Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/05/23 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, May 23, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of April 11 and April 25, 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: PCZ-90-L-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, the first generally bounded by Hermosa Avenue, Orange Avenue and Zenith Street, the second being residential development immediately west of Hilltop Drive along Jicama Way, Orange Avenue, Tamarindo Way, Festival Court and Holiday Court, and the third being the residential area south of Main Street along Del Monte Avenue, Alvoca Way, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-3, Salt Creek Ranch 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) a. Request to prezone 11.7 acres located southerly of Lynndale Lane, northerly of East 'H' Street, and easterly of the 1-805 freeway, to R-E-P - Cameo Development Company (Continued) b. Request to subdivide 11.7 acres known as Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, into 17 single- family detached lots and one open-space lot - Cameo Development Company 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-42: Request to utilize dwelling at 1515 Hilltop Drive as shelter for homeless youth - South Bay Community Services, Inc. May 23, 1990 Agenda Page 2 5. RESOLUTION: Designating proposed boundaries for the Southwest Redevelop- ment Project Area and approving a preliminary plan - Community Development OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-L-M - City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, the first generally bounded by Hermosa Avenue, Orange Avenue and Zenith Street, the second being residential development immediately west ot Hilltop Drive along Jicama Way, Orange Avenue, Tamarindo Way, Festival Court and Holiday Court, and the third being the residential area south of Main street along Del Monte Avenue, Alvoca Way, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The ~)recise territorial limits and proposed rezonings are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". A, BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan referred to as Otay Town Part One. The first subarea is generally bounded by Orange Avenue to the north, Zenith Street to the south, Albany Avenue to the east and Hermosa Avenue to the west. The second subarea includes residential areas surrounding Jicama Way to the north, Holiday Court to the south and Hill top Drive to the East. The third subarea includes residential property in the vicinity of Del Monte Avenue, Alvoca Street, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way south of Main Street. Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: a. RV15 to R-2-P for the three most northwestern lots consisting of a church and three dwelling units; and for the two isolated lots surrounded by the Don Luis Mobile Home Estates mobile home park on Albany Avenue and for the single lot on the north side of Orange Avenue. b. RMH13, RMHIO and RVl5 to MHP for the existing mobile home parks in the northern portion of the first subarea. c. RU29 to R-2-P for the residential area west of Third Avenue and south of the Thunderbird and Fabulous Caliente Mobile Home Parks. d. RU29 to R-3-P for the existing multi-unit development at 307 Orange Avenue. e. C36 to C-C-P for the existing commercial lot at the southwestern corner of Orange and Third Avenues, for the area used for storage directly south of this corner lot, for the vacant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 2 commercial area; and areas used for storage at the southeastern corner of Orange and Third; and for the southeastern corner of the Fabulous Caliente Mobile Home Park, and for the first 140 feet {approximate) either side of Third Avenue, from Anita Street south to the subcommunity boundary. f. C36 to R-3-L for the vacant land on the east side of Third Avenue directly west of the Palms Mobile Estates mobile home park. g. RS7 to R-1-5-P for the remaining single family and duplex area south and east of the Palms Mobile Estates mobile home park. h. RS6 to R-1-6-P for the entire residential area in the vicinity of Del Monte Avenue, Al voca Street, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way, south of Main Street. i. RS7 to R-I-?-P for the single family residential area west of Hilltop Drive along Jicama Way and Platano, Festival and Holiday Courts. j. C32 to CN for the existing commercial lots on the northwestern and southwestern corners of Hill top Drive and Orange Avenue. k. RU15 to R-3-L for the existing townhome development west of Hilltop Drive between Orange Avenue and Tamarindo Way. 1. S94 (no change proposed at this time: Special Study Area) 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M. 3. On April 18, 1990 the Montgomery Planning Committee unanimously accepted staff recommendations as noted above. B. RECOr~MENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 3 C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoninq and land use. North R-l-7 single family residential C-C-P commercial R-3 single and multi family dwellings R-3-G-D vacant area, power lines R-1 single family residential and park area MHP mobile home park South M52 & mixed industrial, M54 (County) commercial and residential uses West RVl5 (County) single family residential RMH8 & RMH9 (County) mobile home park S94 (County) power line easement RU29 (County) single family and duplex residential East R-2-T duplex residential I-L Otay Park, Otay Elementary School, light industrial R-1 single family residential, Loma Verde Park, Loma Verde Elementary School M54 {County) mixed industrial and commercial uses 2. Existing site characteristics. The topography of the area is generally flat with a slight rise toward Orange Avenue to the north. The largest subarea of Otay Town Part 1 is almost entirely developed with only a few vacant or unused parcels remaining. The predominant land use is residential. Four mobile home parks are situated in the northern half of this section and comprise 564 units. The southwestern quarter is developed with a mixture of single family, duplex and multi unit residences. The remaining residential portion of this first section is predominately single family although duplex units and two units on one lot are not uncommon Montgomery Elementary School is located on Hermosa Avenue and four churches with associated buildings are located here as well. The property fronting Third Avenue, generally south of the mobile home parks is developed with a mixture of neighborhood and visitor oriented commercial uses. One large vacant strip fronts City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 4 Third Avenue directly west of the Fabulous Caliente mobile home park and two other vacant lots front Third Avenue north and south of Zenith Street. The second subarea of Otay Town Part 1 is the residential area west of Hilltop. Two gas stations with mini-marts occupy the corner lots at Hilltop and Orange Avenue. The residential development is single family residences surrounding Jicama Way, and Platano, Festival and Holiday Courts and a multi unit townhome development between Orange Avenue and Tamarindo Way. The third subarea of Otay Town Part 1 is the residential units south of Main Street. This area is a small enclave of residential homes surrounded by industrial land. 3. Soecific Plan. The Otay Town Part 1 subcommunity area contains several land use designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan (per Exhibit "B"): Parks - Open Space / Special Study Area This designation is applied to the northwestern corner of the first subarea of Otay Town Part 1 and includes the power line easement area and the lot to the north. The proposed amendments are for the power line easement area to be studied further with other Parks-Opens Space/Special Study areas and for the northern lots, along with the church lot directly east of them, to be reclassified from RVl5 to R-2-P. High Density, 18 to 27 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation is applied to the existing apartment complex at 307 Orange Avenue. The proposed zone amendment is from RU29 (Urban Residential, 29 dwelling Units per acre) to R-3-P {Apartment Residential with a Precise Plan modifying overlay). This change is consistent with the Specific Plan and existing land use. Mercantile and Office Commercial This designation applies to the commercial strip along Third Avenue from Anita Street south to the subcommunity boundary, including the southeastern corner of the Fabulous Caliente mobile home park and the corner areas on Third Avenue south of Orange Avenue. The proposed zone amendment is from the County designation of C36 {General Commercial) to C-C-P {Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifying overl ay). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 5 Mercantile and Office Commercial also applies to the northwestern and southwestern corners of Orange Avenue and Hilltop Drive. The proposed zone amendment for these lots is from C32 (Convenience Commercial) to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). This is a straightforward reclassification and is consistent with the gas stations and mini-marts in occupying the lots. Medium Density, 6 to ll Dwelling Units per Acre This designation applies to all the mobile home park areas within Otay Town Part 1. The proposed zone amendments include RMH13, RMHIO and RVl5 to MHP. These changes are straight conversions from county zoning as RMH translates to Residential Mobile Home. The numbers following the RMH refer to the density assigned to the area. The RV15 applies to a thin, 27 wide foot strip of land between the Thunderbird mobile home park and the Fabulous Caliente Mobile home park. Another zone amendment within the Medium Density designation is from C36 (General Commercial) to R-3-L (Apartment Residential, Low-Rise) for the vacant land on the east side of Third Avenue, directly west of the Palms Mobile Estate mobile home park. This zone change will create the residential zoning consistent with the adopted Montgomery Specific Plan. A third set of lots designated Medium Residential are three lots in the vicinity of the Don Luis Mobile Estates mobile home park. These are single lots, developed with residential uses and a day care facility. The proposed zone amendment is from RV15 (Residential Variable, 15 dwelling units per acre) to R-2-P {One and Two family residential) This zone change will be a straightforward change from the county classification for mixed single family and duplex areas, to the City's classification for the same use. Low - Medium Density, 3 to 6 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation is applied to the majority of the residential area in Otay Town Part 1. There are several zone amendments in this Specific Plan category: RU29 (Urban Residential, 29 units per acre) to R-2-P (one and two family residential) for the area directly south of the Thunderbird and Fabulous Caliente mobile home parks. This area is developed with a wide mix of single family, duplex and multi unit residences The average lot size is approximately 7,400 square feet . City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 6 RS7 {Single Family Residential, 7 units per acre) to R-1-5-P {Single Family, 5,000 square foot lots) for the areas south and east of the Palms Mobile Estates mobile home park. The area is mostly single family with some lots having two units The average lot size is 7,400 square feet. RS7 to R-1-7-P {Single Family, 7,000 square foot lots) for the areas west of Hilltop Drive, north of Orange Avenue and south of Tamarindo Way. This area is newer, tract housing on lots averaging 7,400 square feet. RS6 {Residential Single Family, 6 units per acre) to R-1-6-P (Single Family, 6,000 square foot lots) for the area south of Main Street. The average lot size is 12,000 square feet and the area is almost entirely single family Medium - High Residential, ll to 18 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation applies to the townhome development on the west side of Hilltop Drive between Orange Avenue and Tamarindo Way. The proposed zone amendment is from RU15 {Urban Residential, 15 dwelling units per acre) to R-3-L (Apartment Residential, Low-Rise). The existing townhome development is consistent with this zoning. D. ANALYSIS Several factors support the rezonings described above: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone classifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. 2. The rezonings proposed for the residential areas will continue to allow the type of single family and duplex developments as exist in the area today. Additional dwellings on the lots will be allowed where the lots are large enough, without having to subdivide the land. The precise plan modifier will allow for discretionary review of projects prior to building permits. 3. The deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area will allow the city to consider the needs of a park or open space lands in the area of the power line easement. 4. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning, keeping in mind consistency with existing land uses, without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. WPC 7749P EXCERPT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1990 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS &) PCZ-90-L-M City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, the first generally bounded by Hermosa Avenue, Albany Avenue, Orange Avenue and Zenith Street; the second being residential development immediately west on Hilltop Drive along Jicama Way, Orange Avenue, Tamarindo Way, Festival Court and Holiday Court; and the third being the residential area south of Main Street along Del Monte Avenue, Alvoca Street, Teena Drive and Ancurza Way, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The precise territorial limits and proposed rezonings are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". Zoning and Implementation Consultant Lettieri made the presentation and noted that the proposal involved the rezoning of the Subcommunity referred to as Otay Town Part One. The request would convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications as indicated on Exhibit A. He indicated that the predominant land use was residential with four mobile home parks situated in the northern half. Mr. Lettieri described in detail the actual reclassification proposal reviewing both the County and City zoning densities. He noted that the main purpose of the rezonings is to implement the Montgomery Specific Plan and to eliminate the County classifications so that the City could administer based on City-wide classifications. The rezonings for residential areas would allow the type of single-family and duplex developments as are presently in existence. Additional dwellings on sufficiently large lots would be permitted without the need for subdividing the land. The deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area would permit consideration of a park or open space lands in the area of the SDG&E easement. He concluded that the proposed zone amendments are the best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Nancy Oliver, 3315 Alvoca Street, commented that there is no further room for development in her area and that public improvements are needed. Mr. Lettieri replied that the proposal accommodates the existing single-family housing without permitting additional units. MPC MINUTES -3- April 18, 1990 Chairman Wheeland stated that a letter had been received from Sav-On Mini Storage, at 3712 Main Street, in which the owner, Mr. Luciani, indicated his inability to attend the meeting and requested to go on record as opposing any changes in zoning which would change the usage of the property from its present designation. Mr. Luciani reserved the right to appear at a later da~e to appeal or contest the changes. Jesus Amuzqua, 185 Anita, asked what criteria determined if the lot was large enough to allow a second dwelling? He was informed that the density designator of "5" meant that one unit would be permitted for every 5,000 square feet. