marshlands requires a supply of plant material such as those available on-site. Salvage of these plants would allow their reuse, most probably in conjunction with the salt marsh restoration project by CalTrans at I-5 and SR 54. To reduce the loss of landscape tree habitat in the area, it is recommended that public areas of the development be heavily planted with drought-tolerant tree and shrub species. Also all utility lines should be properly marked out on curbs to allow residents to plant additional trees without danger of damaging utility lines. Chino series soils in the relictual salt marsh area should be tested as to its suitability to sustain tree growth before being capped with imported fill. It this soil is too salty it might prevent any substantial tree growth ia this portion of the site. Because of soll compaction conditions, it may be necessary to remove the salty silts ia this area. -- o51o~19o 9 PSBS #Al0 LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds, 6th Edition. American Ornithologists Union. '-- American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds. Auk 106: 532-53& -- Beauchamp, R. Mitchel 1970. Report of the Botanical Resources of the Lower Sweetwater River. U.S. Aa'my, Corps of Engineers and Sea Sciences, San Diego. Beauchamp, R. Mitchel. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National -- City, CA. 241pp. Bowman, Roy H. 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture. December, -- 1973. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Jameson, E.W., Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 198& California Mammals. University of California Press. Kennedy, Michael P. 1977 Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Map Sheet 29. California Division of Mines and Geology _ Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Landenslayer, Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1086pp. Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1989. Biological Survey Report of the Lower Sweetwater GPA. En~neering Sciences, San Diego. San Diego Non-Game Wildlife Subcommittee. 1976. Proposed List of Spedes and Habitats Requiring Special Protection and Study in San Diego County. Memorandum to San Diego County Environmental Quality Division. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 336pp. Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40(2):227-236. o5/o4/9o 10 PSBS #A60 TABLE 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST OF THE LAS BRISAS DEL MAR SITE. HABITAT G = Annual Grassland M = Relictual Coastal Salt Marsh W = Eucalyptus Woodland HABITAT DICOTYLEDONS Aizoaceae - Carpet-weed Family * Mesembryanthemum ctystallinum L. Crystal Ice Plant G Anacardlaceae - Sumac Family Malosrna lautina (Nutt.)Nutt. ex Abram~ Laurel-Leaf Sumac G,W Rhus integrifolia (Nutt.)Benth.& Hook. Lemonade Berry W * Schinus molle L. Pepper-tree W Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Ambrosia psilostachya var. califomica (Rydb.)Blake. Ragweed G Artetnisia californica Less. California Sagebrush G Encelia califomica Nutt. California Encelia G * Hedypnois cretica (L.)Willd. Crete Hedypnoia G Hernizonia fa~ciculata (D.C.)T.& G. Fascicled Tarweed G * Hypochoetis glabra L. Smooth Cat's-Ear G lsocoma veneta var. vemonioides (Jcps.) Beauchamp. Coastal Goldenbush G * Laccuca senqola L. Prickly Lettuce G * Sonchus oleraceus L. Common Sow-Thistle G Brassicaceae - Mustard Family * Bmssica geniculata (Desf.)J. Ball. Shortpod Mustard G * Raphanus sat/s, us L. Wild Radish G Cactaceae - Cactus Family * O£unfia ficus-indica (L.)Millur. Indian-Fig G Opuntia prolifera Engelm. Coast Cholla G Capparaceae - Caper Family Cleome isometis Greene. Bladderpod G Caryophyilaceae - Pink Family * Stellada media L. Chickweed W Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family * At~qplex semibaccata R. Br. Australian Saltbush G,M * Bassia hyssopifolia (Pall.)Kuntze Five-hook Bassia M * Chenopodium album L. Lamb's Quarters M * Chenopodium mumle L. Nettle-Leaf Goosefoot M Salicomia subterminalis Parish. Pariah's Glasswort M * Salsola australis R. Br. Russian-thistle G,M PSBS #A60 TABLE 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST OF THE LAS BRISAS DEL MAR SITE (CONTINUED). HABITAT Convolvulaceae - Morning-Glory Family Calyste~a macrostegia ssp. tenuifolia (Abrams)Brummitt. Narrow-leaf Morning-Glory G Cre$$a trwdilcn~i~ H.B.K. var. wallicola Alka~ Weed G,M Falmcea~ - Pea Family * Melilotus indic'us (L.)All. Indian Sweet Clover G Frankeniaceae Frankenia salina Jtn. Alkali-Heath M Geraniaceae - Geranium Family * Erodium cicutarium (L.)L'Her. Red-stem Filaree G Maivaceae - Mallow Family * Malva pamiflora L. Cheeseweed G Malvella leprosa (Ortega)Krapov. Alkali Mallow M Myrtaceae - Myrtle Family * Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnhardt. Murray Red Gum W * Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Blue Gum W Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Etiogonumfasciculatum Benth. ssp. fasciculatum Flat-top Buckwheat G * Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock M Rosaceae - Rose Family Heteromeles atbutifolia M. Roem. Hollywood, Toyon W Solanaceae - Nightshade Family Lycium califomicum Nutt. California Desert Thorn G Urticaceae - Nettle Family * U~ica urens L. Dwarf Nettle W MONOCOTYLEDONS Alliaceae - Onion Family Dichelostemmapulchellum (Salisb.)Hcller. Wild-Hyacinth G Poaceae - Grass Family * Avena barbata L. Slender Oat G * Bromus diandrus Roth. Ripgut Grass G -- * Bromus mollis L. Soft Chess G * Cynodon dactylon (LOPers. Bermuda Grass G,M Distichlis spicata (L.)Greene. Coastal Salt Grass M _ 05/o4/9o 12 PSBS #A60 TABLE 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST OF THE LAS BRISAS DEL MAR SITE (CONTINUED). HABITAT Poac~e (continued) * Hordeurn murinum sap. lepo~inum (Link)Arcang. Hare Barley G * Lolium perenne L. English Ryegrasa M Muhlenbe~ia dgens (Benth.)Hitchc. California Deergrasa M * O~zop$is miliacea (L.)Benth. Millett Ricegrass W * Polypogon monspeliensis (L.)Desf. Annual Beardgrasa M Stipa pulchra Hitchc. Purple Needlegrasa G * - Denotes non-native plant taxa 50 Total taxa 30 Non-native PSBS #AO0 TABLE 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED ON THE LAS BRISAS DEL IV[AR SITE HABITAT: E = Eucalyptus Woodland F = Flyover G = Grassland NVMI~ER/M~s COMMON NAME SClEI~'IFIC NAME OF D~'rEC~ON HA~rrAT BIRDS Laridae (Gulls and Terns) Ring-b'dled Gull Larus delawarensis 5 F Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves) Rock Dove Colurnba livia 7 F Mourning Dove Zenaida rnacroura 7 I~ Trochilidae (Hummingbirds) Anna's Hummingbird Caly£te anna 2 E Tyrnnnidae (Tyrant Flyca[chars) Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchas cinerascens 2 E Corvidae (Jays, Magpies, and Crows) Common Raven Corvus corax 3 F Muscicapidae (Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers, Kinglcts, Thrushes, Bluebirds, and Wrentit) Ruby-crowned King, Ici Regulus calendula 1 E Mimidae (Mockingbirds and Thrashers) Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 4 F~ Sturnidae (Starlings) European Starling Stumas vulgatis 9 HE Emberizidae (Warblers, Sparrows, Blackbirds and Relatives) Orange-crowned Warbler Verrnivora celata 1 E Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 2 E Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pus#la 1 E California Towhee Pipilo crissalis 1 GE Hooded Oriole Ictetus cucullatus 1 E Yringillidae (Finches) House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 34 E,F,G Lesser Goldf'mch Carduelis psaltria 2 E,F,O Passerldae (Weaver Finches) House Sparrow Passer domesticus 1 F _ 051o4/9o 14 PSBS #A60 TABL~ 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETECTED ON THE LAS BmSAS DEL MAR SITE (CONTINUED) NUM~£a/MESNS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OF DE'rECTION HABITAT Sciurldae (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots) California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyt' Burrows E Geomyidae (Pocket Gophers) Botta's Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae Mounds E,G ATTACHMENT D P&D 'rec/~nolo~lle$ Planning 401 W 'A' Street Engineenng Suite 2500 Transportahon San Diego, CA 92101 Environmental FAX 619/234 3022 Economics 619/232 4466 Landscape Architecture An Ashland Technology Company May 30, 1990 # 10338 Ms. Mary-Ann Miller ; City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 JUN $ '1990 Re: Las Brisas Project - Income Property Group Dear Ms. Miller, This letter addresses specific circulation related issues which have been raised with respect to the proposed 27-unit Las Brisas residential development in the City of Chula Vista. The project is to be located northerly off of "C" Street west of Del Mar Avenue. Access to "C" Street will be gained by construction of the extension of Third Avenue (see attached figure). Issue 1 - Existing/Proposed Traffic Volumes A concern was raised that the proposed project would generate approximately 970 vehicle trips, representing a 25% increase in traffic volume on "C" Street. Summary: Recent traffic counts and use of regionally accepted traffic generation data indicate that the project will result in an incease of approximately 160 trips on "C" street west of the project driveway, representing a 4.5% increase in total traffic. East of the project the increase will be approximately 110 trips or 3.0%. P&D Technologies placed count equipment on "C" Street to obtain hourly directional traffic volume data on May 16 and 17, 1990. The specific count location was approximately 300 feet west of the proposed Third Avenue extension. The data is summarized below. Table 1 EXISTING "C" STREET TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PM 5/16 5/17 Average Peak Hour Peak Hour Eastbound "C" 1525 1430 1500 55 172 Westbound "C" 2069 2011 2050 192 134 TOTAL 3594 3441 3550 247 306 Ms. Mary-Ann Miller May 30, 1990 Page 2 This represents an approximate 60/40 split between westbound versus eastbound traffic. These volumes reflect a minor increase in traffic from the previous count of 3360 in 1988. The proposed development will generate approximately 270 trips based on the latest SANDAG Traffic Generator Manual rate for single family residential housing of 10 trips per unit per day. These 270 trips will access the project via the proposed driveway on the extended Third Avenue alignment. The directional distribution of project traffic on "C" Street is assumed to be 60% westbound and 40% eastbound based on the existing split. Peak hour traffic for the project is projected based on factors included in the SANDAG manual. These specify trip generation rate and directional (in/out) split. This data is summarized below. Table 2 TRAFFIC GENERATION/PEAKING AM PM Land Use Quanti _ty Trip Rate Daily Trips In/Out In/Out Residential 27 Units 10/D.U. 270 4/17 19/8 The result will be an increase of approximately 160 trips on "C" Street west of the project driveway representing a 4.5% increase in total traffic. East of the project the increase in volume on "C" Street will be approximately 110 ADT or 3.0% Issue 2 - "C" Street Improvements Concern expressed that proposed improvements to "C" Street have been discussed but nothing has been completed to date. Summary: The City indicates that construction of improvements to "C" Street west of Del Mar Avenue will begin within sbt months and is to be funded with both private development and CIP funds. Improvements will result in a Class HI collector arterial cross section similar to that fronting the Woodland Hills apartments to the west. The segment of "C" Street between North Glover and Second Avenue is classified as a Class III Collector (Residential) in the City of Chula Vista's Circulation Element. Currently, segments of the roadway from the South Bay Pioneer's driveway easterly to 2nd Avenue have substandard cross sections (see attached design standards). From South Bay Pioneers westward the roadway has been improved to its ultimate cross section. The capacity (LOS "C") for the improved portions of "C" Street is 7500 ADT. When fully Ms. Mary-Ann Miller May 30, 1990 Page 3 improved, the capacity of "C" Street east of Del Mar Avenue will be 5000 ADT due to direct residential driveway access. The current functioning capacity of the unimproved segments may be assumed to be somewhat less than this. However, current parking restrictions result in a consistent travel way of 25 feet along the entire length of "C" Street. The current traffic volume on "C" Street is 3500 ADT, which is well within LOS "C" capacity along the improved portions, and appears to be adequately handled on the unimproved segments. Project traffic will increase volume by approximately 100-150 trips. The City of Chula Vista indicates that improvements to "C" Street westerly from the Del Mar Avenue intersection are anticipated to begin within six months. These will consist of improving the cross section to its Class III Collector Standards. Because of the downslope on the south side of "C" Street which limits access to the South Bay Pioneers property, it was determined that parking was required on only one side along this segment. The result is a planned curb to curb width of 36 feet. The cross-section should be similar to that fronting the Woodland Hills apartments to the west. This cross section includes a 36 foot paved width with parking restricted to the south side of the roadway. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are provided along both sides of the road. A combination of private and public funds will be used for these improvements. Private funds from the developer of the parcel to the north of "C" Street will provide northside half width improvements. Improvements to the south side of the facility are included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Issue 3 - Driveway Circulation There was some concern regarding conflicting traffic patterns where the project driveway accesses "C" Street due to the proximity of other resMential driveways. Summary: The proposed project will add approximately 20 to 30 peak hour turn movements at its driveway access on "C" Street. This low volume of traffic should not significantly impact driveway circulation in the area. The position of existing driveways on "C" Street does create conflicting traffic movements in the area of the proposed Third Avenue extension to the north. However, the low traffic volumes using these driveways greatly reduce the significance of this situation. An attached figure illustrates the layout and an approximation of turn movements in the area for the peak hours based on number of units, type of development and directional split on "C" Street. The traffic situation at the northerly set of driveways (South Bay Pioneers and Woodland Hills apartments) would not be expected to change. The proposed alignment of the project driveway would place its centerline approximately 12 feet east of the centerline of the Canterbury Court driveway which is located on the south side of "C" Street. In order to help mitigate turning conflicts, landscaping at the project driveway at "C" Street should be low enough (30 inches maximum) to ensure clear sight distance to the adjacent driveways. The project's addition of 20 to 30 peak 1/3 WOODLAND HILLS 1 ~ APARTMENTS 2~ ~ SOUTH BAY PIONEERS ~, 3/1 9/5 "~ j~ 3/2 14/7 3117 1/4 AM/PM PEAK HOUR 1 TURN MOVEMENTS 2/8 PROPOSED LAS BRISAS 7/3 x~ 2/1 1 lO/5 SKETCH . ~,.12/12 12/12 NOT TO SCALE Ms. Mary-Ann Miller May 30, 1990 Page 4 hour turn movements at this pair of driveways should not significantly impact driveway circulation in the area. Issoe 4 - "C" Street/North Gl0ver Avenue/DMV Driveway Intersection Some concern was expressed by councilman Moore regarding the traffic circulation in the vicinity of the intersection of "C" Street, North Glover Avenue and a driveway serving the Department of Motor Vehicles facility. Summary: Based on observations of traffic in the area, this intersection is somewhat congested at midday due to the heavy turn movements associated with the DMV facility driveway. Traffic associated with the proposed Las Brisas residential development will have a minor effect on traffic circulation at this intersection and it will peak at differing times. The intersection of "C" Street with North Glover Avenue is clearly configured and it has good visibility. In order to improve circulation for its customers, the DMV could consider the possible closure of this driveway. This would shift turn movements away from the "C" Street/North Glover intersection to an under utilized DMV driveway located approximately 200 feet to the north (on North Glover Avenue). In addition, the sight distance is better for vehicles entering/exiting the DMV at the northerly driveway. Sincerely, P&D TECHNOLOGIES Arnold Torma, T.E. Director of Transportation AT:kw cc: Aaron Mann, Income Property Group 7. CLASS III COLLECTOR STREETS Design ADT 7,500 No driveway access to single-family homes. 5,000 with driveway access to single family homes Minimum design speed - 30 mph Curb-to-curb 40' Right-of-way 60' Haximum grade 12% Minimum curve radius - 450' with no superelevation Class III collector streets also circulate localized traffic as we¥3 as distribute traffic to and from arterials and other collectors to access residential areas. Class III collector streets accon~odate low volume levels and the use of this facility as a carrier of through traffic should be discouraged by its design. No driveways to single-family residential homes are permitted except in areas where the traffic volume-does not . exceed 5,000 vehicles per day. However, access to common driveways serving planned residential developments are allowed. Minimum distance between centerline of intersections shall be 250 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Parking on this facility shall typically be allowed. Nowever, parking at critical locations may be denied as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. If a bike lane is to be provided om this Class III facility and parking is to be retained, an additional l0 feet of right-of-way will be required to allow for a lO-foot widening of the roadway cross section. LANDSCAPED 60' I:~ BUFFER AREA LANDSCAPED EASEMENT '~ ,5.5 20' ,.~--- B U F FE R AREA ~ ~ 4.5' 4.5' M 2% CLASS III COLLECTOR * Landscaped slopes greater than 5:1 may be acceptable as determined by the Director of Plannfng. 5ooeC~: Crr'f oP Cvn~-n V, sm -9- 2,76 Fourth Avenue ~;uis Vista, CA 92010 Ret: Case Nm. Io ~L. Nef~renced case has F~ou~gted the development ~' a +r'e~ ~ of single family home~; legated st the Third Avenue Extension ~ofl Street} ane ~o .... ~ Del Mar Avenue, These are ou~ comments ~nv~te~ by .... notice of initial study, The most =,ien~ ].c~n ~ cc)noern about thle proposed pro~ '~e* is that ~o~_n ...... ,., , Street as a rest!+ mi epeninf~ ~ ~ Those concerns, ainnS with ~=- ~ ~ ehe ci~v council on ~une 6 1966 re~'~rdJn~ a p · 1 .... 1°'~a] the utilization ol thi~ ~mro~t~p_, y. At the .]~'"'m 14, 1.'J88, m~etin~', the staff was dire:ted to prepare an Jn depth tra~fi,:: analveis in response to ~he Plann~nS Departmenf report rege. rd~ng th.at project. The repork, which lncluded ~ field {r~p with Acton, wac del ivered c}n Aug'ust ].6, ~98~. Pertinent porz~on:~ that '-~ + ' project would generate approximately q;~0 veh!i]e %ripe per m=nlmmi, ~ra~f~ impact in termm saluter congestion, or delays wou~d {Our ) Cogent: However, the traffic volll~ already exceeded design capacity and the 970 trips represented a 25% increase in usage~ T~ ~ .~. a,= study. Se~ e ~ Con,-:ern .... ~e:. ,,r,,.. street from ~_:.oe ..+m,..~.~ Bay P~nneers. %0 Second Avenue on the south side for for that ~.~ter, the north side, does not have curbs ando~]]+%emc' or sidewalks and is not wide enoush for existins traffic. <Staff) Response: I~, ~,~ty's .-l-~- . Program (CIP) imf FY ~998-6,9 ln,=l_ ...... an improvement 'C' Street h~ front o~ P~oneers property, !oc~eed ~n the vicinity of Del Hat Street and is scheduled construction this _ ]sca~ 7-a ..... ~ Del Hat Street to Second Avenue be in~l ~let ~n the next '~ 8~ _ ~) P with -on,etruetion fiscal year (l e- ---er 31 ~ in the near luture. By improvJnS ~nd widenJDpi "C" Street between~ o~,~'-~-_ .~ ~ property to Seceded Avenue, the saiety Page {_o:r~m_n~=: None 0£ these have been acc:omplLL~he,~ ae of this date. No ~ddit ional development senerat i ns vehicle~ra=~:~IC' directly on~o "(3" Street should be ,~D~ oF_d~F~~ '~ untfll the City of Chula Vista,_~mmi.,~ ~,.e~,~e=~ ~h~m ........ ~=. The existin- driveways on "C" m' ~ ~ ~.n.~ vieinity west of OeJ Mar Street (specific~l.Zy t~e S"PN Street '~';ioneers,'6anterburv~ Court [east] dz-ivewav~., ~'=-~,,,~ conf lietinS trafficpatterns._ Cons%rust ins North Third Avenue to "C" Street will add to the oon~licts. ~ ~ street {he exist inS believe that ,.h_ construction of a ,~ra~naS_ easement to North Glarer Street instead n~ on ,~treet would provide better ac~lese North Third Avenue to "C" o to the area ~s]_~_:. proposed ~or rezon~ne . ~,~.~ff, Response: ~'~. ~ ' ,,c,, Stzeet do crea{e conf] JctinS + ; ' - :~ [~xhibit B , However, openinS Third Avenue driveway oft o~ l'hJrd Avenue extended woul~d .... ~ '~ conflict problem see Hxh,. ,l . ~, P_rm] ..... on item ~,. ,~,.r_ ~ must be obtained ~e~ property owner at go~ 'C" o+ ~+ ~,=~ this cmn be imp]emented,~ ~xtendlnS a o~r_ , to N~,~ ,h Glarer would result in a sight dj=: an_.~i problem. (Our) Common{s: As, indicated in another section of this report, we ~o~ur w~th the staff ~e~o~nd~%~o~, on this item. However, we must emphasize Shat · '~ ~ with the proposed proJ (°t=~ ' Conclusion: The Del Mar and "C" Street a. rea. has existing tralfle shortcomings wh~oh need improvement. {;.5'~c~ ~'ezonl~} of the subject property would not have an tra~!ic. By ~kinS ~mDrDv~m~nts. l _ _ _ noted, the a~ ...... tra~ (Our} c'~, ~'+ ..... ,~h~ ,~ the ~ ~ ~ of ..... m~ ....... ~e ~ ~OT agree ~ ~* ~e ..... l~men, additional housinS units feedinS dir~,ot],~ onto Ihere were S,,~0 vahinleE per day on "C" S%reet west Second Avenue ~n ~{~e' those have increased since, only ~ccept~ble solution is for the City of Chulm Vista to co~ete the projeot~ ~n~ioned previously thmt ~uld ~ke "C" Street mn mcceptmb)e width with sidewmlks and minimum conflictin~ trn~fic patterns. Anotherpoteneia!_ _ impact of this proieot ~s that of -c~ overcrowding, Both ~,o=~_ba.k and ~h .... Vista ir High schools are ~ireadv ..... e~ns above capacitl/. ~osebank -' o+ place more po~ {~b~e classrooms on %he fa,_ ..... y, Fhere ~ .... ~ add[~ ~onal ~-_~lhmoie we~t of {-S0~. TNJ s, com~J ned w~th other Pass 2 adc]itiona] studentm tend to create an lmn. osel'~lm~ ~=~ ~uc-~]on.~ A +h~q ~lonl a.t problem is that of water resources. With the County of San l)ie~o ~aeing ~ + · t~ ~ =+~ ' +~'~ .... ~ futu~e, an a.~.itlo~.a~ ~0 housing un,ts "here and there" cmn only ~e ~.~pr~aimt~ ..... the ~ppo~ ~+~un~ty .... for presenting ~.nr comments on thie proposed development and suggest that the improvements fin "C" any. si snii icant ~ mpa._. · ~' .~ before a Nesat ire DeelaFat ion be ~an,es ~ Actmn narrzet F. A~ ...... Page PRI V£NX/Ay. ~ ~, m x - lID ~$ "C" ST. -- DRiVEWAy ~' D~IVEWAy ~ Z ~ H. bEL~RR ~V z m ~ _ DRIVEWAy NDE ...... fri erld, v~ol]:.: E; ?or t he ',:~:~ef' dl st?i Ct 0 T' :~;~i Fi-Qf]C i E,C C ...... ~ ha?vK5 E~iiet~''-' .................... it'! ,~i~,-, ,t. ODS -" t?