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Committee Member Creveling asked why the small notch created by Orange Avenue, Second Street and Banner could not be reclassified to R-3-G-D? He was informed by Principal Planner Pass that the area was part of the old City of Chula Vista and did not fall in the Montgomery Area. Mr Pass explained that the lot had been purposely widened before the idea of putting Banner Street through to the south had been abandoned. Since the adoption of the Plan, however, the intent to put Banner through has been reconsidered and a large portion of that lot may be involved. Chairman Wheeland said that Committee Member Castro had been unable to attend the meeting because of illness but had recommended that the area near the 100 block of Zenith not be changed to R-l-5 from RS-7. He wished to go on record that he prefers the larger lot size because it is consistent with what is there now and he wants people to know that lowering it to R-l-5 is not best for the area. Also, the area where the change occurs west of Third from RU29 to R-2-P, Member Castro considers that area should be R-l-5 as well and asked the reason for the proposed change. Mr. Lettieri replied that the area west is divided single, multiple and 2-3 units per lot. Staff felt that the R-2-P zone which cuts the density more than half was reasonable. In the area to the east, staff went to the 5,000 square-foot minimum (R-l-5) instead of the density of 6,000 square feet (RS-7) because the predominant land use was single-family and the R-l-5 zone would permit some of the lots a second unit but would still retain the predominant land use as single-family. After consultation with the Advance Planning Staff, Mr. Lettieri indicated that staff would like to keep its R-l-5 recommendation. Member Creveling supported staff's recommendation and remarked that the "P" modifier would prevent most problems. ~ISUC that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. [(Palmer/Creveling) 5-0.] MSUC to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". [(Roberts/Creveling) 5-0.] ADDENDUM IS-88-4M MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART III May 6, 1988 1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required unless: a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. Because the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan has been the subject of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of implementation of the plan, a new initial study (IS-88-~6~) was required. It is the conclusion of the initial study that prior envir&ffmental review of the Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88-4M continues to accurately assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III. Previous Project The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. Proposed Project Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines. Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review. -2- Analysis 1. Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and whitelands designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required at this time. 2. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas include: a. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. d. Transportation/Access Both )qontgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenu~ to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. -3- e. Land Form/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rollin§ topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. Conclusion The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recom~nend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the project. - U L~ D.~REID ENVIR~,IMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 5244P -4- negative- declaration PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4bl DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Settin9 The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square mil~s located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. ,,~,~ lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunitie$ which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. · The subcommunities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown in Exhibit B of this report. Residential uses are distributed~throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres {3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within Hontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along Broadway, Hain Street and Third Avenue. city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF envlronmenlal review section CHULA VISTA Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every 1,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community pdrks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is 100 acres. There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. IThese figures do not include 151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club for use as a golf course.) Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands. Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which contains lan~ uses of a type or intensity substantially below that currently permitteo by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the Montgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. B. Project Description The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community 9oals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgome~ Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the implementation phase. An additional initial study will be required upon completion of that document. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zonin9 allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, an~ parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape plannin9 and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. C. ~gmpatibility with Zoning and Plans Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and dia9ram are designed to methodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Groundwater/Drainage There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west Oraining into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of this report. I. Telegraph Canyon Creek The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of the ~lontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J" Street ~arsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove properties adjacent to the channel from the lO0 year floodplain. The channelization project does not include properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and some areas which are not contained within a channel will continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third Avenue subject to further study) ano private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent structures anU are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain designation. In addition, since the special study area requires project specific environmental review to assess potential issues with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. 2. Otay River Valley The Otay River Valley bounos the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue {within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are intersperseO with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial ano a small area north of ~.lain Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with industrial buildings under County regulations prior to annexation under development regulations requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a combination of large inOustrial uses with interim type storage and inoustrial yards, intermixed with residential and commercial uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties. The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County floodplain ~evelopment regulations so that a permanent development pattern has alreaoy been established. The area south of ~qain Street is proposed for Research and Industrial land uses subject to special study prior to designation of per~anent land uses. The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted until the con~pletion of comprehensive biological and wetlands determination studies, as well as development of a regional park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The special study area and "Whitelands" function os a holding designation pending resolution of 'complex environmental and jurisoictional land use issues. As such, no adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social Displacement There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acresl, 2) properties south of Main Street, ano 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del I,~ar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.) lhese areas have the potential for displacement of residents or people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows. l) Brodericks Otay Acres The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential streets in combination with the use of private streets and drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single family uses. In iqay of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5 net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of apartments have occurred. The draft Nontgomery Specific Plan proposes to return the designated land use to single family development with a density of no more than five dwellings per acre. Since the proposed land use designation is in keeping with the existing land uses present and the circulation system available, and since there are no actual apartments developed within this subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur from this action. 2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from operation of these businesses. The proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. 3) Properties east of Third ~venue between Naples and Kennedy The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus point for community civic and commercial activities within the area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street. This civic and commercial activity center is referred to in the plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus. Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of commercial land use designations along the east side of Third Avenue to encompass properties along Del Flar Avenue, as shown in Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations would take place on properties which are currently residential in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing housing as an indirect result of development according to the plan. However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive studies which aedress socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning, and traffic issues." The special study area is structured so that commercial development on properties with existing residential uses is precluoed until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected. In adOition, any specific proposal for development is subject to further environmental study and must include these comprehensive stuoies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposeo action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. Transportation/Access Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse environmental impact. LanOform/Topography One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, l~oodlawn Park, is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further development of this area for single family residential uses as outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Given these standard development regulations, no significant and adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep topographic conditions at the plan stage. E. Project Modifications Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and whitelands designations, no mitigation is required. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas are listed as follows: A. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Transportation/Access The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. Landform/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level wi th attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area. 3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified; there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively conservative. 4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior ~iv~l ~g~peer ?11 i am Wheel er, Bu~i~8~;~ ~6~:~Osilng Department ~arol Gove, Fire Mar~hal~ Chuck Glass, Traffic Eng(neer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), chela Vista MUnicipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, lg87 4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152, 06~284-2154, 060284-2156, Federal Emergency Ilanagement Agency, June 15, 1964 7) Sout~ Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista lo) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and avai)able.~or ~.blj~ review at the Chu)a Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, C~t~}~:~ ~t~i~A 92010. EVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) wPC city of chula vista planning department CITY OF environmental review section CH[.JL~ VI~I'A EXHIBIT a / EXHIBIT B FUR UFFICE USE Case No. IS-88-65M Fee _ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. -- Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by -- Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three 2. PROJECT LOCATION IStreet address or description) The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or re~ulator.y mechanisms which are designed to expcut~ nr eff~rfl~a~ ~he plan. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista, Planninq Department Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner and Frank'J. Herrera, Assistant Address Same as #4 City State Zip Relation to Applicant Agent 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 ' Grading Permit - Design Review Board X 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 & -- Biologica) Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map --Noise Assessment --X-Specific Plan -- Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report .. Other Agency Permit or' Soils Report --Other Approvals Required (Rev. 22/82) 3/3/88 MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT PART THREE PAGE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1 B. Past Plan Implementation 1 C. Present Plan Implementation 2 D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2 II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3 A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3 B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5 3. Special Montgomery Regulations 6 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8 III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION l0 A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls l0 B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12 £. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13 D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13 E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 WPC 4173P DRAFT I!ONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART THREE I . I~!TRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, principles, and planning and design proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text. Past Plan Implementation Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery. Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning needs of ~1ontgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation efforts in I~ontgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation, subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and -1- missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust formulated in conjunction with these issues. C. Present Plan Implementation Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of Montgomery and its several subcommunities. D. Proposed Plan Implementation The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban design guidelines. A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from "County Zoning" to "City Zoning." -2- The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It should be recognized that Part Three establishes an Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be undertaken separately. II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS A. Adopted County Zonin~ Plan/City Zonin~ Plan The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by t~e City of Chula Vista upon the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning " Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of developments over a broad geographical area. The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable. Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista Zoning Plan. While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's identity and unique -3- land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as modified by the special provisions and regulations of the Implementation Program. The "Special Nontgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of this section of Part III, shall take precedence over other land use regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them. B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a fundamental basis of the Implementation Program. With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants mentioned in the above paragraph. The ~lontgomery specific Plan's gross residential density categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential density standards, which are fundamental to zoning regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are: "~et residential density is the density of the building site. Gross residential density is the density of the building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections." As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore, if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it has a gross density of l0 dwelling units per acre.* 2. Proposed Zonin9 Amendments & Table of Translation The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and changes which are essential to the effective implementation and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning. The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide for the direct t~anslation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is therefore called the "Table of Translation." * Gallion & Eisner, in The Llrban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is /the) area exclusive of public rights-of-way...whereas "gross density" usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by gross density. -5- ,,.3 ~- o .~o°' . 3. Special Montgomery Regulations a. Land Use Il) The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a planned equilibrium of medium density residential, park and open space, institutional, commercial, and light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land, such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards, waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and shall not be expanded or continued beyond their existing time limits, or within 24 months after the date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L, Limited Industrial," whichever occurs last. This protracted time limit is designed to provide the involved land users the opportunity to convert their open uses of land into well-designed, authorized light-industrial developments. All of the subject uses which are not time-limited shall be governed by the City's Nonconforming Uses regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the Chula Vista l.lunicipal Code. (2) Existing vehicular and equipment storage yards and open impounds shall not be governed by the above provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope or tenure. New vehicular and equipment storage yards or open impounds shall be generally discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under the conditional use permit process. -6- (3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage industries are encouraged, they must he preplanned; thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commission; and, approved under the City's conditional use permit process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use development, residential land use shall not be permitted in industrial or commercial zones. (4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter 5.~0 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be prohibited. (5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula Vista Design Reviev~ Committee, may authorize a maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a project proposed for development within an area designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" (3-6 dwelling units per acre). This authorization must be predicated upon the Director's finding that the proposed project would be characterized by outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not become effective or operational in the absence of its ratification by the Planning Commission. The subject residential bonus would not be applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior Housing Development, as defined in Section 19.04.201 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies for an affordable-housing density bonus under -7- Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government Code, or the provisions of the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. b. Height The height of commercial and industrial buildings and structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not exceed two stories, or 28 feet. c. Setbacks All buildings constructed along the Main Street, Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the required setback areas. 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee shall be prerequisite to its approval or conditional approval of a developmental project. b. The Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the fundamental guide for the design review of projects proposed for development within ~lontgomery. Under special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus, shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning -8- Committee may determine that the townscape-planning guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are appropriate, and may request their employment by the Design Peview Committee. c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be promoted in the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and civic projects. d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which they are located. e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between residential and other land use categories shall be encouraged. f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial project should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of the involved parcel's street frontage. Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum, twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may -g- be permitted through the conditional Imajor) use permit and design review processes. A directional sign permitted under this provision shall not be located within, or overhang a street right-of-way. g. New development should reflect the basic design character and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high levels of urbanity and sophistication. h. Architectural diversity and freedom should be encouraged in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, ho~.~ever, will necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design coordination. i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture, bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered. These features could commemorate the history of the involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence. j. Vertical or, roof-mounted structures which do not make an important design statement should be discouraged. III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN IMPLE)IENTATION A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This process establishes a lot and Street pattern, which greatly -10- influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner. Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and amorphous design. This has significantly impaired the Community's order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and circulation. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical reorganization. Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets; and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially reduce on-street and front yard parking and Storage, and thereby improve the overall appearance of Montgomery. Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's subdivision controls, as amended in 'accordance with the above suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Community. -ll- B. Citywide and Special £apital Improvement Pro~ramminq Chula Vista's ~!aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major capital improvements of citywide significance. The ~lontgomery Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery planning area to the year 2005. The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as school districts and public utility companies. It will require an annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity. The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement Program could facilitate the advance purchase of public sites at a substantial savings. This program could also encourage private investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate their development prog?ms with those of the City. Capital improvement programming for ~lontgomery should be oriented toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities. Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan. -12- C. Code Enforcement and Coordination While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the public safety, health, and general welfare, it also provides a plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline; and, promote revitalization. Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation. In Montgomery, the code enforcement program should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the Specific Plan. D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of Montgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end. These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the selective application of urban renewal measures, such as conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the circumstances of the particular project. 1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal, and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not significant. It often involves the cleaning and sprucing up of residential neighborhoods or commercial areas, and the provision of improved public services, works, and infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and usually do not entail extensive contributions from local government. -13- In the Montgomery Community, where much conservation activity is indicated, the ~ontgomery Planning Committee should promote it on an outreach basis. 2. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of concerted action by the private and public sectors could result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation, the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a general rule, street improvements or additional public facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of dignity," and requires a strong community commitment. Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program. 3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it includes the remedies associated with conservation and rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of buildings; the r?latting of territory; and the expenditure of considerable capital for public improvements. Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within Montgomery, such as ~lest Fairfield, where land must be marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most practical remedy available is redevelopment. -14- E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program The Montgomery Neighborhood ~evitalization Program (NRP) is a newly instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program include: -- identification and prioritization of needed public capital improvements; -- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation loan program; -- public education on zoning, building and other City codes; -- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up programs. The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for target-area status: -- need for public improvements; -- need for housing rehabilitation; -- neighborhood character; -- income status; -- demonstration of local support for NRP. -15- IV. CONCLUSION The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives, statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban center in question. The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called "incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally, the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of Montgomery and its several subcommunities. WPC 4173P -16- - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* 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: .. ~hT<cJ~ /~ . Iq~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- case No..S -6 JV CITY 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 designation 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? ,/l~ ?~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ,4_~y'~ 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.) ~i.F.~ - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity Prom Project Elementary Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to he at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe. ,~_; ~ 5. .Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity {per year) q.~ ?~ Natural Gas (per year) - ' ' Water (per day) 6. Remarks: ~lilrector Of Plan'ning or Rep. resentative ~" /' 'r~'3 - l0 - Case No. G. £NGIN£ERING D£PARTM£NT 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? _. 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? 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? 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 ~ecessary actions. - ll ~ Case No. 3. ~eology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?. , 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 soil conditions? 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 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 (per day) Factor Pollution CO ~ X 118.3 : ~ Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : ~/ NOx (NO2) X 20.0 : Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sul fur ~ X .78 : ~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ Liquid W What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~Y/m 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 Ei~gi~r o~JRapl~ntative~ GA ~ - 13 - Case No. FIRE DEPART)I£NT . 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 Case No. 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 pro~ection for the p~oposed fa~lity without an increase,in equipmen% U F. Jre Narshal 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 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or 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 s'ite contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A si?ificant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? A significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground t~ater a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? -15 - YES POTENTIAL ))O b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? -. Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. ~rainage 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 in 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 uhich 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? _V YES POTENTIAL NO 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? _ _ .... ~f 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 wa~er supplies? L~ 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary Sources? ~L/X~ b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise ]eve)s? ,~ -17 - YES POT£NTIAL NO 10. Biolog~ 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 area which could affect a rare, endangered or 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 ~.~ith 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 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~ntial demand for additional housing or--existing housing? 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 L// Police Protection -" Schools ...... Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public Facilities Including Roads - 19- YES POTENTIAL HO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? Could the project result in a need for net~ systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas Communications systems -- Water Sewer or septic tanks Solid ~aste &disposa) 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-reneuable natura) resources? - 20 - YES POTENTIAL 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, whil~ 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 I.~hen 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 wil] cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 22 - K. ~ETERMINATION 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 NEGATIVE 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 ~.~ill be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. WPC 0169P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 1 l. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-89-M: Request to prezone ll.7 acres located southerly of Lyndale Lane, northerly of East 'H' Street, and easterly of the 1-805 freeway, to R-E-P - Cameo Development Company (b~ PCS-90-06: Request to subdivide ll.7 acres known as Lyndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, into 17 single family detached lots and one open space lot - Cameo Development Company A. BACKGROUND This item involves a prezone and tentative map known as Lyndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, for ll.7 acres located at the southerly terminus of Lynndale Lane, south of Lynnwood Drive, north of East 'H' Street and east of Interstate 805. The proposal is to prezone the site to R-E-P (Residential Estate/Precise Plan) and subdivide the property into 17 single family lots and one open space lot. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-84, 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-89-84. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-84. Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the prezone and tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 0 shall be placed in Open Space Maintenance District No. ll by application and at the expense of the developer. 2. All lots facing Lot 0 shall be be fenced and other easy access to this area shall be removed or adequately blocked according to a plan submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. 3. A naturalized revegetation program which may include temporary irrigation shall be submitted for Lot 0 subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 2 4. No clearing of any portion of the subdivision shall occur between March 15 and August 1. 5. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in Section F of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-84 are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. 6. The remainder parcel southwest of the curve on Lyndale Place shall be deeded to the neighboring property designated as Parcel 3, 1.17 acres. 7. The developer shall obtain permission from the owners of the four lots which presently gain access via Lynwood Place to relocate their existing driveways as indicated on the tentative map. 8. The developer shall cause to be vacated all publicly owned or offered road easements. 9. Development of the lots shall conform with the setback standards for the R-l-7 zone. 10. Each lot shall have a minimum total of 1,500 sq. ft. of usable rear and/or sideyard area with a minimum dimension of not less than l0 ft. ll. Each lot shall require separate irrigation systems for slope planting and erosion control subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 12. A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E prior to any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which would affect access thereto. 13. An access easement shall be granted by Lot 3 to the adjoining property to the north in order to accommodate the existing driveway and associated slopes serving that property. 14. 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. 15. The amount of any fees applicable to the project, including but not limited to PAD, DIF and RCT fees, shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall show compliance with the City's Growth Management Element and Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 17. Annexation of the site from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista is required prior to approval of the Final Map. Annexation shall include all of the right-of-way necessary to construct Lynndale Place as shown on the Tentative ~lap. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Nay 9, 1990 Page 3 18. The owner shall obtain easements for proposed offsite sewer and storm drain facilities in Lynndale Lane prior to approval of the Final Map. Easements shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but not less than.lO feet. 19. The owner shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the Final Map by the City if offsite easements cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of Approval Numbers 18 and 31 (Only offsite right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition). After said notification, the owner shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring offsite right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easement and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. The requirements of a, b and c above shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final Map. All offsite requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City does not comply with the 120 day time limitation specified in that section of the act. 20. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 21. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be required as part of the grading plans. The owner's engineer shall submit recommendations to reduce fill slope gradients to less than 2:1, if the soils engineer determines that the nature of on site soils present problems with fill slope stability and erosion. In the event that any fault zones are found during grading of the site, a field investigation shall be required (by a registered geologist) and any subsequent recommendations incorporated into the project design. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 4 22. The owner shall be responsible for the construction of public improvements of all streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision. Public improvements required shall include, but not be limited to~ A.C. pavement, and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, driveway approaches, traffic signals, street lights, traffic signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities. 23. Lot frontages on cul de sacs and knuckles shall not be less than 35 feet unless approved by the City Engineer. 24. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the owner shall guarantee the construction of all improvements (streets, sewers, drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to the subdivision in accordance with City standards. 25. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he holds the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulting from this project. 26. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the owner shall receive letters of permission from adjacent property owners for offsite work necessary to construct driveway approaches, driveways and any other improvement necessary to provide access and utilities to those properties located adjacent to and westerly of the site impacted by the proposed subdivision development 27. The owner shall provide access on an equal basis to individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. 28. A study of the noise impacts to the project from East "H" Street and State facilities shall be performed for existing and future conditions including the proposed East "H" Street widening project. The owner shall submit said study subject to CalTrans review and acceptance prior to Final Map approval. 29. Proposed work within CalTrans' easements shall be subject to CalTrans' review and approval. The owner shall submit engineered drawings and pertinent hydraulic calculations and obtain any required permits from the State of California for said work prior to Final Map approval. 30. All streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision shall be dedicated for public use. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for public streets. 31. The proposed storm drain within Lot #14 shall be extended as necessary to outlet at the flowline of the local drainage basin to which it is tributary. Any necessary offsite easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 5 32. Driveway approach on Lynndale Lane serving Parcel ] of Parcel Map 6001 shall be located at a minimum distance of eight feet from point of curve return. 33. The public ro&d easement (recorded 3-6-18, Book 745, Page 284 of deeds) within the project shall be vacated prior to Final Map approval. 34. Any portion of private road easement(s) which coincide with proposed public streets shall be quit claimed prior to Final Map approval. The following are map revisions and Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department. Map revisions: 1. Show all easements and define them correctly. 2. Add a street cross section for portion of Lynndale Place from Street "A" to Lot 17 to conform with the street design policy for a single loaded residential street. Toe of 2:1 slope shall be located two feet back of sidewalk. 3. Show proposed driveway for Lot 1. Code requirements: 1. All utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 2. The owner shall pay traffic signal participation fees currently estimated in the amount of $2,160 prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The owner shall pay sewer connection fees currently estimated in the amount of $38,865.96 prior to the issuance of the building permits. 4. The owner shall pay development impact fees currently estimated in the amount of $76,032 prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The owner 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 and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. C. DISCUSSION The property is presently zoned County RR1 (Rural Residential/one dwelling unit per acre). Adjacent zoning and land use are as follows: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 6 North: County RR1 Single family dwellings on one acre lots South: PC Shopping center and 1-805/East 'H' Street interchange East: PC Single family dwellings on standard City lots West: County RR1 Single family dwellings on one+ acre lots The topography of the site is moderately rolling with small ridges and intervening canyons. The high and low points of the site differ by approximately 88 feet. Access to the site is off Lynndale Lane via Lynnwood Drive and Bonita Road. A new street, Lynndale Place, would course southerly from Lynndale Lane and terminate in a cul-de-sac. A second cul-de-sac extending easterly from the new street would serve three lots. The areas of all but one residential lot (lot 4--7500 square feet) would be in excess of lO,O00 square feet with an average residential lot size of 13,431 square feet for the entire tract. An open space lot of about 4.7 acres is provided, approximately four acres of which would be undisturbed. The remainder of the property would be mass graded to create the new lots and streets. The Precise Plan Modifying District is being employed to create lots smaller than the 20,000 square feet required by the R-E Zone in order to provide an open space lot of 4.7 acres. According to the biology report submitted with the Initial Study, this open space lot, in the size and shape indicated, would mitigate perceived environmental impacts resulting from the project. Because of the configuration of some of the proposed lots, the applicant has chosen the R-l-7 setbacks as his development standards; i.e., 15 ft. front, 10 ft. exterior side, l0 ft./3 ft. interior sides, and 20 ft. rear. A portion of the new street, Lynndale Place, would traverse over an existing 60-foot-wide road easement which provides present access to both the subject property and four unincorporated parcels to the west and southwest. Existing driveways which serve these parcels will have to be slightly relocated to conform to City requirements. In addition, this easement has an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate {IOD) encumbrance on it in favor of the County. This IOD is required to be vacated. Letters have been received from the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association, each recommending denial of the project because of increased traffic on Bonita Road which would be generated by this project. Each believe that access to the subdivision should be via East 'H' Street. li~ey also object to the proposed annexation leaving a peninsula of unincorporated land in this area. {See attached correspondence.) D. ANALYSIS The proposal is consistent with the General Plan which designates the property Low Residential (0-3 D.U./ac) - the project's density is 1.45 dwelling units per acre. It also conforms to the Sweetwater Community Plan designation of Residential 3 {2 D.U./ac). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 7 While the lot areas meet or exceed those of the City neighborhood abutting to the east, all of the parcels immediately to the north and west in the County exceed one acre. The County zoning for the aforementioned parcels as well as the subject property i.s RR1 (one acre minimum lot size). This discrepancy create~ a lot size compatibility dilemma since this small area is a semi-rural enclave bounded on two sides by major urban arterials, a third by standard City lots backing up to the subject property at higher elevations, and the fourth by lots in excess of one acre, also at higher elevations. The factor which best justifies the lot sizes proposed is the preservation of the 4.7 acre biologically-sensitive open space lot. Without this circumstance, it could be argued that larger lots are more appropriate for this area based on the prevailing lot pattern and zoning in the immediate vicinity. As mentioned in the discussion section of this report, both the Sweetwater " Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association prefer that access to the site be gained via East 'H' Street to preclude additional traffic on Bonita Road. While staff shares this concern over Bonita Road traffic, the estimated increase of 170 ADT will not alter the level of service on Bonita Road since the contribution of traffic from the project during the peak hours is minimal, according to the City Traffic Engineer. Further, a connection could not be provided to the south since it would intersect with the transition lane from westbound East 'H' to northbound 1-805. Finally, staff from the Local Agency Formation Commission -- the regional agency responsible for reviewing, coordinating and approving all annexations -- reports that the annexation would not adversely impact the provision of public services to the "peninsula" of unincorporated land between the project area and the 1-805 Freeway. Also, they are resigned to the fact that Bonita will likely annex in a piecemeal rather than comprehensive fashion. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, 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: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Hay 9, lggo Page 8 a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan which designates the property Chula Vista Low Residential (0-3 D.U./ac) and County Residential 3 (2 D.U./ac). b. Circulatibn - The lots will be served by public streets conforming to City standards. c. Housing - The project will provide a detached housing type consistent with surrounding development. d. Conservation and Open Space - The project will provide 4.7 acres of open space to mitigate impacts to sensitive plant and animal species. e. Park and Recreation - The project will result in the dedication of 4.7 acres of permanent open space and shall be responsible for the payment of PAD fees. f. Seismic Safety - The closest identified fault in the area is the La Nacion Fault located one mile to the east. g. Safety - The site will be within threshold response times for fire and police services. h. Noise - The units will be required to meet the standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway The project site is depressed below the East 'H' Street Scenic Highway. j. Bicycle Routes - The streets within the project are not designated bike routes but will accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings No public buildings are planned for the site. The project shall be subject to RCT and DIF fees. 