~e 't_~ii (rees i h,]i.e *,-, _ t,-ql t,-,=o :,., ,.,.._,. .i beiono to ,~'or,,...,o.,]~_ for Tcees tr~u'- - ' ore (l-Ui !'lc ! f:. i'iO W V¥ i [ t't i t-e 0 W,] U:S, * ~ ........... ,]Hij t{i~ .... _'-] :~ ih]S ('iOFth C n i}]O'...et- iiE the olleus Olio i. hf'oLiQF~ U'!6 'F':3rK ' ThOSe "' in th~ li~dusU-~s! D6KK C,3r~ Dat4~;e ,JiI!-~'iO G Harch 25, 1990 Enviromental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca 92010 Dear Hr. Douglas D. Reid, This is in regards to the Initial Study, to see if the project for 31 homes on the Third Avenue Extension (off of ~C" Street> and North Del Nar Ave. will have a significant enviromental impact. Frankly I think all you have to do is look at the many times this has already been discussed. In fact in December of 1987 there was a plan to put 35 multiple family apartments in this area and the city council said it was too dense & sent it back for review. How this plan calls for 31, with most of them on tiny lots of 3,600 (60 ftx 60 ft> to 4,500 sq ft (50 x 90 ft). This destroys an R-I area, particularly one with houses on lots at least twice that big. Besides that the City zoned it R-1 10 years ago with commitments fom City Council it would remain that way. When my area joined the City, Honorable Hayor Cox and City Councilman Hoore made a commitment it would remain R-1. We joined on February 14, 1984. ! don't think the City would allow me to buy a 60 x 60 square foot lot and put a house on it in a nice R-I residential area. Our area is a pennsiula, seperated topigraphically from the lower,commercial areas. Traffic is very heavy down ~'C" St with cars traveling well over the 25 HPH speed limit. It has increased significantly with the high density Canterbury Court and increase in the South Bay Pioneers. Hany, many apartments are being built on fourth and on down "C" a very high density apartment/condo complex is being built. These are in non ~-1 areas surrounded by commercial areas and the traffic is goin9 to be just like Los Angeles. We don't need this in our residential area. To get access to this new development access would have to be on "C" or Del Har. Access from the lower commercial area would allow more outside traffic to come into this area. If you look at those two accesses you can see 31 units is ludicrous on this small area. We would like to maintain our area estheticaly, our quality of life, our value invested in where we live. I am not sure you can measure that is your Initial Study. You can however measure it in the time and time again the neighborhood has met with City Council and they have consistently agreed this is too high a density. Therefore I ask that you go back through the records of the City Council and Planning Committee meetings and discussions to see why this is such a particularly detrimental plan to the neighborhood, the community and the City. Sincerly, -~. £ Batterton 209 Nixon Place Chula Vista, Calif. 92010 ~ "'- FOR OFFICE USE ~' Case No. INITIAL STUDY Recei~ Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. ~y~- ~-~7~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Las Brisas Del Mar - Unit 2 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Third Avenue Extension (off of "C" Street) and North Del Mar Avenue Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 563-270-29 and 563-290-14, 10, 11, 13 & 04 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Development includes 27 sin~le-famil~ homes on 3,600-4,500 sq.ft, lots, 3 SFR on 7-8,000 sq.ft, lots, and one estate lot. 4. Name of Applicant Las Brisas Del Mar Address 1060 Eighth Ave., Suite 405 Phone 234-4316 City San Diego State CA Zip 92101 5. Name of Preparer/Agent sa~ a~ ~bnvP Address Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project X Rezoning/Prezoning X Tentative Subd. Map Annexation __Precise Plan X Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). X Location Map X Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report X Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study X Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan X Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or X Soils Report Other Approvals Required - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 290~545 or acreage 6.67 ~'~ If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family. X Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 30 - 2 stor.y~ 20 - I story c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 2 3 bedrooms 27 4 bedrooms 3 Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 4.95 e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication~:95(no public dedication f. Estimated project population 82 g. Estimated sale or rental price range $185,000 - $280~000 h. Square footage of floor area(s) 1,600 - 2,100 sq.ft. i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures~pproximatel$ 13% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 91 k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 10% (streets and parking) 3. Complete this section if project is ~ommercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. N/A 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? t6~000 yards b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 16~000 ,yards c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?Approximately 219~500 sq.ft, d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 7 ft Average depth of cut 7 ft Maximum depth of fill 10 ft Average depth of fill 5 ft - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 15,000 sq.ft. 5. If the project will result in any emplo~ent opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A 6. Will highly flan~nable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? N/A 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 264 8. Describe (if any) off~site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Connection of a new private road with "C" Street. Public utilities t~'~ Del Mar Avenue, "C" Street, N. Glover Avenue. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property?See Soils Report (If yes, please attach) - Has a Soils Report on the project site been made~ Yes, attached (If yes, please attach) ' -- 2. H_ydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Yes (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? Existing storm drain improvements at northeast corner (Las Brisas Uel Mar - Unit 1~ -- - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. New storm drain system to be installed outfalling to N. Glover Avenue (see Tentative Map) 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? No 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Yes b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which {if any) will be removed by the project. Tree Survey attached 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? Nn 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. 2 existin~ sinqle family residences - to remain - nth~rwi~P undeveloped b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North LiQht Industrial - Multiple Buildings South ADDroximatel¥ 60-70 Apartment Units East $inqle Family Residences West 160-unit Mobile Home Park 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) Yes - 4 b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? IIf so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation oF the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow~-' Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: /~..? ~ ?, /q' q' u *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case NO. ~-~-~-- CTTY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use ~eslgnation on site: North South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~':~ ~ ~ ~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ?~ ~ ~ ~' <. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~ ~ .. ,', ~.~ ~..~ · Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -9- 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary j2~,~ ~L- ~ ~. ~ Jr. High ~-'J~P'-~' 15'~'~ I~O (~¥,_~.j Sr. High ~VH~ l~7~ J~ ~ Z~ 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe. ) ~ 5. Ener~ Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) £oo Natural Gas (per year) ~ Water (per day) 6. Remarks: D,rector of Planning o~,resenta,~i~ Date -10- Case No. ~-TO-q~- G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? i~s~ ~ b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~zq~ ~ss~e.~o~. ~ ~sT ~ e. Are they aSequate to serve the project? ~s ~e~s~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? I E5'~ ~-lo~-~b~-~ ~u~--l(~:t~o~T g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~o. ~ 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~d~-Z6~L-~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After L.O.S. ~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ]~-~ ~o~aS c~w ~£ ~c~¢~ ~t~ ~.~ m~ ~u, e. Will it be necessary that additfonal dedfcation, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ")~ If so, specify the general nature of the ·necessary actions. ~ ' -ll Case No. ~ ~o~d,.-'~., 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards?)°~_co~.~ Liquefaction? ~ co~ ~L/ Landslide or slippage? ,~o~ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~ G~q~,c~L 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~op~ )~ ~co~~o~S b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~ 5~o-r~-cu.~c~(_ ~o~-T ~s ~v_6e~e-~p 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? ~-7~ [ ~ b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~olo [z~ ~ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant ennuqh to justify that a noise analysis be required · of the applicant? ~Ao ~i~w[c~.~T ~9~c-~ ~s - 12 - Case Ho. I% 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) ~c)O X 20.0 = ~ omo Particulates ~_ X 1.5 : Sulfur X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid '-~0 "-l:f' ~DN~ Liquid '"7 c::/~'0 What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~"9~C%E~L~U~ ~ ~om~,~ ~mT~e~ Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any .public street, sewer, culvert, erE. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures -~k~l '/~e~.. ~r~ ~ "~" Sq. ~ ~ ~,>~ ~- ~-0.~. CI~y ~gine~ b~esenta~ive - -13- Case bio. ~-¢0 H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? / ~,~_ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? /~ ~ 3. Remarks ~co ~,J~ ~,~_ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ Fire shal Date z / -13(a)- Case No. H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood ~9~,~,.~] ,/~.~!~~ Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative N N ::: '" N - - 0. n <7 ~ ::< nLC ~ n C> .. '" '" ~ c::. .., It! 0 , _. ~ 30 VI c::. 0 ::: ~ 0. C::~C- < ~ ~ -1""1'-0.. rl .....~ ~ C 1'D!tI....'Or+...,...·O ~ '00.-+ 0 Q,I 0 rlrlO rl ~"rl " U ~ c:.,.....:::r:a- u 0 :3....:::ro ....... ....., :::r .....::) 0 -'I'D n I'D ....00 ""0 0 rl rl -0 '0 Q,o ....0.0 , ~ 0..........11) -to.....ooø.c..Co.!tI ::J.g~.....~~ ~ ~ ~ , ............:::r ;' ~~ 11>0.3,..,.., 0 '" .....1'1) n VI tbrtl ::¡....·....rtI..·V\ ~ '< < ::J ::J It! ~ ~ ItI ........"" .... U , n " nn ~ , < 0' O~ 0..0 ~o. 0. r1'cu.....,1I> 0 U ~rl rl ........:( n..... ØI ........ I'D 0. VI.....::J < r+ ....c::: .... ~ C ~ ~ C 0<7 ....røo.,.:' ~ ~ n V\:( :::r VlVI...·r+:::rUo..:::r ::J :3 \D 11) :::r < ~ " ItInfOrtI n ,- n .... c. 0 ~ ~ rt ....I'D rl I'Þ _c: 1'1) 0..0 ....'0. (1) ~-~ ~ ..........n .., ~ ~ 00 c 0 ;;; rl -0 - 00 :::r "" ~~ c:: ......::101....11'I , _. 0. .....:::::10< 3 ~ :3::J .-+11I...... '<::J -'''0 ~~ ., ...·-.)-0 .., nit> :::r'O ~rlU 1b1D::J .... ~ ~ _. 0._0 .. , rl~~ -, I'D ~.;;.... ~ ~ Ó -.,< , ~ n 0. n ~ ~ . ~ ~ "n 0 U 0 " n '< 0 rl 0 ~ .......·OIrtI rl ~ rl rl _. " ~ ~ c: Do,"",. .,.....ttI n., - ..... :( 3 ßÞ 0 rl~· '< 0 t...... ~ o ~~ "1 3 ~ ....::J 0 tT < 3 C ~ O::T ol'Dn-ß\ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~~ ~ , 0 ...·Vltt> 0 ~~n r::r I'D I'D ::I 3 c::.... n -. , ~rln 0 n 0 ~- ~ , ~ ::Jr+-.....)C ~ ~ rl ØI ., .....\1'1 I'D 3 3 r+ -' I'þ r1' < tþ rt -.rlrl ~ CU.o ~~ ~". ~u < 0 .........::J c...· ....~;-~~.~ :::r " Q,l1'D ., II: ~ , ~ ~ - ~ C7V1 = -n '()a.............:::r rl~ " ~ ::I 0 .... ~ ~ uno .. ~ C ~ RlCnlf Q,lQ,I!tIØI ~ ~rl 0 ~ " ~ VI n '-'.., n ~ I'D ttlßI VI _0< .,.....,-....0.< .... -....I'D::I.... < ~ ~ < ~ .....(1) tb I'D '<n < VI VI .... ~~~ .......,VlØI .. o I'D <::J 30 I'D ~ .. ~ ~ n3 ~ "rl 0 ~rl ".. O~< ~ < ~ .. < ::I&:Lor+ttÞ ~ :;:1....-:;:) ~ ~ .. r+::J 0 .........I'D C7"". ....-.........::10""1'.... :::I...·Go -. ....::J VI:::::I < < rln~ . ~ ~ c::........"'..........c3 :::To'< ., ....:::r '::r < , ~o. rl ~ _. ....::J 0 rl < ., I'D'<.....'O .. ~ 00. I'D tb .......0 '0 n rl~ nrl o a.n ., ~ ......... ttI'O'O:(n "" 10 CT::I..... , ~ 0 ~ n n " "" ~~- I ...·41 ., .,ø.:::rr+nnn -.' , 3 o.u 03 rl ~ Q,o 0 ØI 0 ~ ~" rl N rl-O 'OOVlI'tIVlOc::r+ c: r+ .....~!,O ...·0 ~.. ~ n ::JC......... rl~ ~. c." " ~ .., c.........::J ::J:3 1/'1 ...I'tIIb:;:lOI/'l'" 3 ~ ~ .. rl- -~ ~ ~... C> .. ~ 3 o ~ o~c ~~........~~~ ..rlrl o.<rl 0 n~ I ,0... c....n,o < .........._:[ ~. ~. - 0" ~ ~ CI::r1.Cl .., < ~ Ib ,... , .... o.~ " .. ....'" < ... rl ~ I'tI ::r C Ib 3 n ~. .. c... rl nI/'lO~cul'D"""'" ....0.'" ...,) Q .... ~o - <~- u.. n 3 ~ ......, cu rl e....::( ::J .., ...·n _3" ~ ~ , I'D < 0.'0 -, ........·r::;rlb , ~- lllCU1'D1'D cu<::r U -.0 rl- rl -.. , ~"' o.ncQ .... ::J n c...... 0"1'tI ø.....::J-Q no ..,J ::ro ~ .. f'tICU"'''' n .. _0..... ::s --0. n ::J I'D >.0 ... " cu Ole.... ~~ ~- .. rl -. . ....Q.I'tI'<.., rl _. .. 0 ,0. < ~ n rl~~ ~ ... :3"" I'D ",...:tV! rl" .. n '< 00 '< .. ::r.-+ <'3n ....::r::r ~~ ~rl 00......... n I'D :::rn ...·Ib 0 < ...·0 ~. , .., 0 rl I'D 0 Q..CU::J .. n , -~ ~ , ~ ::JC::31 "rl 0. .;¡ ~~~ .. ..- n I , 1 I I~ I I I I ~ , 0 '\ ..., I 1 I I I I '" z ..., >- .- K K K J"\ 1"- 1\ 1\ Ii'< , , . - q. ....... .' ~ , . 0 .. w .. ... n , 0..... -I ~ 0 ." nw ..~" '" 0 ~n" e ~ -·0 .. "', -. '" ~ ~~ 0 n rl . \£' . 0- ..., ,- n ~ 0 '" -£' f f. o rt':;;: '" ::31b.... < ~ o.~ ;;; rl ~ .. _. - "0'" 0 n ~.. z ~OO ~ .... c...... o rl" 0 c.." ì"'I ° "n '" , . "rl 0 ::< , ~ 1:. ...".. :; .... I ~~ 00< - '0 c........... C> N ~,-r ....~ >- ..... ., n...· ..., . I .. rl 0 Õ rl ~ N '"; C- ....Q VI Z ~ Ä: o ~ ~ 0.0 ::< , 1- f 0...., '" >- "..... "",,==.'3 ~ ~ (i-' ....:::;:;.. '" '" ~~.~tT~· '" ~ _ P "'0 I'tI ~ r [ , -_. 030 c......'t:J::3 ..- r nI'D3 rl3" ~ ....~ n ~~- .., , ·'1 ~~ _.< " ~ .. '., I,Q &-. C" <"- ~.. ~ "... "0 . - - ---_.- CHULA , iSTA CITY SCHOOL JISTRICT 84 EAST "J" ~ULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARDOFE~TION March 23, 1990 J~EPH O. CUMMINGS, ~,D SHARON GILES P~R~K A. JUDD JUDY~HULENBERG F~NKA.~RANTINO Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator SUP~m~EN~NT City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ~^~ 2 8 1~90 JOHNF. VUGRIN. PhD. Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No. IS-90-42 Las Brisas Del Nar CV Tract 90-11 33 Single Family Homes Aaron Nann Dear Mr. Reid: This is to advise you that Las Brisas Del Mar is located within the Chula Vista City School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established attendance area boundaries and transportation services. The proposed project is located in the Rosebank attendance area. This facility is overcrowded and the District has added three relocatable classrooms and one trailer to the site to accommodate growth. Overcrowding is anticipated to continue and the District is unable at this time to advise the City of Chula Vista or potential homeowners which school children from Las Brisas Del Mar will attend. Other schools in the area are also at capacity and students may be required to attend schools in other locations in the District. School assignments may also be based on individual student needs, special programs or the District's integration goals. The District provides transportation as set forth in Board Policy #3542 (copy enclosed). Please be advised that developer fees currently allowed under State law are inadequate to provide facilities required to serve this project. The District would be glad to discuss alternative financing mechanisms including, but not limited to, annexation to Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 5. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Steve Griffin Aaron N. Mann CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ~OARD POLICY ~3542 Authorized Minimum Distances for Bas Traus[~ortation_ The following are the minimum distances children ia different grades must live from school to have bus transportation provided: _Grade. Distance. 3/4 mile Kindergarten I mile Grade 1 Grades 2-3 1¼ mile Grades 4-6 1½ mile For reasons of safety, the Superintendent or designee may make indi~-idual · exceptions to these distances. LEGAL REFERENCE: POLICY ADOPTED: 7-1-60 Reviewed and readopted: 2-11-63 AMENDED: 6-1-76 - - CITY OF CHULA VISTA . DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 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: J. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. lPG/Residential Development Inc. La Jolla Bank and Trust Naimco - Clairemont, Inc. Alfred and Antonia Welker Aaron Mann Zimmerman Trust, et al List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. lPG/Residential Development, Inc. Alfred and Antonia Welker Naimco - Clairemont, Inc. Zimmerman Trust, et al Aa ron Mann 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. lPG/Residential Development, Inc.: Naimco - Clairemont, Inc.: W. Major Chance, Ronald J. McElliott, Gary Naiman Daniel A. Moriarty, Jack L. Rowe, and Aaron N. Mann 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the name s 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, COfTl11issions, Conmittees and Counc iJ with in the past twe I ve months? Yes No -L If yes, please indicate person(s) - Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, th is 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 as necessary ¡LAS BRISA~ DEL MAR LIMITEDj a California Limited . partnershlP, By Its Genera Partner ~y: _I PliJ KtSl DENT rnL "TIE VEt ., a - Ca Ii forn i a corpor . WPC OlOIP A- 110 PrTn City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-91-A; Consideration to prezone 68.30 acres south of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road between Paseo Ladera and Rutgers Avenue to A-8 Agriculture Zone City initiated A. BACKGROUND The proposal involves the prezoning of 68.30 acres of presently uninhabited property located south of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road between Paseo Ladera and Rutgers Avenue to A-8 A§riculture zone. The site is currently zoned County A-70 {Limited Agriculture). The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted Initial Studies IS-88-19, IS-88-76, and IS-88-79, of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Based on the attached Negative Declaration and addendum and comments therein, the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and Addendum issued on IS-88-19, IS-88-78, and IS-88-79. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies, Negative Declaration and Addendum, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration and attached addendum issued on IS-88-19, IS-88-76, and IS-88-79. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council prezone 68.30 acres to A-8 as shown on Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION The proposal area consists of two irregular shaped parcels of land which runs along the south side of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road between Paseo Ladera and Rutgers Avenue following the top of the slope improvements and includes the area of road widening, drainage channel, and incidental slope improvements currently under construction. The proposed prezoning and subsequent annexation of the property will allow the City to administer construction authorizations and acceptances, and to ultimately maintain the facilities without cumbersome agreements with the County of San Diego. The prezoning would place the property in the A-8 Agriculture zone and is presently zoned County A-70 {Limited Agriculture). City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page 2 The land use to the north of the proposal area is predominantly residential consisting of attached and detached single-family homes. In addition, at the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road, there are 240 Navy housing units. The land northeast of Otay Lakes Road is zoned Planned Community (P-C). This zone provides for the orderly development of large tracts of land which may contain a variety of land uses, but are under unified ownership or control. The area south of Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road, formerly the Otay Ranch, is currently undeveloped and is zoned for agriculture. Since Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road is classified as a scenic highway, the Open Space element of the City's General Plan proposes that slopes on either side of the canyon will be maintained as open space or as an agricultural preserve which is consistent with the A-8 Agriculture zone proposed for the site. The County A-70 use regulations are intended to create and preserve areas intended primarily for agricultural crop production. Typical uses permitted in this zone include: family residential, essential services, agricultural uses and limited packing and processing. The City A-8 use regulations are intended to provide a zone with appropriate uses for areas rural in character, which are undeveloped and not yet ready for urbanization. Typical uses permitted in this zone include: one single family dwelling per lot, agricultural uses and public parks. Based on the above discussion and the fact that the proposed A-8 zone is very similar to the existing County zoning of A-70, we recommend approval of the request. WPC 8016P ADDENDUM TO FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-88-19, IS-88-76 AND IS-88-79 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. EXISTING PROJECT The proposed project will widen a length of Otay Lakes (north-south) and Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road (east-west). The north-south segment improvements include installation of asphalt pavement, 6-inch concrete curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the east side of Otay Lakes Road. The street will be widened to a curb-to-curb width of 85 feet at the Otay Lakes Road-Telegraph Canyon Road intersection. The street sections will be prepared so that further north on Otay Lakes Road will have a curb-to-curb width of 74 feet. The existing width of Otay Lakes Road (no~th-south) varies from 67 feet at Telegraph Canyon Road to 66 feet at Apache drive. The limits of the Otay Lakes Road (north-south) improvements extend from the centerline of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to 159 feet north of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 1,015 feet. Limits of the proposed widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road (east-west) extend from approximately 200 feet west of Rutgers Avenue to approximately 500 feet east of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 3,400 feet. The toe-of-slope of the fill required for the widening will encroach upon the existing natural drainage channel to the south of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. Therefore, a naturalized drainage channel will be constructed. The channel which roughly parallels Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road is known as Telegraph Canyon Creek. The proposed project will relocate the channel adjacent and parallel to the new Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road alignment. Expanded Project The proposed project is to expand the existing project to include a partial boundary determination within a Special Study Area of Chula Vista~s Sphere of Influence, and annexation of a small irregular shaped strip of land consisting of 68.30 acres of uninhabited agricultural land which runs along the south side of Otay Valley/Telegraph Canyon Road following the top of the slope improvements. The strip of land is divided into two parcels and can be more precisely described in the attached plat drawing and legal descriptions {Exhibits A and B). The 68.30 acre area is currently within the County of San Diego and is proposed to be annexed to the City of Chula Vista. In addition, this area is in the process of being pre-zoned by the City of Chula Vista to A-8 Agriculture Zone which is similar to the current County zoning of A-70 {Limited Agriculture). The County A-70 use regulations are intended to create and preserve areas intended primarily for agricultural crop production. Typical uses permitted in the A-70 zone are: family residential, essential services, fire protection services, all types of horticulture, tree crops, row and field crops, limited Packing and prOcessing and custom manufacturing. The City A-8 use regulations are intended to provide a zone with appropriate uses for areas rural in character, which are undeveloped and not yet ready for urbanization. Typical uses permitted in the A-8 zone are: one single-family dwelling per lot, agricultural uses and public parks. C. ANALYSIS 1. Archaeoloqical Settinq An archaeological survey report was completed in July 1988 by Westec Services for the City of Chula Vista which includes the expanded project area. The results of this survey were negative in that no cultural of archaeological places were identified within the project boundaries. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the proposed road widening project will result in essentially the same environmental impact as the previous project proposal and recommend that this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-19, IS-88-76, and IS-88-79 be adopted prior to taking action on the project. ~RDINATOR WPC 7990P -2- J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 1 of 8 Being a portion of Fractional Section 4, Township 18 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Meridian, together with portions of Quarter Sections 11, 16, 37, 38 and 41 of Rancho de la Nacion, Map 166 in the County of San Diego, State of California, said portions described in total as follows: 1. Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Fractional Section 4; thence along the Easterly line of said Section 4; South 00°01'13'' East 110.23 feet; 2. thence leaving said Easterly line South 72°04,47'' West 31 61 feet; ' 3. thence South 61°02,22'' West 18.46 feet; 4. thence South 39°33,50'' West 91.00 feet; 5. thence South 27°29,39'' West 57.92 feet; 6. thence South 72°12,45'' West 204.56 feet; 7. thence South 63°40,54'' West 50.38 feet; 8. thence South 33°06,06'' West 42.26 feet; 9. thence North 79°30,34'' West 48.55 feet; 10. thence North 38°23,57'' West 64.22 feet; 11. thence North 71°58,47', West 22.72 feet; 12. thence South 74°25,53'' West 66.21 feet; 13. thence South 89°19,14'' West 51.44 feet; 14. thence North 65°46,35'' West 33.23 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 2 of 8 15. thence South 49"52'55,, West 26.22 feet; 16. thence North 63"12'41,, West 21.20 feet; 17. thence South 79°19,56'' West 576.58 feet; 18. thence South 18°40,04'' West 52.00 feet; 19. thence North 83°03,53'' West 149.89 feet; 20. thence North 21°26,08'' West 19.35 feet; 21. thence South 62°55,59'' West 814.46 feet; 22. thence South 56°44,28'' West 381.49 feet; 23. thence South 72°31,27" West 249.39 feet; 24. thence South 50°16,44'' West 191.91 feet; 25. thence South 66°36,07'' West 312.55 feet; 26. thence South 39°19,01'' West 131.60 feet; 27. thence South 50°21,14'' West 238.81 feet; 28. thence. South 44°44,17', West 579.26 feet; 29. thence South 09°47,58', East 99.86 feet; 30. thence South 42°06,21'' West 270.19 feet; 31. thence South 75°19,30'' West 58.30 feet; 32. thence South 52°11,31'' West 65.97 feet; 33. thence South 60°02,27'' West 62.02 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION 'PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 3 of 8 34. thence South 16o07,22', West 87.40 feet; 35. thence South 33o01,09', West 65.84 feet; 36. thence South 45o38,21', West 233.29 feet; 37. thence South 45°03,05', West 221.30 feet; 38. thence South 37o14,47', West 73.06 feet; 39. thence South 61037,23', West 51.49 feet; 40. thence South 43o10,43', West 106.57 feet; 41. thence South 30°30,22', West 35.20 feet; 42. thence South 11o30,39', West 43.05 feet; 43. thence South 59o15,26', West 122.72 feet; 44. thence South 41o26,54', West 126.13 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 80.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, to which a radial line bears North 88°46,42', East; 45. thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 111o45,40', a distance of 156.05 feet; 46. thence.South 69o10,08', West 135.99 feet; 47. thence South 41o28,14', West 92.58 feet; 48. thence South 48°35,43', West 68.45 feet; 49. thence South 57°25,03', West 59.98 feet; 50. thence South 69°00,02', West 129.76 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 4 of 8 51. thence South 44°40,47', West 73.37 feet; 52. thence South 57°44,06', West 197.72 feet; 53. thence South 66°44,44', West 142.95 feet; 54. thence South 67°26,15', West 39.15 feet; 55. thence South 60°59,08'' West 134.88 feet; 56. thence South 13°44,06', West 170.20 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 240.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, to which a radial line bears South 58°47,05', East; 57. thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 51°29,49'' a distance of 215.71 feet; 58. thence South 00°58,16'' West 25.96 feet; 59. thence South 89°36,01'' West 48.74 feet; 60. thence South 81°21,35'' West 26.36 feet; 61. thence South 31°15,46', West 59.46 feet; 62. thence South 45°29,53" West 33.36 feet; 63. thence South 47o43,16', West 113.49 feet; 64. thence South 60°59,52', West 33.02 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 80.00 foot radius curve concave Northwesterly, to which a radial line bears North 73°52,39', East; 65. thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 61°10,39'' a distance of 85.42 feet; J-11226 T~.~EGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 5 of 8 66. thence South 45o03,18,, West 80.08 feet; 67. thence South 35o46,14', West 12.30 feet; 68. thence South 78°00,03', West 25.11 feet; 69. thence South 78°33,02', West 101.56 feet; 70. thence South 63o10,02', West 105.28 feet; 71. thence South 55°00,00', West 16.04 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent 180.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly, to which a radial line bears North 69o05,16', West; 72. thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 09°18,07', a distance of 29.22 feet; 73. thence South 11°36,37', West 58.88 feet; 74. thence South 00°06,50', East 176.04 feet; 75. thence South 82°09,29'' West 180.81 feet; 76. thence South 33°47,14', West 174.77 feet; 77. thence South 60°13,16', West 214.49 feet; 78. thenc~ South 68°54,28', West 62.27 feet; 79. thence South 55°23,59', West 93.23 feet; 80. thence South 40°53,05', West 198.25 feet; 81. thence South 33°49,01', West 247.82 feet; 82. thence South 60°26,36', West 70.26 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 6 of 8 83. thence South 77o28,16,, West 65.27 feet; 84. thence North 80°50,26', West 42.28 feet; 85. thence North 72o29,01', West 34.92 feet; 86. thence North 80°07,06', West 11.00 feet; 87. thence South 16036,08', West 25.00 feet; 88. thence South 45°47,12', West 72.62 feet; 89. thence South 75°29,48" West 95.51 feet; 90. thence North 78°36,58', West 97.27 feet; 91. thence South 52°07,05', West 36.01 feet; 92. thence South 15o31,05', West 54.87 feet; 93. thence South 64004,17', West 49.12 feet; 94. thence South 72°58,28', West 67.62 feet; 95. thence South 65015,05', West 39.08 feet; 96. thenc~ South 77o18,52', West 44.76 feet; 97. thence South 76°47,09', West 43.44 feet; 98. thence South 25°42,37', West 179.57 feet; 99. thence South 60°20,52', West 173.39 feet; 100. thence South 60°33,37', West 271.06 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 7 of 8 101. thence North 59o16,06', West 72.64 feet; 102. thence North 33°34,04', West 102.40 feet; 103. thence South 38°29,24', West 50.08 feet; 104. thence South 49°33,19', West 50.04 feet; 105. thence South 63°26,23" West 55.04 feet; 106. thence South 68°17,51', West 50.54 feet; 107. thence South 68°58,42', West 90.18 feet; 108. thence South 73°06,10', West 51.02 feet; 109. thence South 80°57,00', West 56.16 feet; 110. thence South 23°01,15', East 21.00 feet; 111. thence South 66°58,45', West 70.00 feet; 112. thence North 23o01,15', West 30.56 feet; 113. thence South 66°58,45', West 43.97 feet; 114. thenc~ South 57°10,03', West 66.16 feet; 115. thence South 63°19,31', West 65.49 feet; 116. thence South 69°08,58', West 31.89 feet; 117. thence South 73°03,34', West 80.03 feet; 118. thence South 75°37,10', West 76.26 feet; 119. thence South 29°01,12', West 42.68 feet; J-11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "A" By: RGS/kd Date: March 22, 1990 Page 8 of 8 120. thence South 66°58,45', West 60.00 feet; 121. thence South 66001,41', West 8.61 feet; 122. thence North 73o16,23', West 43.40 feet; 123. thence South 66°52,36', West 59.00 feet; 124. thence South 37o13,16', West 106.99 feet; 125. thence South 57°30,55', West 13.55 feet to.a point on the Easterly line of the East 1/5 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Quarter Section 41 of said Map 166; 126. thence along said Easterly line North 18o40,26', West 78.09 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Telegraph Canyon Road per Road Survey 1086, said Southerly Right-of-way being the existing City of Chula Vista/County of San Diego boundary. 127. thence Northeasterly along said City of Chula Vista/County of San Diego boundary to the Point of Beginning. Containing approximately 67.6 acres. Robert G. ~choettmer ~ L.S. 4324 ~ N0.[~4 J--11226 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD ANNEXATION PARCEL "B" By: RGS/kd Date: March 21, 1990 Page 1 of 1 Being a portion of Quarter section 64 of Rancho De La Nacion, Map No. 166 in the County of San Diego, State of California, said portion more particularly described as follows: 1. Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly Right-of-way of Telegraph Canyon Road per Road Survey 1086 and the Easterly line of said Quarter Section 64: 2. thence along said Easterly line South 18o40,26" East 72.47 feet; 3. thence leaving said Easterly line South 71o15,36', West 44.63 feet; 4. thence South 47°04,29" West 88.48 feet; 5. thence North 72"18'23,, West 93.87 feet; 6. thence North 20°59,55'' West 99.95 feet; 7. thence South 82°36,34" West 444.43 feet to a point on the Southerly Right-of-way of Telegraph Canyon Road per Road Survey 1086; 8. thence Northeasterly along said Southerly Right-of-way and the City of Chula Vista/County of San Diego boundary to the Point 9f Beginning. Containing approximately 0.7 acres. Robert G. Schoettmer L.S. 4324 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Telegraph Canyon Road Widening PROJECT LOCATION: Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road north and south from Paseo Ladera to the western boundary of EastLake PROJECT APPLICANT: EastLake Development Co. and City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-88-19 DATE: August 16, 1988 IS-88-76 IS-88-79 A. Project Setting The proposed project includes the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road (east-west) from Paseo Ladera easterly to the western boundary of EastLake. The widening program has been divided into three study areas: (a) Paseo Ladera easterly to Apache Drive, (b) Rutgers easterly to the western boundary of EastLake, and (c) Apache Drive easterly to Rutgers. Discussion, therefore, will be divided by study area as indicated above. a) Paseo Ladera easterly to Apache Drive c) Rutgers easterly to the western boundary of EastLake 1. Roadway The study area project consists 'of the replacement of the existing two lane Otay Lakes Road from Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive and from Rut§ers to the western boundary of EastLake and to provide a naturalized flood control channel to contain storm and nuisance flow runoffs. The new roadway will provide four paved lanes with a graded area expandable to six lanes with median and parkway landscaping. The new roadway is planned as a scenic highway. 2. Geology and Soils The bedrock at the subject site is assigned to the Sweetwater Formation and the conformably overlying Otay Formation. The contact between the two units is often graditional and poorly defined. The bottoms of Telegraph Canyon and the associated lateral canyons have been filled with alluvium. On the adjacent slopes, bedrock is covered by a veneer of colluvium and topsoil. Fill was placed during grading of the existing road and for backfill of utility trenches. The Oligocene Age city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- Sweetwater formation has been interpreted as a distal alluvial fan deposit. This formation should be encountered below elevation 460 in the eastern portion of the project. The formation should not be encountered in the western portion of the project because of a regional westward dip and thinning of the unit. It generally consists of pale gray, silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone, with intercalated clayey siltstone and bentonitic claystone beds. Accumulations of caliche are common in weathered portions of the formation. The Otay Formation is exposed above elevation 460 in the eastern portion of the site. The west half of she site is underlain entirely by the Otay Formation. The alluvium is composed of a variety of poorly consolidated sediments, derived from the surrounding hills. The maximum depth of alluvium encountered was 35 feet. Natural slopes and swales are covered with a variable thickness of topsoil and colluvium. Topsoil depths range from 1 to 3 feet. Colluvium depths are estimated to range from 1 to 8 feet in thickness, primarily located at the base of natural slopes and in small drainage swales. As observed at the site, the Sweetwater Formation and Otay Formation are generally flat-lying, or only very gently tilted, and measured dips on the order of 5 degrees to the southwest. Slight localized variations in attitude are common in the poorly bedded sediments of the two units. The most prominent structural feature in the area is the La Nacion Fault zone. The zone is composed of numerous, en echelon faults, general dip-slip in nature. Fault traces associated with this zone have been mapped trending roughly north-south, between Interstate 805 and the western edge of the subject site. Although no faults were observed during our field exploration, the La Nacion Fault zone may extend into the western portion of the site. A geologist should be present during the initial stages of proposed construction to map any faults exposed during grading. Rocks as young as the Pleistocene age Lindavista Formation have been offset across this fault zone, however, evidence indicating younger Holocene faulting (movement over the past 11,000 years) has not been established. Under the guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology, the La Nacion Fault zone is classified as only potentially active. city of chula vista planning department CITYO~: environmental review leCtJorl CHI.JLA VISTA -3- Although local faults are not classified as active, San Diego is considered a seismically active area. The potential for seismic hazards at the site can be attributed to ground shaking resulting from events on distant, active faults. Compared to other areas of southern California, seismic risk is considered moderate to low. Based on available information,~ the most significant seismic event likely to impact the site would be a 7.0 magnitude event on the Elsinore Fault. The estimated peak ground acceleration at the site generated by such an event is estimated at O.lg. Liquefaction is a phenomenon is which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for fills placed over the liquefying soils. To have potential for liquefaction, it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundweater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Based upon this method of evaluation, our findings indicate that ground accelerations on the order of 0.14 would be necessary fOr liquefaction to occur. The approximate depth at which liquefaction would most likely occur is 10 to 25 feet below existing grade. Based on the evaluation, it has been found that liquefaction of the soils within this zone is a remote possibility. Distress to the roadway due to liquefaction should be significantly reduced by the overexcavation and recompaction of the alluvium and the consolidation which is expected to take place. The subsurface soil ~ncountered during field exploration of the site consisted of bedrock, covered by a variety of poorly consolidated alluvium, colluvium and topsoil. Shallow groundwater was also encountered in the canyon bottom. A brief description of the soil types and their engineering properties is presented below. Topsoil/Colluvium Natural surfaces are mantled by approximately 1 to 3 feet of topsoil. Colluvial soils estimated at 1 to 8 feet thick, are concentrated at the base of slopes and swales. Topsoil and colluvial soils consists of organic clayey silts and sands. They are generally loose to medium dense, and damp to very moist. These soils are subject to settlements with the application of water and additional loads. The soils may, however, be reused as compacted fill, once all organic material and debris has been removed. The clayey fractions of the soils are potentially expansive and should only be used in the lower levels Q~I~ embankment. ~ city et chula vista planning department CI~Ot: environmental review section. CHULAVIS~r'A -4- Alluvium Alluvial deposits are located in the Telegraph Canyon drainage, overlying the Sweetwater Formation. The maximum depth of alluvium encountered was 35 feet. The alluvium is not necessarily thickest over the present stream channel, because of shifting in the channel location through time. The alluvial soils generally consist of sandy clay overlying clayey sand or sandy silt. Relatively clean, medium to coarse-grained gravelly sands are present at the alluvium/bedrock contact in the lowest portion of the paleochannel. The alluvial soils are firm to stiff, or loose to medium dense. These soils are considered compressible and could consolidate upon fill loading. Complete removal and recompaction of the alluvium is impractical because of both its thickness and the shallow groundwater conditions. 3. Groundwater Perched groundwater is present in the alluvium of Telegraph Canyon. Groundwater seepage was encountered in all but one of our exploratory borings and several of the test pits. Along the eastern segment of the site, the free groundwater level should be expected to range from approximately 8 to ll feet below existing grade. Along the western segment, groundwater was encountered at between 2.5 and 7 feet below the surface. These levels may vary during periods of heavy precipitation or drought. Where backhoe exploration pits extended below the groundwater level, severe caving occurred. Grading or trench work below groundwater level may require dewatering or other remedial measures to advance ,excavations. In areas where the channel bottom is excavated down to or below the groundwater level, heaving, pumping, and other unstable conditions may result. These conditions should subside once the channel is completed and groundwater levels drop to an equilibrium level. After equilibrium has been achieved, soft areas should continue to be expected. However, heaving and pumping should be reduced once the channel is planted with vegetation. 4. Biology Two biological studies of the project area were used in the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The first IRecon) was done on the entire three-mile length of the project westerly of EastLake which concluded in a Riparian, Revegetation plan for the project. The second, IPacific Southwest Biological Services) focused on the area from EastLake westerly to Rutgers Avenue. city of chula vista planning department ¢1~0~ environmental review iectlon . CHUL~ VIa--FA -5- Over the three-mile length of the project area, there were a total of 1.84 acres of emergent aquatic/freshwater marsh vegetation dominated by Typha angustifolia, lying primarily along the bed of the existing drainage. Another 2.07 acres has hydric soils and wetland hydrology, but the vegetation was dominated by Cynodon dactyl on IBermuda grass) and Bromus diandrus (rupgut brome) with scattered Rumex crispus l~ dock~ and was mapped as mesic .pasture. Most of the western third of the existing streambed was a narrow, deeply cut channel roughly 3 to 5 feet wide with no riparian or aquatic plant species present. In this area we calculated 0.30 acre of bed without wetland vegetation. Three mature willow trees were present in the vicinity of some buildings near the center of the project, a a half dozen shrub-sized willows were observed elsewhere along the streambed. The eastern two-thirds of the project specific site length where the channel is on the northern side of Otay Lakes Road is without any biological function. The site has been seriously disturbed by previous utility placement. In a previous summary, the area had a low-grade wetland vegetation which had been infested by non-native tamarisk trees. Downstream, or west, of the channel cross-under to the south side of Otay Lakes Road, it is vegetated with non-native fennel. This area has limited wildlife value, the most significant being a grove of Eucalyptus trees. Further downstream, the vegetation includes cattails forming a band about 6 feet wide. This area could be useful to certain birds and amphibians. There is another grove of Eucalyptus near this site. If the trees could be saved, they would serve as perches by hawks. The overall biological impacts of the project implementation would ~ot be significant. 