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. 5. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site does not allow for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 7646P PROJECT AREA t ~AST "N TERRA NOVA PLAZA~ PREZONE AND TENTATIVE MAP ,~OR--TI~.7 ACRES AT TERMINUS OF LYNDALE LANE May 16, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning~ SUBJECT: Item 3, Lynndale Hil'ls, PCZ-89-M/PCS-90-06 On May 9, 1990, your Commission continued the hearings on the items enumerated above at the request of the applicant to give him the opportunity to discuss several recommended conditions of approval with'staff. Based on this discussion, staff recommends amendments to the list of conditions outlined in Section ~of the staff report as follows: 1. Delete conditions 2 and 4 since condition 5 already includes these requirements. 2. Reword condition 6 as follows: The remainder parcel southwest of the curve on Lynndale Place shall be deeded to an appropriate neighboring property or shall be disposed of as approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. This has been amended to provide flexibility regarding the disposition of this remainder parcel should a neighbor decline to accept it. 3. Delete condition 7 since condition 26 also deals with this matter. 4. Except for renumbering, all other conditions remain unchanged. This memo supplements the May 9th staff report and related materials which have been retained by the Commission for the May 23rd meeting. The project recommenda- tion in the staff report (2nd paragraph under Section B) should, therefore, be amended to read: "Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the prezone and tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, subject to the following conditions as amended by the memo from the Plannin9 Director dated May 16, 1990." BL:SG:je May 17, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Steve Griffin, ^ssociate Planner SUBd[¢I: Item 3, Lynndale Hills The attached letter was inadvertently excluded from the Lynndale Hills proposal scheduled for May 23, 1990. It suggests that the project take access from East 'H' Street rather than Lynnwood Drive - Bonita Road. As we've stated in the staff report, it is literally impossible to provide access to the site from the south. SG:je Attachment City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-89-M: Request to prezone ll.7 acres located southerly of Lyndale Lane, northerly of East 'H' Street, and easterly of the 1-805 freeway, to R-E-P - Cameo Development Company (b) PCS-90-06: Request to subdivide 11.7 acres known as Lyndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, into 17 single family detached lots and one open space lot - cameo Development Company A. BACKGROUND This item involves a prezone and tentative map known as Lyndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, for ll.7 acres located at the southerly terminus of Lynndale Lane, south of Lynnwood Drive, north of East 'H' Street and east of Interstate 805. The proposal is to prezone the site to R-E-P (Residential Estate/Precise Plan) and subdivide the property into 17 single family lots and one open space lot. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-84, 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-89-84. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-84. Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the prezone and tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 0 shall be placed in Open Space Maintenance District No. ll by application and at the expense of the developer. 2. All lots facing Lot 0 shall be be fenced and other easy access to this area shall be removed or adequately blocked according to a plan submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. 3. A naturalized revegetation program which may include temporary irrigation shall be submitted for Lot 0 subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 2 4. No clearing of any portion of the subdivision shall occur between March 15 and August 1. 5. All mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in Section F of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-94-84 are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. 6. The remainder parcel southwest of the curve on Lyndale Place shall be deeded to the neighboring property designated as Parcel 3, 1.17 acres. 7. The developer shall obtain permission from the owners of the four lots which presently gain access via Lynwood Place to relocate their existing driveways as indicated on the tentative map. 8. The developer shall cause to be vacated all publicly owned or offered road easements. 9. Development of the lots shall conform with the setback standards for the R-l-7 zone. 10. Each lot shall have a minimum total of 1,500 sq. ft. of usable rear and/or sideyard area with a minimum dimension of not less than l0 ft. ll. Each lot shall require separate irrigation systems for slope planting and erosion control subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 12. A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E prior to any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which would affect access thereto. 13. An access easement shall be granted by Lot 3 to the adjoining property to the north in order to accommodate the existing driveway and associated slopes serving that property. 14. 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. 15. The amount of any fees applicable to the project, including but not limited to PAD, DIF and RCT fees, shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project shall show compliance with the City's Growth Management Element and Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 17. Annexation of the site from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista is required prior to approval of the Final Map. Annexation shall include all of the right-of-way necessary to construct Lynndale Place as shown on the Tentative Map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 3 18. The owner shall obtain easements for proposed offsite sewer and storm drain facilities in Lynndale Lane prior to approval of the Final Map. Easements shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but not less than.lO feet. 19. The owner shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the Final Map by the City if offsite easements cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of Approval Numbers 18 and 31 (Only offsite right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition). After said notification, the owner shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring offsite right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easement and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. The requirements of a, b and c above shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final Map. All offsite requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City does not comply with the 120 day time limitation specified in that section of the act. 20. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 21. Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be required as part of the grading plans. The owner's engineer shall submit recommendations to reduce fill slope gradients to less than 2:1, if the soils engineer determines that the nature of on site soils present problems with fill slope stability and erosion. In the event that any fault zones are found during grading of the site, a field investigation shall be required (by a registered geologist) and any subsequent recommendations incorporated into the project design. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 4 22. The owner shall be responsible for the construction of public improvements of all streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision. Public improvements required shall include, but not be limited to: A.C. pavement, and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, driveway approaches, traffic signals, street lights, traffic signs, street trees, fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, water and drainage facilities. 23. Lot frontages on cul de sacs and knuckles shall not be less than 35 feet unless approved by the City Engineer. 24. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the owner shall guarantee the construction of all improvements {streets, sewers, drainage, utilities, etc.) deemed necessary to provide service to the subdivision in accordance with City standards. 25. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he holds the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation, or increased flow of drainage resulting from this project. 26. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the owner shall receive letters of permission from adjacent property owners for offsite work necessary to construct driveway approaches, driveways and any other improvement necessary to provide access and utilities to those properties located adjacent to and westerly of the site impacted by the proposed subdivision development 27. The owner shall provide access on an equal basis to individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. 28. A study of the noise impacts to the project from East "H" Street and State facilities shall be performed for existing and future conditions including the proposed East "H" Street widening project. The owner shall submit said study subject to CalTrans review and acceptance prior to Final Map approval. 29. Proposed work within CalTrans' easements shall be subject to CalTrans' review and approval. The owner shall submit engineered drawings and pertinent hydraulic calculations and obtain any required permits from the State of California for said work prior to Final Map approval. 30. All streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision shall be dedicated for public use. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for public streets. 31. The proposed storm drain within Lot #14 shall be extended as necessary to outlet at the flowline of the local drainage basin to which it is tributary. Any necessary offsite easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 5 32. Driveway approach on Lynndale Lane serving Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 6001 shall be located at a minimum distance of eight feet from point of curve return. 33. The public road easement {recorded 3-6-18, Book 745, Page 284 of deeds) within the project shall be vacated prior to Final Map approval. 34. Any portion of private road easement{s) which coincide with proposed public streets shall be quit claimed prior to Final Map approval. The following are map revisions and Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department. Map revisions: 1. Show all easements and define them correctly. 2. Add a street cross section for portion of Lynndale Place from Street "A" to Lot 17 to conform with the street design policy for a single loaded residential street. Toe of 2:1 slope shall be located two feet back of sidewalk. 3. Show proposed driveway for Lot 1. Code requirements: 1. All utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 2. The owner shall pay traffic signal participation fees currently estimated in the amount of $2,160 prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The owner shall pay sewer connection fees currently estimated in the amount of $38,865.96 prior to the issuance of the building permits. 4. The owner shall pay development impact fees currently estimated in the amount of $76,032 prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The owner 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 and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. C. DISCUSSION The property is presently zoned County RR1 {Rural Residential/one dwelling unit per acre). Adjacent zoning and land use are as follows: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 6 North: County RR1 Single family dwellings on one acre lots South: PC Shopping center and 1-805/East 'H' Street interchange East: PC Single family dwellings on standard City lots West: County RR1 Single family dwellings on one+ acre lots The topography of the site is moderately rolling with small ridges and intervening canyons. The high and low points of the site differ by approximately 88 feet. Access to the site is off Lynndale Lane via Lynnwood Drive and Bonita Road. A new street, Lynndale Place, would course southerly from Lynndale Lane and terminate in a cul-de-sac. A second cul-de-sac extending easterly from the new street would serve three lots. The areas of all but one residential lot (lot 4--7500 square feet) would be in excess of lO,O00 square feet with an average residential lot size of 13,431 square feet for the entire tract. An open space lot of about 4.7 acres is provided, approximately four acres of which would be undisturbed. The remainder of the property would be mass graded to create the new lots and streets. The Precise Plan Modifying District is being employed to create lots smaller than the 20,000 square feet required by the R-E Zone in order to provide an open space lot of 4.7 acres. According to the biology report submitted with the Initial Study, this open space lot, in the size and shape indicated, would mitigate perceived environmental impacts resulting from the project. Because of the configuration of some of the proposed lots, the applicant has chosen the R-l-7 setbacks as his development standards; i.e., 15 ft. front, 10 ft. exterior side, 10 ft./3 ft. interior sides, and 20 ft. rear. A portion of the new street, Lynndale Place, would traverse over an existing 60-foot-wide road easement which provides present access to both the subject property and four unincorporated parcels to the west and southwest. Existing driveways which serve these parcels will have to be slightly relocated to conform to City requirements. In addition, this easement has an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (IOD) encumbrance on it in favor of the County. This IOD is required to be vacated. Letters have been received from the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association, each recommending denial of the project because of increased traffic on Bonita Road which would be generated by this project. Each believe that access to the subdivision should be via East 'H' Street. They also object to the proposed annexation leaving a peninsula of unincorporated land in this area. {See attached correspondence.) D. ANALYSIS The proposal s consistent with the General Plan which designates the property Low Residential {0-3 D.U./ac) the project's density is 1.45 dwelling units per acre. It also conforms to the Sweetwater Community Plan designation of Residential 3 {2 D.U./ac). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May g, 1990 Page 7 While the lot areas meet or exceed those of the City neighborhood abutting to the east, all of the parcels immediately to the north and west in the County exceed one acre. The County zoning for the aforementioned parcels as well as the subject property is RR1 (one acre minimum lot size). This discrepancy creates a lot size compatibility dilemma since this small area is a semi-rural enclave bounded on two sides by major urban arterials, a third by standard City lots backing up to the subject property at higher elevations, and the fourth by lots in excess of one acre, also at higher elevations. The factor which best justifies the lot sizes proposed is the preservation of the 4.7 acre biologically-sensitive open space lot. Without this circumstance, it could be argued that larger lots are more appropriate for this area based on the prevailing lot pattern and zoning in the immediate vicinity. As mentioned in the discussion section of this report, both the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater Civic Association prefer that access to the site be gained via East 'H' Street to preclude additional traffic on Bonita Road. While staff shares this concern over Bonita Road traffic, the estimated increase of 170 ADT will not alter the level of service on Bonita Road since the contribution of traffic from the project during the peak hours is minimal, according to the City Traffic Engineer. Further, a connection could not be provided to the south since it would intersect with the transition lane from westbound East 'H' to northbound 1-805. Finally, staff from the Local Agency Formation Commission -- the regional agency responsible for reviewing, coordinating and approving all annexations -- reports that the annexation would not adversely impact the provision of public services to the "peninsula" of unincorporated land between the project area and the 1-805 Freeway. Also, they are resigned to the fact that Bonita will likely annex in a piecemeal rather than comprehensive fashion. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, 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: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 8 a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan which designates the property Chula Vista Low Residential (0-3 D.U./ac) and County Residential 3 (2 D.U./ac). b. Circulation The lots will be served by public streets conforming to City standards. c. Housing The project will provide a detached housing type consistent with surrounding development. d. Conservation and Open Space - The project will provide 4.7 acres of open space to mitigate impacts to sensitive plant and animal species. e. Park and Recreation - The project will result in the dedication of 4.7 acres of permanent open space and shall be responsible for the payment of PAD fees. f. Seismic Safety - The closest identified fault in the area is the La Nacion Fault located one mile to the east. g. Safety The site will be within threshold response times for fire and police services. h. Noise - The units will be required to meet the standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway - The project site is depressed below the East 'H' Street Scenic Highway. j. Bicycle Routes The streets within the project are not designated bike routes but will accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned for the site. The project shall be subject to RCT and DIF fees. 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. 5. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site does not allow for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 7646P PROJECT AREA TERRA NOVA PLAZA~x'~ APR I 6 1890 April 10, 1990 City Of Chula Vista, Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA. 92010 Att: Mr. Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Sub: Lynndale Hills Subdivision T.M 4706 Ref: Letter S. Griffin/Sweetwater Community Planning Group dated 3/21/90 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of reference letter and have addressed this issue at our Tuesday April 3rd. regular meeting. Mr. Martin Kolkey, President Cameo Development presented the plans and answered our questions. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group unanimously opposes the development as currently planned for two specific reasons: First: Egress and access is via Bonita Rd. leading to the development via Lynnwood Dr. Bonita Rd. in general and specifically at that intersection is already excessive and highly congested. Egress and access should be via "H" St. which would also eliminate the need for community service vehicles to access the property via county roadways. Second: Annexation as planned would violate the LAFCO charter as it would result in a peninsula or finger of land bordered to the east by this development, the south by Chula Vista "H" st. and the west by Interstate 805. Respectfully, C John Mammond, Chairperson Sweetwater Community Planning Group Jif/trw ............ cc: LAFCO P.O. BOX 460, Bonita, California 92002-0460 April 10, 1990 APR I 1990 City Of Chula Vista, Planning Dept. 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA. 92010 Att: Mr. Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Sub: Lynndale Hills Subdivision T.M 4706 Ref: Letter S. Griffin/Sweetwater Community Planning Group dated 3/21/90 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of reference letter and have addressed this issue at our Wednesday April 4th. regular meeting. The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association unanimously opposes the development as currently planned for two specific reasons: First: Egress and access is via Bonita Rd. leading to the development via Lynnwood Dr. Bonita Road in general and specifically at that intersection is already excessive and highly congested. Egress and access should be via "H" street which would eliminate the need for community service vehicles to access the property via county roadways. Second: Annexation as planned would violate the LAFCO charter as it would result in a peninsula or finger of land bordered to the east by this development, the south by Chula Vista "H" street and the west by Interstate 805. Respectfully, Tom Pocklington, Vice-President Sweetwater Valley Civic Association 'FPlrrw cc: LAFCO CITY OF ClIULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT JAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSIIIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWIIICil WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF Tile CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. ' The following information must be disclosed: " I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. CAMEO DEV~r.npMV. Nq~ rn_, A CA. Corp. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in 'the property'involve~. John 1. Knorr & Frances I. Knorr~ Delbert I. Huqhe$ & Janice V. ~h~ Gatel¥ $o~en~n ~o.~ A California Corporati~n~ Robert R. Crowther & Juanita Cro~rther, William t. Shipley 2. If any person identified pursuant t6 (]) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of ali individuals owning more than I0~ of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Aaron H. ~olke~ Martin R. ~olke~ above a 3. If any person 'identified pursuant to (1). . is non-profit organization or a trust, lisb the names of any person .serwng as director 'of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 'N/A 4. Ilave 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 combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional page~s~3~ooe~//~,f ~~ . December 26,1989 TO: City of Chula Vista 476 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 Cameo Development Co., a California Corporation is hereby authori2ed to act as subdivider for the processing of the Lynndale Hills Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract No, 90-6 (APN 592-100-30,49), OWNERS APN 592-100-30 ,~hn L. Knorr F~anc~s ~ Knorr APN 592-100-49 Delbert L. Hughes Janice Y Hughes ' Robert R. Crowther Juanita Crowther Gately SOrensen Company a California Corporation Si§ning of this authorization does no~ obligate the sellers to any monetary responsibility to said subdivider or subdivision map #90-6 (APN 592-100-30-49) or does no~ constitute any change in original escrow, dated February 24th. 1989. William L. Shipley December 26,1989 JAN I i 19 0 TO: City of Chula Vista 476 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 Cameo Development Cc., a California Corporation is hereby authori2ed to act as subdivider for the proceseing of the Lynndale Hills Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract Nc. 90-6 (APN 592-100-30,49). OWNERS APN §92-100-$0 John b. Knorr Francis I. Knorr APN 692-100-49 ////~ De~b~t L~~ ~ghes ,' "--' ,~an,ce V Hughes RouerC R, C~owther ' Juanita Crowther Oately Sorensen Company Signing of this authorization does not a California Corporation obligate the sellers to any monetary ~ ~__~.~>/j~ ~. responsitility to said sutdivider or sutdivision map ~90-6 (APN 592-100-30,~9) ~?~'~'.._ / ~ ~' ' ~ or does not constitute any change in ; .......... '- ~. orgional escrow, dated Fe~. 2~th 1989. William L. Shiple~ negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Lynndal e Hi 11 s PROJECT LOCATION: Lynndale Lane, northeast of the intersection of Interstate 805 and H Street in the unincorporated area of San Diego County and bounded on the east by the Chula Vista City .limit PROJECT APPLICANT: Cameo Development Company 5125 Convoy Street, Suite 301 San Diego, California 92111 CASE NO: IS-89-84 DATE: April 9, 1990 A. Project Se{tin~ The ll.7 acre project site is located on the south side of the Sweetwater River Valley, northeast of the intersection of Interstate 805 and N Street in the unincorporated area 'of San Diego County. The topography is rolling and consists of several ridges with intervening canyons. Elevations range from 158 feet on the east to 70 feet above mean sea level on the western edge of the site. The project is situated in the Coastal Plain of the Peninsular Ranges geographic province the underlying bedrock is part of the Pliocene age San Diego Formation which is made up of near-shore marine sediments with sandstone and cobble layers. This material is friable, relatively incompressible and has very low expansion potential. This site is within the La Nacion Fault Zone which is classified as potentially active. The most significant event likely to affect this site would be an earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault located 10 miles northwest of project. Soils on this site are Salinas Clay, found on level terrain, and Linne Clay Loam on slopes. The thickness ranges from 1 to 5 feet. This topsoil is considered potentially compressible and expansive. On-site vegetation is a mixture of Diegan Sage Scrub, Riparian, and Disturbed/Exotic species. Almost the entire site is covered by Diegan Sage Scrub with a relatively small patch of riparian habitat in the northern canyon and a highly disturbed area to the south. The site is currently vacant with the exception of one existing house. Current land use on adjacent properties includes a arterial to the south, single-family residences to the north, and west, and a planned community of single family homes to the east. city of chula vista planning department ¢I~YOF environmental review section (~HIJ[A VIS-FA -2- B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the prezoning, annexation of the ll.7 acre property to the City of Chula Vista detachment from the Bonita/Sunnyside Fire Protection District and subdivision of the parcel into 17 separate residential lots. A 4.7 acre biological open space will be preserved in the northwest corner of the project. Access to existing Lynndale Lane will be in the northwest corner of project. Seven and one-half (7.5) acres of the site would be graded and 55,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed. The maximum cut will be 48 feet in height, but the average will be only 15 feet. Average fill depth will be 15 feet and the maximum will be 32 feet. New streets, extension of gas, water, sewer and electric will be required in addition to grading. Required approvals for the project includes: Annexation, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Grading Permit. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Current zoning for the property is R-R-1 (County Rural Residential). The project does not conform to the current zoning as it is proposed for prezoning to R-E-P. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low-density Residential. The project is compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The proposed Lynndale Hills development is within 2.5 miles of the nearest fire station located at Bonita Road and Willow Street. Response times for emergency calls would be 7 minutes, equal to the 7 minute Threshold Standard. The Fire Department is requiring the installation of fire hydrants at 500 foot intervals within the project. 2. Police The City of Chula Vista Police Department was contacted by the Planning Department and indicated that they had no comment on the project. Therefore, service can be provided for the proposed development without affecting the Police Service Threshold Standard. 3. Traffic Access to the proposed project would be from Bonita Road via Lynndale Lane. The project would impact area streets with the addition of approximately 170 average daily trips (ADT). The ADT -3- on Bonita Road is expected to increase from 44,550 to 44,720. Existing Level of Service (LOS) E will not change. The project is not expected to affect the City's Traffic Threshold Standards based on the Engineering Department's review and the project's relatively small impact. The City Engineer is requiring street improvements to existing streets. A traffic study is currently underway to restripe Bonita Road to provide an extra westbound lane. Full street improvement and widening are required in Lynndale Lane. 4. Parks/Recreation There are 6 acres of developed parkland within the Park Service District of this project. The current requirement for the District is 5.6 acres. The project would require 0.15 acres based on the Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard and, therefore, would have no effect. Developer fees will be paid to the City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department. 5. Drainage According to the City Engineering Department, the proposed project does not lie within a floodplain and will not be subject to any existing flood hazards. There are no existing on-site drainage facilities. Existing off-site drainage facilities include an 18" and 24" storm drain pipes that discharge onto the property along the easterly boundary, and a double 84" storm drain along the westerly boundary, parallel the 1-805 right-of-way, flowing north under Bonita Road and into the Sweetwater River. To ensure conformance with the Drainage Threshold Standards, the construction of a drainage system will be required, designed such that storm water flows and volumes do not exceed City Engineering Standards. 6. Sewer The desired sewer service connection for the project would be through a 15-inch sewer line adjacent to westerly line of the project flowing north to 18-inch sewer line in Bonita Road. Sewage generated by the proposed project is expected to be 4,505 gallons of liquid waste per day, as well as 446 pounds of solid waste per day. The Engineering Department has indicated that flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering Standards and sewer service is adequate for the design of the proposed project. This, conforms with the Sewer Threshold Standards. -4- 7. Water The City's Water Service Threshold Standard requires that the applicant obtain and submit to the City a water service availability letter. The Sweetwater Authority was contacted in regard to this matter and indicated that they would issue a service letter upon favorable review of the project. The applicant is currently arranging with the authority to review the project. 8. Schools The proposed subdivision lies within the Chula Vista City School District, which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The project will also be served by the Sweetwater Union High School District. Developer fees will be paid to both these districts. A developer fee of $0.69/sq.ft. of assessable area is currently being charged by the Chula Vista City School District. The Sweetwater Union High School District has not indicated the required fee amount. The projected impacts on area schools are: Current Current Generated School Attendance Capacity from Project Elementary Allen 632 662 8 Jr. High Bonita Vista* 1682 1494 3 Sr. High Bonita Vista. 1871 2052 4 *Students could attend Hilltop Jr./Sr. High schools. Attendance Capacity Hilltop Jr. High 1,482 1,506 Hilltop Sr. High 1,532 1,508 The City's Threshold Standards for Schools are reviewed annually and are not applicable to specific individual projects. E. Identification of Environmental Effects Archaeology - Brian F. Smith and Associates was retained to conduct an archaeological investigation of the proposed project site. The archaeological investigation report is included as Attachment B. The study included a survey of the site and an evaluation of any potential prehistoric site identified during the survey. The investigation of the site demonstrated that the site was not significant and involved no further research potential. -5- Biology - Pacific Southwest Biological Services was retained to conduct a biological assessment of the proposed project site. The biological assessment report is included as Attachment C. The biological survey of the proposed project site revealed the following sensitive plant species: Snake Cholla (~ ~ra), Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), San~o~er Vi~uiera laciniata), and Ashy-footed Clubmoss (Selaginella cinerascens)~tive zoological resources also found on-site include five San Diego Cactus Wrens. (Campylorhynchus brunneica~illus) and l0 California Gnatcatchers (Pol~optila californica) occupying the site. The Orange-throated {Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), a sensitive lizard of the region, is also well established on-site. Geotechnical A geotechnical investigation of the project site was conducted by IGC Incorporated. The geotechnical investigation report is included as Attachment D. The investigation did not identify any geotechnical conditions that would preclude the development of the site as planned. The major geotechnical constraints on the site are the presence of compressible alluvial soils and relatively cohesionless soils that may affect surface slope stability and erosion. Noise - DUKES Noise Control was retained to conduct an acoustical analysis to assess the existing and future noise impacts of the proposed project. The acoustical analysis report is included as Attachment E. The major noise sources affecting the project site are 1-805 and H Street. The calculated CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) caused by traffic varies on the site from 46.8 to 64.9 dB under current traffic conditions and will increase to between 44.1 and 65.0 dB under future conditions. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Biology - Recommendations to reduce biological impacts are as follows: All Ferocactus, Mammillaria, Opuntia parryi var. serpintina, Opuntia littoralis cactus occurring within the areas to be i~-~l-6-~ed should be transplanted to the disturbed portions of the biological open space and along the fringes of this area which face the development; All disturbed areas within the open space should be revegetated with native scrub vegetation including: Isocoma veneta, Artemisia californica, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Baccharis sarothroides, Malosma laurina~a laciniata, Rhus~lia, Simmondsia chinesis; -6- All lots facing the open space lot should be fenced, and other easy accesses to this area should be removed or adequately blocked; and Clearing activities on the site should be restricted from occurring within 100 feet of any active California Gnatcatcher or Cactus Wren nests, or all clearing should be restricted from occurring between March 15, and August 1 (see Attachment C). Geotechnical - To ensure that the major geotechnical constraints of the site do not result in any significant impacts, grading should be performed under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant and in accordance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation report (see Attachment D). G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Archaeology The proposed development will impact the prehistoric site, however, the impacts are not considered significant because the site lacks research potential and sensitive deposits (see Attachment B). Noise - No significant noise impacts will result from the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan Noise Element. Neither the existing nor the future CNEL at the site will exceed 65 dB (see Attachment E). H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Jim Dyar, Fire Marshall Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Roberto Solorzano, Engineer Sweetwater Authority: Hector Martinez, Assistant Engineer Applicant's Agent: Richard Lott, Xinos Enterprises Inc. Mark V. Tegio, A.D. Hinshaw Associates 2. Documents City of Chula Vista: Lynndale Hills Initial Study Threshold Standards General Plan Municipal Code Chula Vista City School District: Letter to Chula Vista Planning Department dated January 29, 1990. -7- Sweetwater Union High School District: Letter to Chula Vista Planning Department dated March 19, 1990. DUKES Noise Control: Lynndale Hills Prezone No. 77-205440, Environmental Initial Study No. 89-100 IGC Incorporated: Geotechnical investigation, Lynndale Hills Proposed Residential Subdivision, Chula Vista, California Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.: Report of a Biological Assessment of the Lynndale Hills Property Brian F. Smith and Associates: The Archaeological Investigation for The Lynndale Hills Prezone/Initial Study 3. Responses to Public Comments ( ) No comments ( ) Comments did not address completeness of document ( ) Comments and Responses attached. This determination that the project will not have any significant environmental impact is based on the attached Initial Study (Attachment A) any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on the 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. ENVIRO~iENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 7484P ~C' ~ FOR OFFICE USE Fee 40'~.d'~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. ~-~'~2. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No~~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PR~ECT TITLE LY~D~E HILLS 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) LYNND~E Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 592-100-30z 592-100-49 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 4. Name of Applicant CAMEO DEVELOpIV~NT COMPANY Address 5125 CONVOY STREET, SUITE 301 Phone (619) 292-4330 City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92111 5. Name of Preparer/Agent XINOS ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED Address 9619 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 102 Phone (619) 278-5310 City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92123 Relation to Applicant CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT 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 X 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). Location Hap Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report __Grading Plan __Landscape Plans __ Hydrological Study Site Plan × Photos of Site & I Biological Study Parcel Map ,~etting ._,~, Archaeological Survey Precise Plan ~Tentative Subd. Flap ~ ).loise Assessment Specific Plan '° Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or ~7-Soils Report Approvals Required ~,,c" ~ (Rev. ~ 2 - B. ,PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage .6f~c~,~or acreage ~ 1[.'7 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. /,~ -~ACRES FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES 2. Complete this section if project is ~gsidential. a. Type development: Single family x Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights -~-SINGLE FA/lILY HOiv~s EQUAL TO 35' c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 10 4 bedrooms-7~j~>~ Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres)~ll.9 ACRES : ~ DU/AC ~=~ e. Net density {DU/total acres m~us any dedication~DU/9.91AC f. Estimated project populationl~-~i~ PEOPLE g. Estimated sale or rental price range 5250,000 - $350,000 h. Square footage of floor area{s) 2200 - 2800 SQ. FF. i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures ± 20% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 2 & 3 CAR GARAGES k. Percent of site in road and paved surface ~ 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 pol!utants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc~) identify them. 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? 120,000 Cu.Yd. (Estimate) b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 120,000 CL~.Yd. (Estimate) c. How much area {sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut ~~' (~f~.~_ Average depth of cut I~" ~' Maximum depth of fill LS?~~ Average depth of fill (~' ~ - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) GAS APPLIANCES, GAS FORCED AIR HEATING AIR CONDITIONING OPTIONAL 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. ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT RELATED OCCUPATIONS 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? NO 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? .-~[TRIPS/DAY /%o 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. NEW STREETS~ EXTENSION OF GAS~ WATER~ SEWER AND ELECTRIC, GRADING TO CREATE BUILDABLE SITES DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING l. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) · NO Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) NO 2. }~ydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (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? A CONCRETE DRAIFIAGE DITCH IS LOC~ATED ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LiNE ADdACENT TO THE PROPERTY. CONCRETE DRAINAGE DITCtiES ARE ALSO LOCATED WITftIN THE 1-805 RI~iT OF WAY ADJACENT TO ~(E PROPERTY,, ~N ~" - 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. DP~qINAGE SW~J_ES VAHERE N~EDED, CURB AND GUl-~ER. ~'r~ 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. SO~E FRUIT TREES AROLND THE EXISTING HOUSE, A P~LM TREE, PEPPER TREE. B. 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? NO 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. VACANT LAND WITH I EXISTING HOUSE -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RR1 South HIGHWAY ~ S-9(+ East SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCESf P.C. (PL~INED COt4qUNITY) West SINGLE FAMIL~ PJ~SIDENCES~ RR1 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? {If so, how many?) 1 SINGLE FAMILY 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. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION 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: - ~-~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning onNorth site: ~-/'~ _/ (~..~,.. (~ ~. South ~) cZ ~ ~ ~~ East ~m~ ~~ West ~ ~_~ ~~-~ Does th~ project conform to the current zoning? ~ m. 2. Genera] P]an ]and use designation on site: ~-~ ~~ North ~ South ~ ~. 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? o e~ct o (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pr r 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.) ~ / ~-.~ ~. ~ /'/~'c~ 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 ~ Jr. High ~ ~.~1~ Sr. High b~!~ ~/~ ~ 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 Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) t~/~ ~ ,_~ ..... ~-- Water (per day) '~.~ 6. Remarks: Director o~,anning or R~presentativ_~e~Date'/~ Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~-~C) 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? .Mo ~-~ ~>~-~ ~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ ~-s~-T~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 115"f ~_~', ~lo~ o~J e,e~ rJl~¢)~_6% g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation ~T~-y ~UST ~ P~(~ a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~z~'~t~ 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 d.Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~71~ ~{~ ~s e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of tile ~eces~y actions. ~ Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected f~Ult hazards? Liquefaction? 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 soil conditions? 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? ~ ~ N~s~ ~T ~'~ 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 .(p.er day) Factor Pollution CO -f X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons 'X 18.3 : - ~- ~\~ NOx (NO2) \~ 0 X 20.0 = S ~oo 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 ~-~FG ~, Liquid zfv~O~ ~/~J-/~:~ What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent t0 the site? I~'~ ~ ~ ~C~ ~ ~u~s~L~ 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 ~nd/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, ere. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City [ng?~/eer or Hepresentatl~e - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE D£PARTM£NT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? Q.~ ~ 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? -13(a)- Case No. ;5-~c~9-0°, 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 pa~ks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks I 6P ' 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative PSBS #738 REPORT OF A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LYNNDALE HILLS PROPERTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 592-100.30 & 49 Prepared for Camco Development Company 5125 Convoy #301 San Diego, CA 92111 (6~) ~02-4SS0 Prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. P.O. Box 985 National City, CA 92050 Phone: 619/477-5333 FAX: 619/477- ~.245 21 August 1989 (Revised 8 March 1990) PSBS #738 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY . I~{TI~ODUuI'ION ................................................................ METHODS ..................................................................... ! LOCATION ..... ................................................................ 2 GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 2 VEGETATION .............................................................. 2 Riuari~u ........................................................... 5 Disturbcd/Exo~ic ..................................................... ZOOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................. 6 - GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT BIRDS ................................................................... 7 SENSiTiVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................. 8 SENSITIVE VEGEI'ATION ...................................................... 8 S~SlTIVE PLANTS OCCURRINO ON-SITE San Di~ . 8 Snak~ Cholla ........................................................ 8 Ashy Suike Moss ..................................................... 9 San Diego Vi~.licra ................................................... SENSITIVE PLANTS OCCURRING IN THE REGION BUT NOT OBSERVED ON-SITE ............ Ota¥ Tarwecd ....................................................... 9 Cleveland's Golden Stars .............................................. 10 Grce~ .............................................. 10 California Soinebush S n Die o Marsh-Elder ............................................... 10 S F_NSITIVE VERTEBRATES .................................................... 11 Orange-throated Whlptail ............................................. 11 Coastal Cactus Wren ................................................. 12 California Gnatcatcher ................................................ 12 EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ........................... 13 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................... 14 o~/o8/~o i PSBS #738 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP ...... TABLE 1. FLOP, AL CI-IECXLIST . . . TABLE 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DE'rECFED ........................... 