5. Archaeology San Diego County was prehistorically occupied by at least three major cultural groups. The San Dieguito are generally accepted as being the first inhabitants of the region, occupying the area from approximately lO,O00 to 8,000 years Before Present. The next cultural patterns defined as the La Jolla-Pauma. These are believed to be regional manifestations of a single cultural group that existed from about 8,000 to 3,000 years ago. The La Jolla-Pauma culture was followed by the Kumeylaay/l~orthern Diegueno and Luiseno people. The site records searches indicated 8 archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the project area. Reports include survey and testing studies for portions of the surrounoing area. city of chula vista planning department environmental rewew lection CHUI.A VISTA -6- No sites were recorded within the project boundaries. The nearest cultural resources are an isolated scraper to the east and temporary camp with a scraper, manes, and several flakes. Intensive field survey of the approximately 1-mile long Otay Lakes Road Alignment was conducted on April 9, 1987, by Westec archaeologist Andrew Pigniolo. The survey consisted of two winding transects along the entire project route covering the entire area to be impacted at about 8-meter intervals. Visibility was poor due to the predominant grass cover averaging about 30 percent. The results of the archaeological survey were negative. No cultural resources, either prehistoric or historic, were located within the proposed project. Structures in the immediate area did not appear on a 1908 USGS map of the area or a 1921 plot maps, and are not considered as significant resources. 6. Noise The entire length of the proposed project on the south side and two-thirds of its length on the north are currently vacant lands. These areas can be developed with residential uses and with proper design and if necessary with adequate barriers any significant acoustical impacts can be avoided. The mobile home park, for the most part is 65'-70' above Ota~ Lakes Road. The remaining few mobile homes and two single family homes which front on Rutgers are the only residences which could have any adverse acoustical impact. The single family homes have block walls along their Otay Lakes Road frontage. Further study of the acoustical effects needs to be carried out and any necessary mitigation made a part of the project. The project proponent has'agreed to this measure. 7. Growth Inducement Normally, this type of project would have growth inducing impacts. However, in this case, the project is intended to serve development which is taking place in EastLake. The project is a mitigation measure required by the City of Chula Vista designed to conform to the EastLake SPA-I plan dated 12/14/84 and Facilities and Financing Plan dated 2/12/85. It is one of many facilities necessary to serve the EastLake Development and development which could occur on the holdings of United Enterprises. city of chula vista planning decartment CJ~O~ environmental review ~ection CHULA VISTA -7- c) Apache Drive Easterly to Rutgers 1. Topography The project area is located within the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego. The alignment of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road roughly parallels the Telegraph Canyon Creek bed. Telegraph Canyon is an intermittent stream canyon draining towards the west. The canyon transects the ancient mesa surface between Sweetwater and Otay Valleys in southern San Diego County. There are numerous tributary canyons and draws on both side of Telegraph Canyon. The ridges of the canYon rise from approximately lO0 to 200 feet high and have overall natural slopes of approximately 5 to 1 /horizontal to vertical). 2. Geology The Telegraph Canyon Basin has an area of 7.5 square miles. The basin is elongated with a length of approximately 9 miles and a width of approximately 0.8 miles. The drainage basin begins at an elevation of approximately 800 feet, flows in a westerly direction and empties into San Diego Bay (see Figure 4). The Telegraph Canyon Basin contains the following main geologic units: l) Quarternary age to recently deposited alluvial sediments'; 2) Pleistocene age terrace deposits; 3) Pliocene San Diego formation; and 4) the Miocene Otay formation. The geologic literature indicates that a fault exists approximately 1 to 2 miles southwest of the project site and that it tends towards the north. This fault may be part of the La Nacion fault zone and is generally not considered to be active, but potentially active. The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault which lies approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site. The recurrence interval for a magnitude of 7.3 earthquake on the fault is estimated to be 60 years. The southern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault zone lies seven to ten miles west of the site. This zone is considered to be potentially active; however, no earthquakes with magnitude 4.0 or greater have been recorded on this fault. Woodward-Clyde states that the probability of a surface rupture at this site is very low (1979). 3. Archaeological Settin~ An archaeological survey report was completed in July 1988 by Westec Services for the City of Chula Vista. The area studied was adjacent to Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road between Apache Drive and Rutgers Avenue and on Otay Lakes Road north-south~ between Telegraph Canyon Road intersection and riira Costa ¢ircle.~ city of chula vista planning ~e~artment environmental review section CHUI~ VISTA -8- The survey area included the area potentially impacted by widening Otay Lakes Road north-south and Telegraph Canyon Road west and Otay Lakes Road east. The results of the survey were negative in that no cultural or archaeological places were identified within the project boundaries. 4. Soils This area is underlain with bedrock consisting of the Sweetwater Formation. The bedrock is present at depths of 22 to 30 feet below the existing grade. The Sweetwater Formation of Oli§ocene age consists primarily of fine to coarse grained sandstones with some gravel and silt. The gravels are derived from the nearby metavolcanic rocks. The consistency of the Sweetwater Formation is very dense and should not consolidate upon fill loading. The bedrock is capped with alluvial deposits. The alluvium varies in depth due to changes between the present drainage course and the old stream channel /Paleochannel). Depths of the alluvium vary between 22 to 28 feet below the present grade. The alluvium consists of an upper layer of clayey alluvial soils which are compressible and should consolidate upon fill loading: 5. Hydrology Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin comprises 7.5 square miles of an elongated area of about 9 miles in length of 0.8 miles in width. .The watershed area extends approximately as far north as the Sweetwater Reservoir and as far east as the Upper Otay Reservoir. 6. Vegetation Vegetation in the i~mediate area of the roadway includes tall grasses, cattails, sage scrub and pepper trees scattered throughout the site and a small grove of eucalyptus trees at the eastern end of the project area. A more detailed list of vegetation in the project area is contained in Exhibit A. 7. Fish and Wildlife Wildlife ~bserved on or near the project site consists of various bird species, small mammals and reptiles. No sensitive or endangered species have been observed. The U. S. Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the project and issued a streambed alteration agreement for the widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road including this segment and the widening currently under construction to the east and uest of the project site. city of Chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental rewew section CHULA VISTA -9- 8. Land Use Land use of the area to the north of the project site is predominantly residential. This consists of single family detached homes and single family attached homes. At the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road, there are 240 Navy housing units. Southwestern Community College is located atop the northerly mesa of Telegraph Canyon west of Otay Lakes Road and is not visible to travelers in the Canyon bottom. West of Otay Lakes Road (north-south), opposite Southwestern Community College are church facilities, a neighborhood shopping center and a fire station. To the east of the project site, east of Rutgers Avenue, is located a mobilehome park. Beyond that, the land northeast of Otay Lakes Road has been zoned Planned Community (P-C). This zoning provides for the orderly development of large tracts of land which may contain a variety of land use, but are under unified ownership or control. The Navy family housing under construction falls within the guidelines set for a P-C zoning and is the major factor behind the need to widen Otay Lakes Road. The area south of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon road formerly the Otay Ranch, is currently undeveloped and is zoned for agriculture. Since Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road is classified as a scenic highway, the open space element of the City's General Plan proposes that slopes at either side of the canyon will be maintained as open space or utilized as an Agricultural Preserve. Currently, flow is conveyed by an earthen drainage channel constructed by the County of San Diego between 1958 and 1962. The widening project will require a realignment of this channel. The proposed channel will have a 4:1 northern bank, a bed of varying widths, and a southern bank of 3:1 slope. The average channel section width is ll7 feet (see Figure 3). There is no historical information on floods for the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin. Groundwate'r was encountered at depths ranging from 8 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. The presence and depth of ground~ater will vary depending upon the permeability of the alluvium, the adjacent formational soils and the amount of infiltration of water due to rainfall, irrigation and other sources. Due to these factors, the free groundwater level should be expected to range between 7 and 9 feet below the existing grade. city of Chula vista planning '-~eoart,'~ent Cll~Of environmental rewew lection CHUIA VISI-A -10- B. Project Description (Study areas a, b & c) The proposed project will widen a length of Otay Lakes (north-south) and Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road (east-west). The north-south segment improvements include installation of asphalt pavement, 6-inch concrete curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the east side of Otay Lakes Road. The street will be widened to a curb-to-curb width of 85 feet at the Otay Lakes Road-Telegraph Canyon Road intersection. This width will accommodate a 5.5 foot bicycle lane, one 12-foot through lane and one 13-foot through lane. This width will also accommodate two 10-foot left turn lanes in the southbound direction and a 4-foot painted median. The street section will be tapered so that further north on Otay Lakes Road at approximately Apache Drive, Otay Lakes Road will have a curb-to-curb width of 74 feet. This width will accommodate one 5.5-foot bike lane, one 12-foot through lane, one 12.5-foot through lane in each direction, and a 14-foot painted median. The existing width of Otay Lakes Road (north-south) varies from 67 feet at Telegraph Canyon Road to 66 feet at Apache Drive. The limits of the Otay Lakes Road (north-south) improvements extend from the centerline of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to 159 feet north of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 1,O15 feet. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk are currently in place along the west side. Limits of the proposed widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road (east-west) extend from approximately 200 feet west of Rutgers Avenue to approximately 500 feet east of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 3,400 feet. The anticipated ultimate width of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road will ultimately accommodate three 12-foot through lanes, an 8-foot bicycle/emergency parking lane in each direction and a 24-foot ,wide raised median. However, the interim pavement width proposed for this project will accommodate two 12-foot through lanes and one 8-foot bicycle/emergency parking lane in each direction as well as a 24-foot wide raised median. At the intersection of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road with Otay Lakes Road and with Rutgers Avenue, the median will be reduced to a 4-foot width to provide dual left turn lanes. The roadway will be graded for the ultimate six lane width (134') which creates 23 foot shoulders. An asphaltic concrete berm will be constructed in each direction at the interim pavement edge. The proposed section is shown in Figure 3. The toe-of-slope of the fill required for the widening will encroach upon the existing natural drainage channel to the south of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. Therefore, a naturalized drainage channel will be constructed. The channel which roughly parallels Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and is known as Telegraph Canyon Creek, was constructed by the County of San Diego. The proposed project will relocate the channel adjacent and parallel to the new Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road alignment. city of Chula vista planning department ¢)~OF ~ environmental review section CHUI~VISTA -Il- Flood Control Channel/Revegetation Plan The flood control channel is planned to meet requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a naturalized channel. The channel landscape is defined in the riparian revegetation plan and exceeds replacement requirements for the existing wetlands area to be disturbed. The purpose of the riparian revegetation plan is to provide guidelines for the establishment of riparian woodland and freshwater marsh wetlands in the bed and upland vegetation on the slopes of the channel to be built along Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, west of the EastLake project. The channel will be built in conjunction with road improvements and in anticipation of changes in hydraulic conditions in the drainage with development of the surrounding area. Future development will cause the channel to experience greater peak storm runoff and increased dry-season flows. The channel will be approximately 3.1 miles long with about 2.5 miles of open soft-bottom channel appropriation for revegetation efforts. In two places, the channel will pass through culverts under Telegraph Canyon Road, and a series of riprap drop structures at other locations in the channel will aid in erosion control. The general design of the revegetation plan is to provide the basis for the development of a natural riparian system that will be useful to wildlife. Willows will be planted as cuttings at selected locations in-the channel. The total channel, bottom and sides, will be hydroseeded with appropriate native species. Cattails and other wetland species will invade by seed from other nearby locations. The channel will be graded flat on the bottom. Both sides will have 3:1 or flatter slopes. The total channel will be planted either with ~¢illow cuttings or with a hydroseed mix. Excluding the culverts under the road and the riprap drop structures, 14 acres of channel bottom and 27 acres of side slopes will be revegetated. Habitat to be created will be willow woodland and freshwater marsh. The willow woodland will be dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and the freshwater marsh by cattails. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The General Plan designated this section of Otay Lakes Road as a major road and is a scenic route. The proposed project implements these elements of the General Plan. city of chula vista planning deoar~ment ¢IIYO~ environmental review section CHUL~ VISTA -12- D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. The project site does not involve any geological hazard that could substantially endanger the project. There are adverse soil conditions present, however, if recommendations of the soils engineer are followed, no significant impacts are anticipated. 2. There is groundwater present which will require dewatering or other remedial actions to avoid significant impact. Implementation of these recommendations is part of the proposed project. 3. Implementation of the project with its revegetation plan will increases the amount and quality of wetlands in Telegraph Canyon Creek. 4. Cultural resources are not located within the proposed Otay Lakes Road alignment. No significant impact to cultural resources will result from project development and no mitigation recommendations are necessary. 5. Further study and implementation of necessary mitigation measures above those normally required under standard development regulations will be necessary to avoid significant acoustical impacts. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects In order to avoid significant acoustical impact on adjacent single family residential dwellings and mobile homes fronting on the entry road to the adjacent mobile home park, a study of noise levels from future traffic volumes on Otay Lakes Road will have to be done. Any recommendations from the study must be incorporated into the project. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project will enhance the quality and diversity of the biological resources of the project vicinity. There are not geological hazards or cultural resources present which could adversely be impacted by the project. Adverse soil and groundwater conditions can be mitigated through standard development regulations. 2. The project implements 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. The project is also part of the long-term facilities plan for the EastLake Planned Community. 3. All potentially significant impacts of the project will be mitigated well below that of the significantly considering the potentially cumulative impacts with other projects past, current or future. 4. With the implementation of acoustical mitigation measures, al~.~f~ adverse impacts on human beings will be avoided. ~ city of chula vista planning ~ecar~ment CI~OF environmental review section CHUL~ VI~I'A -13- G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: J. Luis Hernandez, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: EastLake Development Company 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 92013 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan - All elements The Chula Vista Municipal Code Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Alignment of Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista, CA Westec Services, April 1987. Letter regarding biological survey, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, March 16, 1987. Predischarge Notification Letter to Ms. Pam Beare, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Recon, July 16, 1987. Riparian Revegetation Plan for Telegraph Canyon Road, Recon, July 16, 1987. Preliminary · Geotechnical Investigation Telegraph Canyon Rd. & Channel, San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., May 29, 1987 EIR-84-1 EIR-85-3 EIR-86-4 This determination, that the ~roject will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Studies, any comments on these Initial Studies and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ~NVIRO~¥ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 IRev. 3/88) WPC 5432P city of chula vista piannlng department ¢I~YO~ environmental review lection CHL~bq VI~I'A INITIAL STUDY Receipt City of Chula Vista Accepted by~/ ,. Application Form Project No.~~ BACKGROUND l. PROJECT TITLE Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road Wideninq 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Otay Lakes Road from Rutgers road to EastLake Development westerly boundary Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Wideninq Otay Lakes Road from 2 lane~ to 4 lane paved, qraded to 6ianes, and co~struction of vegetated naturalized meanderinq flood control channel. 4. Name of Applicant EastLake Development Company Address 900 Lane Avenue~ Suite 100 Phone 421-0127 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92013 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Ken D'Angelo Address 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Phone 421-0127 City Chula Vista State CA Zip . 92013 Relation to Applicant Employee/Proiect Manaqer 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project __ Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan X Grading Permit Design Review Board __ Specific Plan .. Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance X Other Improvement Plans b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). X Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report X Grading Plan Landscape Plans ' X Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & ~ Biological Study Parcel Map Setting ~ Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment __ Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report __ Other Agency Permit or ~ Soils Report Other Approvals Required E~ 3 (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage 7 acres R.O.W. If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 7 acres for channel & roadway R.O.W. & easements. ~2. Complete this section ~f project is residential. ~on-applicable~ . , ~Type development. Single family Two L ~,M. ul~i family__s_ Townhouse - family b. Nu~structures and heights Condominium c. Number of ~ 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms _ 2 bedrooms~ 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/tota~res) e. Net density (DU/total acres~us any dedication) f. Estimated project population. ~ g. Estimated, sale or rental price rang~'--.~ h. Square footage of~floor area(s) '~ i. Percent of lot cOVerage by buildings or structu~_, J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided. ~ k. Percent of site in road and paved surface '~ °n-apF Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. Type{s) of land use b. Ioor area Height of structure(s) c. construction used in the structure d. Describe sss points to the structures and the orientation to properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking rovided f. Estimated number of employees per " . Number of 'shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and estimate - 3 -  range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of o~"~ions not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation ~ k. Type of exterior lighting ~ 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project Roadway b. Type of facilities provided Street improvement & flood control channel C. Square feet of enclosed structures not applicable d. Height of structure(s) - maximum not applicable e. Ultimate occupancy load of project Traffic load only f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided not applicable g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces 330,000 ~-q. ft. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. None except as generated by construction equipment during project construction 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 91,300 cubic yards b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 83,200 cubic yards c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be g~ded? 7 acres R.O.W (for alluvial remove d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 17 feet and recompact) Average depth of cut 9 feet Maximum depth of fill 12 feet Average depth of fill 6 feet - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) None 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) Approximately 5 acres 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Construction field work during course of construction only 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? None 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? None 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill sT6pes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. None. This project is an off-site improv'ement required by Chula Vista's SPA 1 for EastLake Development D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology ~ Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Yes {If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Yes (If yes, please attach' 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Yes {If yes, please explain.~n detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainaqe improvements on or adjacent to the site? Yes - as specified on improvement plan. - 5- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No - proiect will convey run-off from other areas and is to be upgrade of existing flood control channel. d. C0uld drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No - Project is designed to mitigate siltation from adjacent areas into downstream, flood control channel. e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Referemce imorovement pt~ns. 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? Short term noise during construction 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Yes, in flood control channel only. b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. Reference improvement plan. .~ 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? None- see cultural resource survey. b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? Not to applicant's knowledge. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Basic natural areas is used for dry farming and natural drainage run-off. 2 existing residences with outlying buildings. See accompanying photos. -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Part existing residential including trailer park, part natural undeveloped. South Basically dr'/ farming area with 2 existing houses with outlying structures. East Dry farrninc. I and EasLake Development Business Center West Dry farming and Navy housing project 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) 2 b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. The project is a mitigation measure required by the City of Chula Vista to meet EastLake Development Company's EastLake I SPA ptan dated 12-14-84 and facilities and financing plan c~ated 2-12-85. The project is to replace the existing 2 lan~ Otay. Lakes road from Rutgers to the EastLake boundary and to provide a naturalized flood control channel to contain sIo~.m and nuisance flow run-offs. The new roadway will provide 4 paved lanes with a graded area expandable to 6 lanes with median and parkway landscaping~ The new roadway is planned as a scenic highway. The flood control channel is planned to meet requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a naturalized channel. The channel landscape is defined in the accompanying riparian vegetation plan and exceeds replacement requirements for the existing wetlands area to be disturbed. - 7 E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Kenneth W. D'Angelo or C6~ta~ or Agent* .~ Project Ma~lager EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT ~O~PANY HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments t)lereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. 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. - EastLake Development Company, a - Louis H. Hunte Testamentary Trust California partnership - United Enterprises, Ltd., a California Western Salt Company, a California corporation limited partnership List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. - EastLake Development Company, a - Louis H. Hunte Testamentary Trust California partnership - United Enterprises, Ltd., a California - Western Salt Company, a California Corporation limited partnership 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. - EastLake Development Company' - Boswell Properties, Inc., a California - David V, a California Corporation, General Partner . Corporation General Partner - Daniel V, a California Corporation, General Partner 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. Henry Hunte. Trustee 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, ~ 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." necessary')gn~u~ applicant/dateL~' .~.-..J¥~9,F~.~[~J (NOTE: Attach additional pages as ~~ WPC 0701P Ken D'Angelo A-110 Print or type name of applicant -8- Case No. /~-- C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: -- North South Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: /~m~'u~" /~ ~z North ~7%c~ '~_ -~-~-~- ~~ (~-/~ South ~ x~ ~ ~,~.-~ ~ ~' East /~ F - - West ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ~ Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~ --' ~ ~_ ~ ~,~( ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used ? pro,cc% or.e~hance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) ~ ~~z. ~:~_, ~ How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2 C/lOOO pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail,) ~' - 9 - 3. Schools ~ ~- If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption - o~ Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: D sentative Date ¥S- - lO - Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? I~ d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? N.~. e. Are they adequate to serve the project? N.~. f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~,~. 2. Transportation roads provide primary access to the project?~~ a. What 0 b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? I~. ~ . Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. __ - ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~¢~ ~ Liquefaction? ~f,~c ~oS,S~ ~,~,~l~ ~k~-~e~ Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~/~.~ b. If yes, what are these adverse ~oil conditions? c. Is a so~)s report necessary. 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is'the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality ~,~. If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons X 18.3 = NOx (N02) X 20.0 : Particulates X 1.5 : Sulfur X .78 = 8. Waste Generation ~.~. How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid Liquid What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~"~ ~ Date City E~Enn~eer ~)r R~.~ n t a t i ~-~ ' - 13 - Case No. IS-88-19 H. FIRE DEPARTMENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase,in equipment or personnel? ~} / 3. .Remarks EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL NO 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification Of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a. Does the project site contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? _ b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or ~ater ~rosi_o.p of soils, either on or off-site? A significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? YES POTENTIAL NO b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate X of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? 4, Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water i.n any water body? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? ~..~ 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources which can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? ~<~ 6, Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? YES POTENTIAL 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? Emissions which could degrade the ambient air quality? Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference with the maintenance of standard air quality? The substantial alteration Of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public water supplies? 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? YES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an are~ which could affect a rare, endangere~ endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation Scenic Highways Conservation Housing Noise Park and Recreation Open Space Safety Seismic Safety Public Facilities YES POTENTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards r~ Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? The substantial demand for additional housing or affect existing housing? ~x~ 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection Police Protection Schools Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public Facilities Including Roads YES POTENTIAL 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing of energy? sources A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas Communications systems Water Sewer or septic tanks Solid waste & disposal 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ~ 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? ~< 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential, to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or -~ indirectly? - 21 - J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: Project Proponent Da te K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: _~ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is recommended that the decision making authority find that -- although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEG,. DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant -- effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. En~i~hment'aq Review Coordinator Date WPC O1 69P UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD. 1007 FIFTH AVENUE ~AN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 [619] 232-2000 October 5, 1987 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 RE: Initial Study C~mments - Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road Widening and Fiord Control Channel Dear Mr. Reid: We have reviewed the Initial Study prepared by Eastlake Development Co. concerning the widening of Otay Lakes Road and construction of the naturalized flood control channel. The accompanying reports (Revegetation Plan and Cultural Resources Survey) were also reviewed. United Enterprises, Ltd. has been working closely with Eastlake Developmen~ concerning the road widening and proposed mitigation and feels c~mfortable with the plan. We would like to take this opportunity to stress four items pertaining to the project: 1. Details of scenic highway standards (treatment of landscaping, signs, utilities, etc. on Otay Lakes Rd.) were not adOressed within the above mentioned documents. Does the City have certain design standards for scenic highways and does the proposed Otay Lakes Rd. meet those standards? 2. The revegetation Plan contains a management program for monitoring the revegetation plan which we assume will be implemented. We woula like to stress the importance of a monitoring pr~ram in determining the success of the mitigation measure. We, therefore, feel that the management program is a vital part of the overall revegetation effort. 3. We suggest that the property in question is located in unincorporated territory currently, therefore the San Diego County Department of Public Works should be a responsible agency for this EIR. Mr. Douglas D. Reid 2 October 5, 1987 4. The EIR should examine the public and private responsibility for implementation of the recu~ended mitigation measures. Thank you for the opportunity to ccmment on the above and we look forward to your reply. Sincerely, UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD. General Partner JTK:ncj Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 9201~t-2896 (619) 691-5500 DIVISION OF BUSINESS SERVICES October 20, 1987 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-88-19 Otay Lakes Road The Sweetwater Union High School District is in favor of the proposed improvements for Otay Lakes Road from Rutgers Road to the EastLake Development's westerly boundary. Future improvements to Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road should include signalization and sufficient area in the left turn lane to accommodate two transit vehicles at the following intersection: 1) Medical Center Drive and Telegraph Canyon Raod 2) Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Raod 3) Otay Lakes Raod and the proposed EastLake Parkway Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the notice of initial study. If you have any questions, please call me at 691-5553. Respectfully, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly October 2, 1987 File: YS-240 TO: Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator F~OM: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer ~ SUBJECT: IS 88-19, Widening of Otay Lakes Road from Rutgers Road to Eas~ake Development Westerly Boundary The Engineering Department has reviewed the application for the subject study and submits the following comment: 1. Grading and improvement plans for the subject street section are currently being processed by the Subdivision Section. Said plans reflect the proposed traffic and drainage improvements as described in the subject initial study. SMN:yc (B8:IS88-19) $outl est Biologicnl Serufces Post Office Box 985, National Cit~, California 92050 (619)'477o'53~3-~.. 16 March 1987 Eastl ake Development Company ~uPIVI£A~T ~. Mr. Rodney R. Myers, Director of Construction Oh!PA~Y 701B Street, Suite 730 san Diego, CA 92101 Dear Rod, On 15 March I examined the alignment proposed for the Telegraph Canyon creek channel. Rainfall had occured in the morning so some stream flow was occurring. That portion of the channel upstream of the road cross-over Is currently without any biological function. The site has been seriously disturbed by prior sewer line placement. I had previously surveyed this area as part of a Sweetwater Authority pipeline project. In that prior survey, the area had a Iow-grade wetland vegetation which had been infested by non-native tamarisk trees. The downstream portion of the site has an undlstrubed channel which, between the cross-over and lower-most driveway, Is grown to non-native fennel. This area Is of limited value to wildlife. Most wildlife value lies In the grove of Eucalyptus trees next to the road. Downstream of the lower driveway, the channel Is involved wlth cat-tails, forming a band about 6 feet wide. This area is useful to certain birds and amphibians. Another grove of Eucalyptus trees occurs south of this area of cat-tails. According to the grading plans, this grove would be in a fill area. These tress shoul~ be saved, if posslble, since they are used for perching by hawks. The biological impacts of channelizatlon will probably not be significant, in my opinion. The channel, however, is shown as a blue line stream on the National City, San Ysldro, and Jamul Mountain USGS quadrangle. This means that a 1603 agreement must be signed with California Department of Fish and Game. Also, from by my best guess as to project size, approximately 7 acres of wetland area will be disrupted for the project. Of course, three-fifths of the channel Is dlsturbed, but the whole channel has hydrlc soils, one of three parameters used to determine wetlands. Because of thls, quite possibly a Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is also needed. We have assisted several development projects in obtaining these permits. Some permits have taken a few weeks, while some are still being negotiated after two years. It Is important that no further habitat destruction occur before permits or agreements are consummated. Ms. Para Beare -2- July 16, 1987 We feel t.hat the revegetation program incorporated in the project, which results in an overall net. increase of both wet.lands and wetland habitat values, will allow you to make a determination that. this project, should be processed under t.he nat.ionwide permit. The applicant is Eastlake Development Company 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vist.a, CA 92013 Ken O'Angelo, Project. Manager Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cameron Pat.terson Certified Ecologist. CCP: fig ? Enclosures 1276 Morena 8ou evard, San Oiego, CA 92110-3815 (619) 275-3732 July 16, 1987 Ms. Pam Beare U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch 300 N. Los Angeles St., Room 6;062 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Reference: Predischarge Notification for Telegraph Canyon Road Widening and Flood-Control Channel, City of Chula Vista (RECON Number R-1681) Dear Ms. Beare: Enclosed are the construction plans for the road widening and flood channel project planned for the stretch of Telegraph Canyon Road you and I visited April 7, 1987. Also shown on the plans are the results of a survey I conducted April 8, 1987, to map and quantify the existing wetlands which would be impacted by the proposed project. A revegetation plan for the channel, which is being incorporated into the project, is also enclosed. Over the three-mile length of the proiect area, we mapped a total of 1.84 acres of emergent quat~c/freshwater' marsh vegetation dominated by Typha angusti- folia, lying primarily along the bed of the existing drainage. Another 2.07 acres has hydric soils and wetland hydrology, but 'the vegetation was dominated by Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) and Bromus diandrus (ripgut brome) with scattered Rumex crispus (curly dock) and we mapped it as rnesic pasture. Most of the western third of the existing streambed was a narrow, deeply cut channel roughly 3 to 5 feet wide with no riparian or aquatic plant species present. In this area we calculated 0.30 acre of bed 'without wetland vegetation. Three mature willow trees were present in the vicinity of some buildings near the center of the project, and a half', dozen shrub-sized willows were observed elsewhere along the streambed. Following construction of the proposed channel, a total of about 4I acres will be dedicated to the conveyance of Telegraph Creek along the three-mile length of the project, approximately 1~; acres of which will be flat and level channel bed between drop structures and 27 acres of which will be 3:1 or flatter con- tainment slopes. The entire L~I acres will be hydroseeded with a mix including both upland and wetland species, so that plants will become established in areas having appropriate hydrologic conditions for each species. The l~t acres of channel bed will reestablish Typha-Scirpus vegetation, within a few years, resulting in a net increase in: wetland vegetation of about 12 acres, or 600 percent. In addition to this natural revegetation, a total of one acre of arroyo and black willow cuttings will be planted in the channel where drainage from the north enters the channel. These willows will reproduce vegetatively and by seed to spread to other parts of the channel. Twenty-seven acres of containment slopes will be 'hydroseeded with plant species native to the ecological situation, resulting in an increase of natural vegetation adjacent to the stream from 0 to 27 acres. Eastlake Development Company 2 16 Narch 1987 Often the Impact to wetlands Is to be mitigated as part of the permit. The only posslblll~ I can see for on-site mitigation for your project, If demanded by an agency, would be a soft-bottom channel to allow recovery of Freshwater Marsh habitat. Please let us know If we can be of further assl~-fance in this matter. Regards, R. Mltchel Beauchamp ~ Prlnclpal Consultant ils CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF OTAY LAKES ROAD, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Rodney Myers Eastlake Development Corporation 2712 Otay Lakes Road Chula Vista, CA 92103 ~ Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Inc. 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-1709 Project No. 34661.001 Richard L.'~u-rico Andrew Pi~niolo Cultural Resources Manager Associate Archaeolog/st April 1987 ABSTRACT WESTEC Services, Inc. conducted an archaeological literature review, site record search, and survey for the Otay Lakes Road Alignment. Results of the record search and field survey were negative; no cultural resources were identified within the area planned for impacts. Due to the negative results, no impacts to cultural resources will result from the project as planned, and recommendations for mitigation are not necessary. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WESTEC Services, Inc. was contracted to provide an archaeolog/cal literature review, site records search, and survey for the Otay Lakes Road Alignment. A site record check and literature review were conducted at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man. In addition to the records search, an in-field survey was conducted to locate sites in previously unsurveyed areas of the project. The Otay Lakes Road Alignment project extends approximately 1 mile along Otay Lakes Road, in Telegraph Canyon near Chula Vista, California ( Figure 1-1). Roughly, the area is bounded on the east by the junction of Rancho Janal Drive, and on the west by the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road. North to south, the project width varies with the extent of contouring activities associated with the road widening project to a maximum of approximately 100 meters. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Elevations range from 420 to 500 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The project area consists of low stream terraces and f>0rtions of slightly more elevated knolls along an unnamed seasonal drainage flowing through telegraph Canyon. Vegetation consists largely of introduced annual grasses and herbs. The land has been extensively used for agriculture in the past. Some riparian species were noted adjacent to the seasonal creek that provides the area with a source of water. Presently, roadwork has begun at the eastern end of the pr(~ject. Other disturbances include agricultm-al disking, and construction disturbance associated with the two homes that fall into the project area. FALL~ROOK WARNER O ~'~~e~ional Location of the~ %%%~ W ESTEC Servlce~ ~c. 3 FOR OFFICE Case No. Fee $/~. pd INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No.~__~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Telegraph Canyon Road Widening 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Telegraph Canyon Road from 19001 east of Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Widening Telegraph Canyon Road from two lanes to four lanes paved, qraded to six lanes¢ and construction of veqetated naturalized meanderinq flood control channel 4. Name of Applicant EastLake Development Company Address 900 Lane Avenue, Suite #100 Phone (619) 421-0127 City Chula Vista, State California Zip 92013 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Ken D'Anqelo Address 900 Lane Avenue, Suite #100 Phone (619) 421-0127 City Chula Vista, State California Zip 92013 Relation to Applicant Employee/Pro!ect Manager 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project "Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan X Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan --Tentative Parcel Map "Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance X Other-Improvement Plans b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). X Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report X Grading Plan Landscape Plans ---~- Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & X Biological Study Parcel Map Setting X Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map "Noise Assessment Specific Plan __ Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or X Soils Report. Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete section if project is residential. a. Type Single family Two family Multi famil Townhouse Condominium b. Number of struci id heights c. Number of Units: 1 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedr~ Total units d. Gross density {DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area{s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures -~, j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided ~ k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. of land use b. Floor Height of structure{s) c. Type of tion used in the structure d. Describe major acces to the structures and the orientation to adjoining and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis e~te -3- h.~C~mated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent ~~O~m~n enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided Street Improvements and Flood Control Channel c. Square feet of enclosed structures Not d. Height of structure(s) - maximum ~ot appl)cab)e e. Ultimate occupancy load of project Traff)c f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided Not appl)cab)e g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. None except as generated by construction equipment during project construction. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 31q,O00 h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 165,000 c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 72 acres (for alluvial removal d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 17 feet and recompaction) Average depth of cut 9 feet Maximum depth of fill 12 feet Average depth of fill 6 feet - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) None 4. Indi6ate ~h6 ~ount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Construction f)eld work durinq course of construction only 6. ~ill highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? None 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? None 8. Describe (if any)' off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. None. This project is an offsite improvement required by Chula Vista's SPA 1 for EastLake Development D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Yes (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Yes (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Yes (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? Yes - as specified on Improvement Plan -5- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No - Proiect will convey run-off from other areas and is to be upgrade of existing flood control channel. d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No. Project is designed to mitigate siltation from adjacent areas into aowr~sLre~m tiuod control channel. e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Reference Improvement Plans 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? Short term noise during construction 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Yes. )n fI~d control channel on)¥. b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. Reference )mprovement Plans. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? )J~, b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? Not to applicants knowledge. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. Basic natural area is used for dryfarming and natural drainage run-off. -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Part existing residential and office, part natural undeveloped. South Basically drytarming area w~tn four houses wltn outfayir~c~ structures Fast Basically dryfarmincj Nest Part natural undeveloped, part basic dryfarming 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) Four (Two occupied) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. The project is a mitigation measure required by the City of Chula Vista to meet EastLake Development Company's EastLake I SPA plan dated 12-14-84 and facilities and financing plan dated 2-12-85. The project is to ~eplace the existing 2 lane Telegraph Canyon Road from 1900 feet east of Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive and to provide a naturalized flood control channel to contain storm and nuisance flow run-offs. The new roadway will provide 4 paved lanes with a graded area expandable to 6 lanes with median and parkway landscaping. The new roadway is planned as a scenic highway. The flood control channel is planned to meet requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a naturalized channel. The channel landscape is defined in the accompanying riparian vegatation plan and exceeds replacement requirements for the existing wetlands area to be disturbed. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Kenneth W. D'Ancjelo or ~k~x~X Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ' ' *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. C ! TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South ? East We s t Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2.. General Plan land use designation on site: ~jo~z~ ~.m~r~ ,' North ~ ,=~,n,~,uT/z4... ~-/~ D ~ //z ~. South ~/~//¢~. ~ ~y~ ' ' East ~ West ~ / Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ~ Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? F]~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? >J/~ {If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) ~Y~ How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shgwn in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~/~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~//~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~Y/~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) /k/~ - 9 - 3. Schools I~the.p~oposed project is residential, please complete the following: '"' .. Current Current Students Generated " School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary .~. Jr. High '-~.. 'Sr. High 4. Aesthetics project contain features which c"O~d be construed to be at a Does the variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe. S. Energy Consumption Pro~ld~_~he estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: ~---~ Electricity ~per. year)/ ~ ~ Natural Gas (per'~Tear~) / Water (per day) ~ ' 6. Remarks: '"~ Director o~ Planning or Representative Date -lO- Case No..~l~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? I~q~) b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? IN~O d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~.~. e. Are they adequate to serve the project? N.~. f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? k~ SN, g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.~. 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the ' project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? I~. A~ . Be fore After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? N~_~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -Il - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~,~ Liquefaction? ~/F¢,~c ~oS.S; ~:~" Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a.Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions~ ~m~:~)~ ~...,,-~ ~'~ ~. Land ~o~ a. ~ha~ ~s ~he average natural slope of 8. ~o~se of ~he applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : NOx INO2) X 20.0 : Particulates X 1.5 = Sulfur X .78 : 8. Waste Generation ~,~. How much solid and liquid Isewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project, per day? Solid Liquid What is the location and size ofexisting sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City En~heer~r Rt~.~_~ntati~' Date - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTbIENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire estimated-reaction time? ~/fgf~/~m~ Department's Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment, or personnel? .~/~ ~' ~ ~..Remarks~~./7 gire M2rsh a-I Date Sweetwater Union High School District June 14. 1988 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-88-76 (Widening Telegraph Canyon Road from two lanes to four lanes from 1900~ east of Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive.) Sweetwater Union High School District has no environmental concerns regarding the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road from two lanes to four lanes from 190~ east of Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive. However, to facilitate safe vehicular circulation, the District would prefer a signalfzed intersection at Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road with sufficient left hand turn lane access for the stacking of two transit vehicles. Respectfully, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly ~ '" FUR UFFICE USE Case No. Fee __ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.--~-~ ~ Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by~_~~ Application Form Project No.~_ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Street Midening Otay lakes Road 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Otay Lakes/Telesraph Canyon Road from Apache Dri to Rutgers Ave and Otay Lakes Rd from Apache Dr to ze~eg~aph Cnyn Ri Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Widen Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to 6 lanes. 4 lanes of pavement. Widen Otay Lakes Road on east side approximately 15'. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5033 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Kenneth Goldkamp/City of Chula Vista Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 619-691-5033 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 Relation to Applicant Employee 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee x Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit __ Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & X Biological Study Parcel Map Setting X Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ~ Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans ' Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report ~ Other- Air Quality Assessment Approvals Required Historic Property Survey Report EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 NEED 1 1.1 Capacity Problems 1 1.2 Safety Problems 2 1.3 S~rUctural Section 3 1.4 Access/New Connections 3 2.0.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 4 31.0,0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8 3.1 Topography 8 3.2 Geology 9 3.3 Archaeological Setting lO 3.4 Soils ll 3.5 Hydrology 11 3.6 Wetlands 12 3.7 Vegetation 13 3.8 Fish & Wildlife 13 3.9 Land Use 13 4.0.0 SOCIOECONOMICS . 15 4.1 Local, Regional and State Goals and Policies 15 4.1.1 Local Goals and Policies 15 4.1.2 Regional Development Policies 16 4.2 Household Characteristics 1~ 4.3 Historic and Cultural Resources 18 4.4 Public Facilities 18 4.4.1 Parks 18 4.4.2 Schools 19 4.5 Public Utilities 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 21 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation 26 References 36 Environmental Evaluation Personnel 37 LIST OF FIGURES Street Widening - Otay Lakes Road, Apache Drive to Rutgers Figure 1 Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road - 4-lane Widening Projects Figure 2 Typical Cross Section - Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road Figure 3 Circulation Map ~ chula Vista 1990 General Plan Figure 4 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Biological Analysis Exhibit B Air Quality Analysis Exhibit C Noise Analysis Exhibit D Formulated Conversion Impact Rating 1.0 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1.1 Capacity Problems The proposed project is located on Telegraph Canyon Road adjacent to the Charter Point Subdivision, Otay Lakes Road {east-west), an extension of Telegraph Canyon Road, and Otay Lakes Road {north- south). See figure 1. Currently Telegraph Canyon/Otay Lakes Road {east-west) consists solely of a 30'-wide asphalt concrete pavement with no other street improvements .and Otay Lakes Road {north-south) consists of 66-foot wide asphalt concrete pavement within the project limits. Traffic counts taken at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes Roads indicate that the peaks for morning and evening hours occur between 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m. respectively. The existing a.m. peak is 903 and the p.m. peak is 649. The current average daily traffic on Otay Lakes Road {north-south) is 12,090; that of Otay Lakes Road {east-west) is 3,690; and that of Telegraph Canyon Road is 13,560. Traffic flow is currently unstable in the proposed project area. Based on traffic projections by San Diego Association of Governments and the City of -1- PROJECT LOCATION % ...... -5'-~-I ,STREET WIDENING - OTAY LAKES ROAD ,.° ~ 5.2.9.87APACHE DRIVE TO RUTGERS AVENUE Chula Vista for the year 2000, the traffic volumes would increase to 19,000 on the north-south segment and 31,000 on the east-west roadway. The study assumes that proposed State Route 125 will be constructed as a 4-lane prime arterial between 0tay Lakes Road and SR 54. Zf SR 1~5 i~ constructed to San Miguel Road only, the traffic volume on 0tay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road would increase to 43,000. 1.2 Safety Problems During the past three years, 25 accidents have occurred on 0tay Lakes Road/Telegraph Canyon Road. These accidents were due to various reasons, the most frequent which were driver inattention, turning conflicts and unstable traffic flow. It is expected that the proposed signalization of the intersection and widening of the roadway, which will provide increased capacity, additional turning movement storage, and an emergency parking lane will significantly reduce the total number of accidents. In addition, 0tay Lakes Road and Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road are both classified as major City evacuation routes. As such, these roadways must be maintained and improved to provide a sufficient capacity for stable traffic flow at elevated traffic volumes. -2- 1.3 Structural Section It is expected that most of the truck traffic traveling east-west will be attracted to Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road because of its f)atter grades. The anticipated percent of trucks is 5%. The preliminary proposed structural section consists of 5" of asphaltic concrete on 22" of aggregate base (Class II). This is based on an R value of 12 and a traffic index of 10. The structural section for Otay Lakes Road Inorth-south) will consist of 4" of asphaltic concrete on 18" of aggregate base (Class II). The above pavement sections are considered preliminary. When grading is completed, additional testing will be performed on the subgrade in order to determin~ the final pavement sections. Design of the pavement sections is based on recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. in May 1987 and Soils Report prepared by Woodward-Clyde Associates in May, 1982. 1.4 Access/New Connections The proposed widening for Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road includes dual left-turn lanes at Otay Lakes Road and at Rutgers Avenue. This will provide access to the Navy housing project currently -3- under construction and the increased turning movements generated by this development. The increased capacity of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road will relieve increased traffic volumes generated by the EastLake subdivision currently under construction east of the project site. The widening of Otay Lakes Road from Rutgers Avenue east to the EastLake business center and widening of Telegraph Canyon Road from Paseo Ladera to Apache Drive are currently under construction {see Figure 2). This project will widen the segment connecting these two reaches. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project will widen a length of Otay Lakes Road {north-south) and Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road {east-west). The north-south segment improvements include installation of asphalt pavement, 6-inch concrete curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the east side of Otay Lakes Road. The street will be widened to a curb-to-curb width of 85 feet at the Otay Lakes Road-Telegraph Canyon Road intersection. This width will accommodate a 5.5 foot bicycle lane, one 12-foot through lane and one 13-foot through lane. This width will also accommodate two 10-foot left turn lanes in the southbound direction and a 4-foot painted median. The street section will be tapered so that -4- o further north on Otay Lakes Road at approximately Apache Drive, Otay Lakes Road will have a curb-to-curb width of 74 feet. This width will accommodate one 5.5-foot bike lane, one 12-foot through lane, one 12.5-foot through lane in each direction, and a 14-foot painted median. The existing width of Otay Lakes Road Inorth-south) varies from 67 feet at Telegraph Canyon Road to 66 feet at Apache Drive. The limits of the Otay Lakes Road (north-south) improvements extend from the centerline of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to 159 feet north of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 1,O15 feet. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk are currently in place along the west side. Limits of the proposed widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road least-west) extend from approximately 200 feet west of Rutgers Avenue to approximately 500 feet east of Apache Drive, a distance of approximately 3,400 feet. The anticipated ultimate width of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road will ultimately accommodate three 12-foot through lanes, an 8-foot bicycle/emergency parking lane in each direction and a 24-foot wide raised median. However, the interim pavement width proposed for this project will accommodate two 12-foot through lanes and one 8-foot bicycle/emergency parking lane in each direction as well as a 24-foot wide raised median. At the intersection of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road with Otay Lakes Road and with Rutgers Avenue, the median will be reduced to a 4-foot width to provide dual left turn lanes. The roadway will be graded for the ultimate six lane width (134') which creates 23 -5- foot shoulders. An asphaltic concrete berm will be constructed in each direction at the interim pavement edge. The proposed section is shown in Figure 3. The toe-of-slope of the fill required for the widening will encroach upon the existing natural drainage channel to the south of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. Therefore, a naturalized drainage channel will be constructed. The channel which roughly parallels Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and is known as Telegraph Canyon Creek, was constructed by the County of San Diego. The proposed project will relocate the channel adjacent and parallel to the new Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road alignment. The new channel will be trapezoidal in shape with an average cross section width of 117 feet. The base width will be 30 feet, the northern side slope will be 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4:1), and southern side slope of 3:1. A 12-foot access road for maintenance purposes will be located on the north side. The design depth is 8 feet with an additional 1 foot freeboard. The proposed channel section is shown in Figure 3. -6- 2.1 Alternatives Two alternatives to the proposed project have been investigated. The first alternative considered was the "No Project" alternative. This alternative assumes currently occurring and planned development will be completed including the widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road segments east and west of the proposed project. Development east of the project is conditioned with the widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road east and west of the project site. If the proposed project were not constructed, a "bottleneck" would occur in this unwidened connecting segment between Rutgers Avenue and Apache drive. Congestion would increase along 0ray Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and at the intersection of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road north thereby degrading the level of service to an unacceptable level. Therefore, the "No Project" alternative is not considered feasible. A second alternative to the proposed project is the widening of the Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to the north rather than to the south as proposed. This would preclude encroachment into the wetlands or floodplain of Telegraph Canyon Creek. However, this alignment requires extensive excavation of the northern slopes adjacent to 0tay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road, construction of massive retaining walls and horizontal and vertical realignment of Otay Lakes Road north. Because of the probable extensive -7- disruption of established residential developments, possible destabilization of existing slopes and major additional construction costs this alternative is also considered unfeasible. 3.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTI~!G 3.1 Topography The project area is located within the City of Chula Vista, California. The limits of the proposed street widening extend on Otay Lakes Road from Apache Drive south to the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road and on Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road from Apache Drive east to Rutgers Avenue. The alignment of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road roughly parallels the Telegraph Canyon Creek bed. Telegraph Canyon is an intermittent stream canyon draining towards the west. The canyon transects the ancient mesa surface between Sweetwater and Otay Valleys in southern San Diego County. There are numerous tributary canyons and draws on both side of Telegraph Canyon. The ridges of the canyon rise from approximately 100 to 200 feet high and have overall natural slopes of approximately 5 to 1 {horizontal to vertical). -8- 3.2' Geol o~ The Telegraph Canyon Basin has an area of 7.5 square miles. The basin is elongated with a length of approximately 9 miles and a width of approximately 0.8 miles. The drainage basin begins at an elevation of approximately 800 feet, flows in a westerly direction and empties into San Diego Bay. The Telegraph Canyon Basin contains the following main geologic units: 1) Quarternary age to recently deposited alluvial sediments; 2) Pleistocene age terrace deposits; 3) Pliocene San Diego formation; and 4) the Miocene Otay formation. The geologic literature indicates that a fault exists approximately 1 to 2 miles southwest of the project site and that it tends towards the north. This fault may be part of the La Nacion fault zone and is generally not considered to be active. The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault which lies approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site. The recurrence interval for a magnitude of 7.3 earthquake on the fault is estimated to be 60 years. The southern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault zone lies seven to ten miles west of the site. This zone is considered to be potentially active; however, no -9- earthquakes with magnitude 4.0 or greater have been recorded on this fault. Woodward-Clyde states that the probability of a surface rupture at this site is very low 11979). 3.3 Archaeol0~ical ~ ~' ~ o:t~ln~ An archaeological survey report was completed in March 1976 by WESTEC Services for the City of Chula Vista. The area studied was adjacent to Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road between Interstate 805 and Rutgers Avenue. The report was prepared as an appendix to an environmental impact report for the Telegraph Canyon Road and channel improvements proposed at that time. The report identified two archaeological sites that were within the study area. However, the sites are west of area potentially impacted by the currently proposed project. The survey area also included most of the area potentially impacted by widening Otay Lakes Road north-south. A small portion of this area of potential impact is not included. However, the area has been extensively graded during construction of residential housing so that any archaeologic significance that may have existed )las been destroyed. -10, 3.4 Soils This area is underlain with bedrock consisting of the Sweetwater Formation. The bedrock is present at depths of 22 to 30 feet below the existing grade. The S~eetwater Formation of Oligocene age consists primarily of fine to coarse grained sandstones with some gravel and silt. The gravels are derived from the nearby metavolcanic rocks. The consistency of the Sweetwater Formation is very dense and should not consolidate upon fill loading. The bedrock is capped with alluvial deposits. The alluvium varies in depth due .to changes between the present drainage course and the old stream channel IPaleochannel). Depths of the alluvium vary between 22 to 28 feet below the present grade. The alluvium consists of an upper layer of clayey alluvial soils which are compressible and should consolidate upon fill loading. 3.5 Hydrology Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin comprises 7.5 square miles of an elongated area of about 9 miles in length of 0.8 miles in width. The watershed area extends approximately as far north as the Sweetwater Reservoir and as far east as the Upper Otay Reservoir. -ll - Currently, flow is conveyed by an earthen drainage channel constructed by the County of San Diego between 1958 and 1962. The widening project will require a realignment of this channel. The proposed channel will have a 4:1 northern bank, a bed of varying widths, and a southern bank of 3:1 slope. The average channel section width is ll7 Isee Figure 3). There is no historical information on floods for the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 8 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. The presence and depth of groundwater will vary depending upon the permeability of the alluvium, the adjacent formational soils and the amount of infiltration of water due to rainfall, irrigation and other sources. Due to these factors, the free groundwater level should be expected to range between 7 and 9 feet below the existing grade. 3.6 ~'letl ands The project area includes approximately two acres that meet the wetlands criteria. These are described on page 4 and delineated on Figure 3 of Exhibit A. -12- 3.7 Vegetation Vegetation in the immediate area of the roadway includes tall grasses, cattails, sage scrub and pepper trees scattered throughout the site and a small grove of eucalyptus trees at the eastern end of the project area. A more detailed list of vegetation in the project area is contained in Exhibit A. 3.8 Fish and Wildlife Wildlife observed on or near the project site consists of various bird species,, small mammals and reptiles. A list of the wildlife observed is included in Table 2 of Exhibit A. No sensitive or endangered species have been observed. The U. S. Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the project and issued a streambed alteration agreement for the widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road including this segment and the widening currently under construction to the east and west of the project site. 3.9 Land Use Land use of the area to the north of the project site is predominantly residential. This consists of single family detached homes and single family attached homes. At the northeast corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road, 240 Navy housing units -13- are currently under construction. Southwestern Community College is located atop the northerly mesa of Telegraph Canyon west of Otay Lakes Road and is not visible to travelers in the Canyon bottom. West of Otay Lakes Road Inorth-south), opposite Southwestern Community College ar~ church facilities, a neighborhood shopping center and a fire station. To the east of the project site, east of Rutgers Avenue, is located a mobilehome park. Beyond that, the land northeast of Otay Lakes Road has been zoned Planned Community (P-C). This zoning provides for the orderly development of large tracts of land which may contain a variety of land use, bu% are under unified ownership or control. The Navy family housing under construction falls within the guidelines set for a P-C zoning and is the major factor behind the need to widen Otay Lakes Road. The area south of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon road formerly the Otay Ranch, is currently undeveloped and is zoned for agriculture. Since Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road is classified as a scenic highway, the open space element of the City's General Plan proposes that slopes at either side of the canyon will be maintained as open space or utilized as an Agricultural Preserve. -14- 4.0 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.1 Local, Regional, and State Goals and Policies 4.1.1 Local Goals and Policies The proposed widening of Otay Lakes Road (north-south) and Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road is consistent with the 1990 General Plan adopted by Chula Vista City Council on December 15, 1970, and amended on September ll, 1984. Policies 3 and 4 set forth in the "Land Use and Circulation" element of the General Plan state: 3. "Provide adequate and convenience public facilities to serve anticipated population." 4. "Develop a circulation system within the City of Chula Vista and linkages to the region and {o Mexico which will be convenient, efficient, and harmonious with an optimum pattern of land development." In addition, both Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road (north-south) have been identified as major evacuation routes in Section 4 of the Safety -1 5- Element of Chula Vista's General Plan. Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road Inorth-south) are shown on Chula Vista's circulation plan as major roads ~Fi§ure 4). 4.1.2 Regional Development Policies In January 1984, SANDAG reaffirmed the Regional Development Policies approved in January 1974. The SANDAG Board of Directors, local agencies and the private sector implement these policies to direct development so as .to conform with the Regional Goals and Objectives. SANDAG's policy emphasizes: 1. The continued development and improvement of the region's existing communities. 2. New subdivision development occurring as part of economically balanced communities, and 3. The conscious use of employment policies to provide individual opportunity to help conserve the region's resources, and as a primary tool for the development of the region's communities. This project is consistent with the regional goals and objectives listed above. -16- 4.2 Household Characteristics The proposed project lies above the boundaries of two census tracts, 134.03 and 134.04. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, the total population and hou$1n§ units for both tracts is 17,240 persons and 5,299 housing units. The median family income of Census Tracts 134.03 and 134.04 are $37,008 and $32,808, respectively. The following table indicates the ethnic breakdown for each Census Tract. 1980 U. S. Census Ethnic Breakdown for Census Tracts 134.03 and 134.04 TRACT 134.03 TRACT 134.04 No. of Percent of No. of Percent of Race Persons Population Persons Populatio. White 6,015 82.4% 8,685 87.4 Black 109 1.5 155 1.5 American Indian 32 0.4 50 0.5 Asian 789 10.8 705 7.1 Other 355 4.9 345 3.5 TOTAL 7,300 lO0 9,940 1~ *Spanish Origin 1,202 16.5 1,157 11.6 *Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race. -17- 4.3 ~Historic and Cultural Resources Potential impacts of the proposed project on historic and cultural resources were investigated during preparation of the Historic Property Survey Report IHPSR). The conclusions of the report are that construction of the structures within the project's area of potential environmental impact (APEI) are too recent to be of historic significance and no historically significant sites are in or adjacent to the proposed project. 4.4 Public Facilities 4.4.1 Parks There are currently no parks or organized recreational facilities location in Telegraph Canyon within the limits of this project. However, there is evidence that the Canyon is used by motorcycle and other offroad vehicle enthusiasts. Telegraph Canyon Road is also popularly used as a recreational bike route. The Parks and Recreation and Open Space elements of the City's General Plan indicate that a substantial portion of the Canyon Basin should be conserved as open space or park land. -1 8- 4.4.2 Schools There are currently three educational facilities in the vicinity of the project site. These are Bonita Vista Junior High School, Bonita Vista High School, and Southwestern Community College. These are all located on Otay Lakes Road (north-south}. Southwestern College and Bonita High School may be affected by the proposed project. The entrance to Southwestern College is located approximately 932 feet north of Apache Drive. The majority of peak hour traffic is generated by the College. This project will provide an additional left-turn lane and storage capacity which will reduce queuing that occurs at the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road. Bonita High School is located at the northeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street. Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road is the southern boundary of the area served by the high school. Due to its distance from the project and the relatively low number of trips through Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita High School, it will not be significantly impacted by the project. -lg- 4.5 Public Utilities The Telegraph Canyon Basin (east of 1-805) is served by the Otay Municipal Water District. The District serves the area via an 18-inch main located on the north side of the existing Telegraph Canyon Road. The District has constructed an additional 20-inch pipeline with a capacity of 6.5 mgd which will be relocated. The existing 18-inch pipeline will be replaced with a 24-inch pipeline. The District expects that the combined capacity of these water mains will provide adequate capacity to meet the domestic water supply and fire protection needs of existing, and proposed developments within the Telegraph Canyon Basin. A 15-inch City of Chula Vista sanitary sewer was constructed in 1961 near the existing center line of Telegraph Canyon Road. It varies in depth from 8 to 12 feet. Its relocation will not be required; however, relocation of existing sewer and gas lines which serve the Navy Housing development will be done in conjunction with the street widening. The relocation of these lines is required as part of the housing development, not as part of the widening of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. Additionally, existing overhead electrical distribution lines will be undergrounded. -20- ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST After making the necessary preliminary studies, answer the following ~,o If yes, is it signifi- Yes or cant? No, .. No _ Yes, or * PHYSICAL. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly: ]. Change the topography or ground surface relief features? ~.ES * 2. Destroy, cover, or modify any unique geologic or physical features? _NO 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? _NO 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? YES NO* 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? NO 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? NO 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? NO 8. Violate any published Federal, State, or local Standards pertaining to solid waste or litter control? NO 9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES NO* 10.Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? YES NO* 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water supply? NO 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? NO 12. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? YES NO* · See following section: Discussion of [nvironmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. Zf yes, It stgnfft. Yes or Cant? No, _No ~es~ or .BIOLOGICAL. Will the ~roposal result in (either directly or Indirection: (cont.) 27, Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of an~ species of animals (3ird$, land animals including reptiles, fish and Shel}fish benthic organisms, insects Or micrnfauna)? ' 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? NO S__.~C~AL AND ECONOMIC. Will the pro osal directt or indirectl 30. Cause disruption of oraerly planned development? 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies, or ~oals, the GOvernor's Urban StrategX or the President's project)? National Urban Policy (if NEPA 32. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 32. Affect life-stsles, or neighborhood character or stability? 34. Affect minority or other specific interest groups? NO 35. Divide or disrupt an established corr~?uqity? 36. Affect existing housing, require the'disp}aCement of peop}e or crea~e a Oemand for a~Oitiona~ housing? 37. Affect employment, ~ndustry or CO~erce, or require the dfsp]acemen[ of b,~sinesses or farms? 38. Affect pre. perry va~.~es or the local tax base? *See f'ollowi~lg sec.~on: D:SCuSslon of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. · If yes, is it signifi Yes or cant? No, No _,Yes~ or * PHYSICAL. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly: (cont.) 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal State, or local water quality standards?' NO 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or tem- perature, or any climatic conditions? NO 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse ~ effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? .YES NO* 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? ~ 18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State, o~ local air standards Or Control plans? 19; Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? .YES ~0' 20. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal design noise levels or State or local noise standards? YE___S * 21. Produce new light, glare, or shadows? .NO BIOLOGICAL. Will th~either direct__~j~ or indirect__~_~: 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (includinn trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic pla~ts)? YES NO* 23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, rare or endangered species or plants? NO 24, Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or ~ ~ result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? NO 25. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop or commercial timber Stand? .,NO 26,Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? ]NO · See following section: Discussion of Environmental £va)uation and Mitigation Measures, If yes, it stgnif Yes or cant? No SOCIAL AND ECONOMIc. Will the ro osal directl or indirectl .~No _ _~Yes, or 39. Affect any COmmunity facilities /inclu ' educational, SCien*~f~- . d~ng medical. institutions, ~, ~c, r?creat~onal, or religiou~ ceremonial Sites or Sacred shrines)? YES NO* 40. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public Services? 41. Have substantial impact on existing transportation YE_.~.S . systems or alter present Patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 42. Affect vehicular movements or generate additional' NO _ traffic? 43. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or ~ES NO_~* result in demand for new parking? _NO 44. Involve a substantial risk o~ an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 45. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air N~O traffic? 46. Affect public health, expose people to potential health hazards, or Create a real or pOtential health hazard? 47. Affect any Significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object or building? 48. Affect natural landmarks or man-made resources? Y~ES _~0' 49. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view Open to the public, or Creation of an aesthetically offensive Site op? to public view? 50. Result in N.___O substantial i~n?ac[s associated with construc. tion act:vities ~e.§., noisn, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary aCcess, etc,)? YE___S NO* *See following section: DiSCuSSion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. If yes. is it slgntfl- Yes or cant? No, _ No _Yes~ or * ..MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SiGNIFiCANCF. 51. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish Or wildlife species, Cause a fish or wild)ire population to atop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal CO.unity, reduce the number Or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate ~mportant' examples of the major periods of California history br prehistory? NO 52. Does the project have the potential tJ achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmer~tal goals? (A Short-term impact on the environment is one which OCCurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while l~ng-term impacts will endure well into the future.} 53. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively COnsiderable means that :the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in Connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of Other Current projects, and the effects of probaDle future Projects.. It includes the effects of Other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. 54. Does the project have environnental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? *See following section: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation and Mitigation Measures. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES Item 1 The proposed project will alter existing topography at the project site. Grading for the roadway will require minor excavation of slopes north of Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road and fill to the south of the roadway. The fill will at some points encroach on the drainage channel south of the existing roadway. The channel will be realigned to provide for positive drainage. Excavation will be required for the realignment. Maximum depth of cut for the project is 5 feet and that of fill is 15 feet. Fill will be placed with a slope of 2:1 {horizontal:vertical) or flatter (see Figure 3). Item 4 Slopes exposed as a result of excavation will be subject to erosion until new plant life is established. The exposed areas will be either seeded with a native plant mix or replanted with willows and irrigated until vegetation is established. The revegetation effort will be assessed in the September following the first summer after planting. The site will be monitored annually for the subsequent three years. The assessments will emphasize cover, size and numbers of riparian plant species and use by animals of the revegetated area. Further details of the revegetation plan may be found in Exhibit A. -26- Items 9, 10, and 13 The entire length of the drainage channel known as Telegraph Canyon Creek from Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue will be realigned as part of the project. The proposed channel will be trapezoidal in cross-section and has been designed with sufficient capacity to contain a lO0-year flood. Two acres of wetland as defined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers {one acre of marsh, one acre without marsh) will be disturbed. Additionally, adjacent fallow fields and successional grasslands would be impacted. The wetlands to be impacted are of relatively low quality because of agricultural disturbance and the fact that the habitat is generally of recent origin in response to changes in adjacent land use. Impacts associated with the widening of the road are potentially significant because the project could result in a net decrease in wetland habitat. Reduction of nonnative grasslands and fallow fields is not considered a significant adverse impact of this project. The mitigation measures described below will reduce the potential for adverse impacts to biological resources to an insignificant level. Realignment and reconstruction of the drainage channel will include planting the sides and bottom o the channel to provide a naturalized lining. The Revegetation Plan for Telegraph Canyon is included in Exhibit A. The plan was developed to encompass the entire length of Telegraph Canyon Creek adjacent to Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 3.1 miles. This length -27- includes the segments to be widened to the east and west of the proposed project as a condition of currently occurring land development. The reconstructed channel will be open with a soft bottom appropriate for revegetation or natural establishment of wetland vegetation. Selected locations where drainage from the north enter the channel will be planted with willows and the entire channel (bottom and slopes) will be seeded with a mixture of wetland and upland species. The Revegetation Plan includes all practicable measures to minimize impacts to the wetlands as a result of widening Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. As discussed in the project alternative section of this document, there is no practicable alternative to the proposed project that precludes disruption of wetlands. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has been contacted regarding the channelization of the drainage and have approved the project under the nationwide permit, and agreement has been reached with the California Department of Fish and Game under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code, both with the condition that the revegetation plan be implemented {Exhibit A). -28- Item 16 Projected emissions released in the vicinity of the project for the year 2,000 are shown in Table 5, Exhibit B. Emissions would increase due to the projected increased traffic volume. ~owever, the emissions would be greater without the project. The projected emissions for the proposed project are less than 0.04 percent of the total emissions for the County of San Diego. The emissions from the proposed project are very small in comparison to regional emissions and are not anticipated to exceed Federal standards for one hour and eight hour carbon monoxide levels. The project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on regional air contaminant levels. If the regional traffic patterns are analyzed in total, the proposed project would most likely result ~n a decrease in overall regional emissions. The decrease in regional emissions would be probable since more direct travel routes would be available and congestions would be alleviated on other roadways. A detailed air quality assessment is included in Exhibit B. Items 19 & 20 - Noise Barriers The Noise Analysis prepared for the proposed project identifies three receptor sites which will experience a potentially significant change in noise levels due to the proposed project. The sites are Rutgers Avenue at Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road, Apache Drive at Otay Lakes Road (north) and Rutgers Avenue at Citadel Ct. -29- The noise analysis predicts an increase of 9.3 dB in the peak hour LEQ for Rutgers Avenue at Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road. The projected peak hour LEQ, 69.9, exceeds Federal standards of 67.0 and requires mitigation. However, this site does not lie within the scope of the proposed project. It is within the limits of the road widening to the east. The 6 foot barrier wall will be required as mitigation for the noise impact of the Otay Lakes Road widening project to the east. The projected peak hour LEQ of 68.7 at Apache Drive and Otay Lakes Road north also exceeds Federal standards. There is a 2.6 dB increase to the existing peak hour LEQ. Six foot patio barriers are recommended in the Noise Analysis to mitigate this impact. This recommendation disregards noise attenuation provided by existing 8 foot patio barriers at the site. The walls are not considered to be effective noise barriers by the consultant since wooden gates have been installed in the wall and the wall itself is raised approximately 4 inches above existing ground. To fully mitigate predicted noise impact, construction of a second barrier wall or reconstruction of the existing wall into a solid barrier would be required. The final site which will experience a significant increase in peak hour noise levels is at Rutgers Avenue and Citadel Court. The projected peak hour LEQ at this site is 56.3. This represents an increase of 9.3 over the existing peak hour LEQ of 47.0. However, the projected level is well below Federal standards and does not require mitigation. -30- Item 22 ~-~ Change in the diversity of species or any number of species of plants as a result of the proposed project would occur with the realignment of the drainage channel. This area supports patches of freshwater marsh dominated by cattails and nonnative grasslands that is adjacent to fallow fields. Reduction of nonnative grasslands and fallow fields is not considered a significant adverse impact. The potential impact to plant species will be mitigated through the revegetation plan for Telegraph Canyon (Exhibit A). A Cleveland sage reserve was identified within an open space easement located on a slope north of Telegraph Canyon Road and west of Otay Lakes Road north. The reserve is on the slope at a sufficient distance from the roadway so that it will not be disturbed by the proposed project. Part of the open space easement is subject to an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Chula Vista for street purposes in anticipation of the road widening. Item 28 A list of sensitive wildlife observed on the project site is included in Table 5, Exhibit A. Temporary impacts to wildlife populations in the area as a result of construction operations are not considered significant. The -31 - mitigation measures described in the revegetation plan will reduce potential impact of the proposed project on wildlife in the area. Items 39 and 42 Southwestern College and Bonita Vista High School are located on Otay Lakes Road (north-south) north of the project site. However, there would be no significant impact to the air and noise environment of either the college or the high school. Projected traffic volumes indicate that the average daily traffic will increase with the proposed project. However, the increase in traffic volume is not directly attributable to the proposed project. Rather, the increase in traffic volumes will be generated by development currently occurring east of the project site. The proposed project has the potential to affect the traffic patterns in the areas serviced by the schools. The street widening will alleviate congestion on Otay Lakes Road both north-south which provides access to the college and the high school, and east-west. Bicycle lanes and concrete sidewalks which are included in the project will encourage use and increase the safety of alternative modes of transportation. -32- mitigation measures described in the revegetation plan will reduce potential impact of the proposed project on wildlife in the area. Items 39 and 42 Southwestern College and Bonita Vista High School are located on Otay Lakes Road {north-south) north of the project site. However, there would be no significant impact to the air and noise environment of either the college or the high school. Projected traffic volumes indicate that the average daily traffic will increase with the proposed project. However, the increase in traffic volume is not directly attributable to the proposed project. Rather, the increase in traffic volumes will be generated by development currently occurring east of the project site. The proposed project has the potential to affect the traffic patterns in the areas serviced by the schools. The street widening will alleviate congestion on Otay Lakes Road both north-south which provides access to the college and the high school, and east-west. Bicycle lanes and concrete sidewalks which are included in the project will encourage use and increase the safety of alternative modes of transportation. -32- Item 40 The street widening will necessitate the relocation of an existing 2" gas main, 20" water main and undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The relocation o~ a sewer line which was required of the Navy housing development will be included as part of this federally funded project. The gas and water main relocations and utility undergrounding will be coordinated with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and Otay Municipal Water District. Item 48 The drainage channel known as Telegraph Canyon Creek will be realigned as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation measures set forth in the revegetation plan will reduce the visual impact of the realignment. Since the channel is to be relocated and planted with a naturalized cover rather than undergrounded, the impact of the proposed project on the channel, as a natural landmark, is considered insignificant. Item 50 Noise associated with the construction of the proposed project will be a significant short-term impact. This will be mitigated by the City of Chula Vista's Noise Ordinance which limits the hours of construction and excavation -33- work. Construction within the City is limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or federal holidays. This ordinance will be strictly enforced to mitigate construction noise impacts. Minor amounts of air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to add 1.2 tons of dust per acre of soil disturbed. The grading of approximately 30 acres of the project results in an estimated 0.4 tons per day of particulate emissions released. This is a small amount compared to the. current particulate emissions of 255 tons per day released in the San Diego Air Basin. In order to minimize emissions, the site will be watered prior to grading, as required by SDAPCD Rule 403, which will reduce dust generation by approximately 50%. The dust generated will be inert silicates. The estimated construction equipment emissions are shown in Table 4 of Exhibit B. The emissions generated by the construction equipment are very minor. Detouring of traffic will be necessary during construction activities. The traffic control plan for the project will be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the California Department of Transportation Traffic Manual. -34- Item 53 ~ Projects which are currently under construction to widen Otay Lakes/ Telegraph Canyon Road east of Rutgers Avenue and west of Apache Drive have been issued a w .... the California Environmental Quality Negative Declaration in accordance Act {CEQA) requirements. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved the project under the nationwide permit and an agreement has been reached with the California Department of Fish and Game under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The permit and the agreement were approved on the condition that the revegetation plan for the drainage channel be implemented (Exhibit A). The cumulative impact of the projects to widen Otay Lakes/Telegraph Canyon Road are considered to be insignificant if the mitigation measures to revegetate the drainage channel are implemented. WPC 3621 E -35- REFERENCES .. 1. Archaeological Survey Report Terrace Apartments East College SPA, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by R. Keith Olmo of MSA, Inc., October, 1979. 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report for East College Sectional Planning Area, E1 Rancho Del Rey, The Terrace Apartments, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by MSA, Inc., Environmental Consultants, February, 1980. 3. Final Environmental Impact Report for Telegraph Canyon Road/Channel Alignment East of 1-805 to Chula Vista City Limits, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by the City of Chula Vista, EIR-76-12, January, 1987. 4'. Telegraph Canyon Channel Alternatives, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by Leedshill and Herkenhoff, Inc., December, 1987. 5. Biological Resources Technical Report for the Otay Lakes Road Widening Project, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by RECON, February, 1988. 6. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Widening from Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., March, 1987. 7. Air Quality Assessment for the Otay Lakes Road Widening, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, February, 1988. 8. Otay Lakes Road Widening Noise Analysis, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, February, 1988. 9. City of Chula Vista General Plan Digest, Chula Vista, California, Amended September, 1984. 10. Draft Evaluation Report Defense Access Road Project FY 86 Navy Housing Site Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, California, 1986. ll. California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Local Programs Manual Volumes I, II, and III, Updated 1987. 12. Draft Circulation Element of the General Plan, Chula Vista, California, Prepared by JHK Associates, November 1987. WPC 3621 E -36- CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Tom Garibay, City Engineer, City of Chula Vista. Kenneth Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Chula Vista. Registered as a Civil Engineer in the State of California, P.E., No. 17453. B.S. Engineering, San Diego State College, 1964. M.S. Civil Engineering, San Diego State University, 1973. Me,er of American Society of Civil Engineers and American Public Works Association. Eugenia A. Franco, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Chula Vista. Registered as a Civil Engineer in the State of California, P.E. No. 38149. A.A. Chemistry, Southwestern College, 1978. B.S. Civil Engineering, San Diego State University, 1981. Member of American Public Works Association. Mehran Sepehri, Assistant Civil Engineer, City of Chula Vista. Registered as a Civil Engineer in the State of California, P.E. No. 42929. B.S. Civil Engineering, San Diego State University, 1984. Michael J. Donnelly, Acting Traffic Engineer, City of Chula Vista. B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Kansas University, 1960. Member of Institute of Traffic Engineers. Cameron C. Patterson, Consulting Ecologist, Certified Professional Ecologist, B.S. Biology and Communications Grinnell College, 1975. Graduate Studies Botany, University of Wisconsin, 1975-76, Ecology, San Diego State University, 1980-present. Member of Ecological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Diego Society of National History, California Botanical Society and Southern California Botanists. Vicent Mestre, Air Quality and Acoustical Consultant, Principal of Mestre Greve Associates. Registered as a Mechanical Engineer in the State of California, P.E. No. 18786. M.S. Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 1975. Fredric A. Greve, Acoustical and Air Quality Consultant, Principal of Mestre Greve Associates. Registered as a Civil Engineer in the State of California, P.E. No. 31701. M.S. Environmental Engineering, 1975; B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering and Biological Science, 1973, University of California, Irvine. Member of Acoustical Society of America, Air Pollution Control Association, and National Association of Noise Control Officials. WPC 3621 E -37- - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acf~ing ~or a corporation, include capacity and company name. May 19, 1988 File # AN-012 TO: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordina~or~,~?.l FROM: Kenneth Goldkamp, Senior Civil Engineer'~-~ SUBJECT: Initial Study for Widening Otay Lakes Road from Apache Drive to Rutgers Avenue Attached are six copies of the Initial Environmental study for widening Otay Lakes Road/Telegraph Canyon Road for your review and processing. If you have any questions regarding the document or the project, please contact Gena Franco at extension 5117. LMC:ljr Attachment (L~MEMOS~IS-OLR) 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 COM!4ISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.. - The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of ali persons having a financial interest in the application. - EastLake Development Company, a - Louis H. Hunte Testamentary· Trust Calif0rnia partnership - United Enterprises, Ltd., a California - Western Salt Company, a California corporation limited partnership List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. - EastLake Development Company, a - Louis H. Hunte Testamentary Trust California partnership - United Enterprises, Ltd., a California - Western Sait Company, a California Corporation limited partnership 2. If any person identified, pursuant to (l) 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. - EastLake Development Company" -Boswei[ PropertiAs, Inc., a California - David V, a California Corporation, General Partner Corporation General Partner - Daniet V, a California Corporation, General Partner 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. Henry Hunte. Trustee 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) 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 or other political subdivision, or any other group or commination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~ ~t _ J ~ Sign~l~ur~o~applican~/~ate 1 WPC 0701P Ken D'Angelo A-llO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 25, 1990 Page I 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-01: Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning Adminstrator denying a front yard parking permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-11-90) ZAV-90-12: Consideration of variance to allow driveway and parking areas to occupy more than 50% of the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo (continued from 7-11-90) This item was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of June 13 and July 11 at the request of the applicant. As requested by the Commission, a letter was directed to the applicant after the July 11 continuation indicating that the Commission would make a decision on this item on July 25, and advising the applicant to be present or to have proper representation. A copy of the staff report on June 13 is included for your consideration. There are no changes or additions to that report or the recommendation listed therein. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of~)u4~e-~Q~ July 25, 1990 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RV-90-O1; Consideration of appeal from decision of Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parkin~ permit at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romo ZAV-90-12; Consideration of variance to allow driveway and parking areas to occupy more than 50% oF the front yard at 34 East Olympia Court - Leticia Romu A. BACKGROUND This item originated from a neighborhood complaint and an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator denying a front yard parking permit to park a 35 ft.-long, 9 ft.-high recreational vehicle in the front yard of the single family dwelling at 34 East Olympia Court in the R-1 zone. In preparing the appeal for the Planning Commission, it was discovered that the proposal also violates a provision of the Code which limits the amount of front yard area which can be devoted to driveways and parking. Accordingly, the applicant was informed that it would be necessary to apply for a variance in order to pursue the appeal. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny RV-90-O1 and ZAV-90-12. If the Commission wishes to approve the permit and variance, we recommend a continuance to the meeting of June 27, 1990, so that the Commission's position can be formulated into the necessaryvariance findings. C. DISCUSSION The Municipal Code provides that parking in the front yard shall be limited to either the driveway or a dust free surface within 10 ft. of the edge of the driveway, unless otherwise authorized by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to an approved site plan. The RV in question would be parked perpendicular to the street on the opposite side of the yard from the driveway, and directly adjacent to the driveway of the neighboring home to the west. The RV would extend almost the entire depth of the front yard -- from the front of the dwelling to within one or two feet of the sidewalk. The Municipal Code also provides that the total combination of driveways and adjacent parking areas shall not occupy more than 50% of the front or exterior sideyard. In this case, the lot is 60 ft.-wide, and pavement has been added to both sides of the driveway to create a 27 ft.-wide area which provides parking for three vehicles. The proposal to add an ll ft.-wide RV parking space on the opposite side of the lot brings the total width to 38 ft., or 63% of the front yard devoted to driveway and parking areas. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of j~ae-l~t~-)9~ July 25, 1~90 Page 2 The Zoning Administrator denied the front yard parking permit based on safety considerations -- the location and height of the RV would obstruct visibility to the sidewalk and street for vehicles exiting the adjacent driveway. The City Traffic Engineer reports that a minimum distance of lO ft. from back of sidewalk should remain unobstructed above 3.5 ft. in order to maintain safe conditions, and this is consistent with the City's height limit for fencing in front and exterior side yards. The endorsement of an unsafe condition resulting in injury would also raise the issue of potential liability on the part of the City, according to the City Attorney. With respect to the variance request, the staff can find no hardship which would justify using more than 50% of the front yard of a standard 60 ft.-wide single family lot for driveways and parking areas. In addition to the safety considerations noted above, the proposal is not consistent with the standards for open space and the aesthetic values which have come to be expected in single family areas. It should be noted that the applicant was advised of staff's position on the variance prior to filing the application. The applicant has the option of parking the RV on the street -- provided it is moved at least every 72 hours -- or within an RV storage lot. D. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The applicant's statement of appeal reads "I. have seen many motor homes and other vehicles parked in other front yards under the same conditions throughout the City. I am asking for the same rights. At this time I think there is only one complaint by one person who is my neighbor to the west of me. She has been complaining about everything and anything for the last twenty years. But even so I believe I should have the same right as she does and I wish to park my motor home on my side yard." (Please see attached.) E. VARIANCE FINDINGS 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. The property in question is a standard 60 ft.-wide (8,063 sq. ft.) R-1 lot which presents no discernable hardship to justify a variance from the front yard driveway and parking limitations. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of ~meq-~-)gg~ July 25, 1990 Page 3 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. The granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege in that it would allow a greater area for front yard parking and circulation than that which could be established on other properties in the same zone and vicinity. 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. Granting the variance would obstruct visibility from the adjacent driveway and create a safety hazard for pedestrians and motorists. It would also defeat the open space and aesthetic objectives represented by the front yard setback provisions by allowing an inordinate amount of parking in the front yard. 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. The grant of the variance is inconsistent with the policies and standards of the City with respect to open space and aesthetics in single family neighborhoods. WPC 7890P CASTLE PARK ELEMENTARY OXFORD ST. PROJECT AREA E. ONEIDA CT. £. ORLANDO CT. EAST PALOMAR "v-°°-°~ ~z^v-~°-~I,~I,,NDFITH. ~ ~ City of Chula Vista Date Received Planning Department Fee Paid Receipt No. ,.,,.~. .m-,,ea~ Form Case No: Appea) from the decision of: [] Zoning [] Planning [] Design Review Admin i strator Commi ssi on Committee Appellant: /_~ /1¢./~ J/'~'~/J Phone ~-~-- Address: ~ ~ ~/~1~ ~T ~ . Request for: ~¢nr~-~2~'~ {[xampl~' zone chan~, qar~ance, demon rev~e~, etc.) Please state ~here~n you believe there ~as an error ~n the dec,Mort of for the property located at: ~ Z~* ~ ~'~ /~ i ,, / Z- /'-~ .v ~. . ~ ,. I' . ~ , . ~ 1 Sig[ature of Appellant Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City'Council on Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA .. PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters 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, bid, contract~o~ prop/~T~ If real property i~lved, list the names of all persons having any ownership i~erest.' ~ 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- owning any partn~ership interest in the partnership. 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 or any person named in {1) above 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) 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other or comb· ,t~nn nc 'n as a unit." political subdivision, or any other gro~ ik~ - {NOTE: Attach addl'tlonal' page~_.~ nece~sary.) Date: ~ -~-~. ~ ~ · ,z' ~ Sign<~ure of contractor/applicant WPC 0701P A-110 Print or type name of contractor/applicant