16 03/08/90 ii PSBS #738 SUMMARY A biological survey of the 11.9 aero Lynndale Hills property revealed five San Diego Cactus Wrens and 10 California Gnatcatchers occupying the site; extraordinary numbers (perhaps unmatched in San Diego County) in such a limited area for these very sensitive bird species. Also found on site are the following sensitive plant species: Snake Cholla, Coast Barrel Cactus, San Diego Sunflower, and Ashy-footed Clubmoss. The Orange Throated Whiptall, a sensitive lizard of the region, is well established on site. Given the rarity of the San Diego Cactus Wren (cornmeusllrate with the Least Bell's Vireo and California I2.ast Tern in rarity and more endangered according to a local consensus of professional biologists and ornithologists) and the unusually high incidence of California Gnatcatchers (a specie~ being protected throughout the region by both county and city designated biological open spaces). Recommendations for extensive habitat preservation are made. It is most strongly recommended that development be limited to the western and southernmost portions of the site. INTRODUCTION A biologic, al survey of the Lynndale Hills site was performed by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. at the request of Martin R. Kolkey of Cameo Development Company, San Diego. The purpose of the survey was to identify sensitive biological resources and constraints in the preliminary phases of development design. METHODS The botanical portion of the survey was conducted by Craig H. Rciser on August 8, 1989. The on-foot survey covered all slope aspects, soil types, and drainages. Particular attention was given to the cactus population on site. Vegetation and sensitive plant locations were delineated on a 1" -- 100' topographic map. The zoological portion of the survey was conducted by Daniel J. Grout on August 10, 1989 from 1000 hours to 1500 hours. Skies were clear and sunny with a temperature of 86' F. at 1100 hours; Winds were negligible. The site was further examined on 10 February 1990 by Kcith W. Mcrkcl. Wildlife identifications were o~/o8/9o i PSBS #738 aided by binoculars (10 x 40 power). Unobserved species were identified through indirect signs (i.e., scat, tracka, calls, nests and bun'ows, etc.). Prior biological surveys of the immediate region were examined to assess sensitive resources known from the vicinity of the site (PSBS 1989a, 1989b, 1989c). Scientific nomenclature used in this report ia from the following standard references: vegetation, Holland (1986); flora, Beanchamp (1986) and Manz (1974); birds, Unitt (1984); reptiles and amphibians, Stcbbins (1985); and mammals, Jameson and Peeters (1988). Wildlde habitat delineations generally follow Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988). LOCATION The site ia situated in Range 2 West,Township 18 South of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian; USGS National City Quadrangle (Figure 1). A portion of the western boundary is adjacent to the 805 Freeway;, Lyandale Lane abuts the northwestern corner. GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY The property occupies rolling, predominantly west-facing slopes which are hemmed in on all sides by existing development. Four separate hill~ intcrdigitate with three minor drainages. Low elevation ia approximately 75 feet in the southwestern corner of the site. High elevation is approximately 160 feet along t'fll slopes on the eastern boundary. Soils for the site are Salinas Clay on fairly level terrain and Linne Clay loam on slopes (Bowman 1973). The underlying geology is Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene Marine (Rogers 1973). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES VEGETATION There are three vegetation types extant on the property: Diegan Sage Scrub, Riparian, and Disturbed/Exotic (Figure 2). 03/0~/9~ 2 PSBS #738 FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP , USGS 7.5' National City Quadrangle 1QQ 125 125 5O 150 100 VEGETATION '" [Z] Diegan Sage Scrub Mulefat Riparian ~ Disturbed/E:,:otie [~ Proposed Open Space SENSITIVE RESOURCES [~ Coastal Cactus Wren [~] California Gnatcatcher 100 [~ Orange-Throated Whiptail 150 [~ Snake Cholla [~ Ashy-Footed Clubmoss [~ Coast Barrel Cactus : San Diego Sunflower I 25 FIGURE,2. VEGETATION AND SENSITIVE RESOURCES PSBS #738 ~ (10 acres) Southwestern San Diego County includes a cactus phase of sage scrub not seen elsewhere in California, but better developed in Baja California, Mexico. Typically, a variety of species of cacti grow sympatrieally in an association which includes the dominant sage shrubs. Found on the Lynndale site on a south-facing slope near the northern boundary are numerous Coastal Cholla (Opuntia prolifera). The more mature individuals at 4-6 feet in height are utilized by the San Diego Cactus Wren and numerous nests were noted (1-3 nests seen in each of 11 different cholla; some obviously not presently in use). Also well represented was Fishhook Cactus (Mammillatia dioica), a species now restricted to only scattered locales on the coast where it is seldom abundant as it is here (this species is more common in the Colorado Desert). The Coast Prickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia littoralis) occurs occasionally with several spineless hybrids referable to Mexican Prickly Pear (Opuntia ficus- indica). A single Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) was noted. Non-cactus elements associated with the preceding spea:ies arc Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), a desert species localized on the coast in the South Bay area, Lady Fingers (Dudleya edulis) with its uniquely terete and fleshy leaves, and California Desert Thorn (Lycium califomicum). Dominant plants within the typical Diegan Sage Scrub (minus the cacti) are Coastal Sagebrush (.Artemisia californica), Black Sage (Salvia mellifera), and Flat-top Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with its distinctive, umbellate imqorescences. Occasional shrubs include San Diego Sunflower (Viguiera laciniata), Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Goldenbash (Isocoma veneta), Bladderpod ( Cleome isomeris), and Mojave Yucca (Yucca schidigera) with its lance-shaped, leathery leaves and tree-like, basal trunks. Within the understory is Fimbriate Spincflower (Chodzanthe fimbriata), Annual Three Awn Grass (Adstida adscensionis) with its beet red color, Plumed Beardgrass (Bothdochloa barbinodis), and Fascicled Tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculata). At the few mesic locales, where water resources are greater, grow Golden Stars (Bloomeria crocea), Checkcrbloom (Sidalcca malvaeflora), and in the flats, Tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus ). Riparian (0.2 acre) This miniscule habitat includes a thicket of Mule Fat (£acchatis salicifolia). Several Arroyo Willow (Salbc lasiolepis) grow at the head of the northernmost drainage. The handful of wetland species in the PSBS #738 understory include the weedy Cockleburr (Xanthium stmmadurn) and Willow Herb (Epilobium adenocaulon) with its tiny white petals. ~ (1.7 acres) A residence is extant in the southwestern portion of the site and peripheral terrain has been disturbed by years of residential use. Aside from scattered exotic plantings around the building, weedy elements prevail. These include Wild Chrysanthemum (Chzysanthemum coronadum), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Pig Thistle (Sonchus asper). FLORA Seventy-two species of plants were recorded on site of which twanty-eight are non-native elements (Table 1). An estimated 10% of the sites flora consist of evanescent spring annuals which had decomposed by the August survey date; none of these species is expected to be sensitive. Aside from the Snake Cholla, no unusual elements were noted. ZOOLOGICAL RESOURCES GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT Almost the entire site is covered by Diegan Sage Scrub with a small inholding of riparian habitat ia the northern canyon and a highly disturbed area to the south where a presently occupied residence is situated. The generally small size and isolated condition of the site belies its importance as quality habitat for sensitive bird species which are generally restricted to San Diego County's Coastal Sage Scrub communities, such as the California Gnatcateher (Polioptila califomica) and the Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhytichus bnmneicapillus sandiegense), as well a number of sensitive lizards, such as the Orange-throated Whiptail (O~emidophonts hyperythms) and, possibly, the San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coro.atum). The large, mature stands of Coast Cholla are excellent nesting sitcs for the Cactus Wrens; virtually every large stand had at least one day-ncst and/or a previously active nest. AblPIIIBIANS AND REPTILES While no amphibians are expected to occur on-site, two species of reptiles were observed. An unusually large, adult Orange-throated Whlptail (Caetnidophoms /o,peo,t/tms) was observed in thc sage scrub on the 03/08/90 6 PSBS #738 northern portion of the rite. Very few individuals of this size are usually seen in the wild. In addition, Western Fence I3wrds ($celopoms occidentalis) were present on the property. Although no San Diego Coast Horned I.i~'ards were observed on site, they may well be present in the excellent habitat on-site. BIRDS Eleven species of birds were observed on the site (Table 2). Most of the species are typical of coastal scrub habitats: California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis), Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus). In addition, an Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cineruscens) was observed in the ravine in the southern portion of the site. The rather ubiquitous House Finch (Carpodacus me. ricanus), Moaraing Dove (Zenaida macroun~), and Common Raven (Corvus cora,r) were also present on the property. The remaining two species found on the site are sensitive species, both threatened by habitat destruction in San Diego County. The California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) is abundant on the site. It was found in densities much higher than typical surveys in coastal sage have previously revealed. Ten birds were observed, comprising 4-5 territories. All but two of these individuals were found in the northern half of the property, and they are breeding on-site, as evidenced by juveniles present and calling. At least three pairs of breeding Coastal Cactus Wrens are present on-site. These colonial nesters are predominantly occupying the northern half of the site, with nests in the large stands of cho/la. The quality of the habitat is enhanced by the fact that there are young stands of cholla which will mature in several years. MAMMALS In addition to the usual assemblage of the Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagtts audubonii), Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomornys bottae), and California Ground Squirrel (Sper~nophihts beecheyi), thc tracks and bones of a Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were found on the site (Table 2). PSBS #738 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SENSITIVE VEGETATION The historically extensive Diegan Sage Scrub which occurred throughout coastal and inland San Diego County has been heavily impacted by urbaniT~tion pressures. Large blocks of Diegan Sage Scrub have routinely been "fractured" into small isolated pockets of habitat. Although fragmented and only a vestige of a historically much larger habitat, this area has an important accumulation of sensitive bi~d species. SENSrlIvE PLANTS OCCURRING ON.S[r[-~ The following four species of seusltive plants were seen on the property:. an Di o Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus vit~descens) LISTINg3: CNPS List 2 R-E-D Code 1-3-1 State/Fed. Status -~/C'2 (California Native Plant Society, Smith and Berg 1988) DISTRIBUTION: Coastal San Diego County;, Baja California, Mexico California HABrrAT:. Diegan Sage Scrub hillsides, periphery of vernal pools KNOWN SITES: Barrel Cactus occurs at many locales throughout the coastal region. It should be looked for particularly on hillsides with intact Diegan Sage Scrub. It prefers sites near the crest of slopes. On Otay Mesa this cacti grows in Mima Mound habitat in association with vernal pools. Its highest densities are found in this area with particularly large populations northeast of Brown Field and the east end of Wruck Canyon. Other sites with substantial populations include the Naval Subase at Point Loma and the northwestern slopes of Mother Migucl Mountain. Locales with over 100 individuals should be considered major sites. STATUS: Substantially declining. Once very common along the coast, many small and mid-sized populations are routinely being impacted by grading for urban development. Only one cactus was noted on site. This lone individual is not considered biologically significant. Snake Cholla (Opuntia partyi var. serpentina) LIS'FING: CNPS List IB R-E-D Code 3-3-2 State/Fed. Status -- /C2 DtSTRIBUTION: San Diego County; Baja California, Mexico HABITAT: Diegan Sage Scrub, Coastal Chaparral KNOWN SITES: Scattered shrubs growing from Florida Canyon in Balboa Park to the Mexican border. Population densities are typically small. Most known sites are endangered by development within the next 5-10 years. Mysteriously, this cactus is not being planted anywhere, yet it seems quite capable of being propagated and rooted from cuttings. I recommend immediate introduction on state and federal protected lands in southern San Diego County. A good site is found on a hillside south of lower Otay Lakes Dam. An excellent population grows on the Subase at Point Loma, south of McClclland Road. Significant populations on the northern slopes and bluffs of Poggi Canyon. 03/0819o 8 PSBS #738 STATUS: Substantially declining. This cactus is not being protected in situ when it occurs in areas of development and is becoming ea'tremcly rare. Mitigation plans are regularly ignoring its presence or moving cacti to newly cut slopes in artificial habitats where its long term establisl~ment is extremely suspect. Three small stands of thls cacti were found on-site. Owing to thc few extant sites known for the species, the population on-site must be considered significant. ~ (Selaginella cinerascens) L/STING: CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1.-2-1. State/Fed. Status -- None DISTRIBUTION: San Diego, Orange counties; Baja California, Mexico HABITAT:. Undisturbed chaparral, Diegan Sage Scrub KNOWN SITF..S: Ubiquitous at many sites in coastal San Diego County with populations heaviest around the periphery of the City of San Diego. Occurs by the ten of millions. A good indicator of site degradation as it rarely inhabits disturbed soils. STATUs: Declln;ng due to coastal urbanization. This species should be deleted from the CNPS listing -- it is much too common. The population on-site is not considered biologically si~m~ificant. ~ (Hguiera laciniata) L/grlNG: CNPS List 2 R-E-D Code 1-2-1 State/Fed. Status -- None DISTRIBUTION: San Diego County, Baja California, Mexico HABITAT:. Diegan Sage Scrub KNOWN SrrEs: A dominant shrub in southern San Diego County in Diegan Sage Scrub habitat away from the immediate coast. Ve~ common in areas of the Jamul Mountains: found by the thousands east of Upper Otay Lake as well as along the north shore of Lower Otay Lake. Were it not for the extensive recent development of its habitat, this species should not be listed by CNPS. STATUS: Declining substantially but still found at numerous locales. The population on site is limited and considered of minor biological significance. SENSITIVE PLANTS OCCURRING IN THE REGION BUT NOT OBSERVED ON-SITE Ota¥ Tanveed (Hernizonia conjugens) Only two sizeable extant populations are known for the Otay Tarweed: along Otay Lakes Road south of Bonita, and at several nearby sites in the Poggi Canyon area. On a small bluff above Otay Valley Road approximately 500 plants were found straddling a fence cordoning off the United Enterprises property to the east. It also occurs in similar habitat on the hill to the east. Listed as 3-3-2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Smith and Berg 1988) and Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game. o3/o~/~o 9 PSBS #738 I v I n ' Id n tar- (Muilla clevelanch'i) Cleveland's Golden Stars, although not inhabiting vernal pools, are often associated with Mima Mounds and the environs of vernal pools. The County range extends from Rancho Santa Fe south to Otay Mesa, with the easternmost collection from Foster, just east of El Cajon. An Otay Valley Road population grows in a vernally moist cracked clay soil along the periphery of aa/trtemisia califomica dominated Diegan Sage Scrub. CNPS listed as 2-2-2; the plant is considered endangered within a portion of its range. Greene's Ground Cherry (Physalis greenei) An estimated 200 Physalis greenei grow beneath shrubs on a south-facing hilkide adjacent to the intersection of Otay Valley Road and the unpaved Otay River Road. Listed by CNPS but uaranked owing to taxonomic questions, ~reene's Ground Cherry, as currently constituted, is an extremely rare coastal species related to P. crassifolia on the desert. Other substantial sites occur in Salt Creek within a large stand of Coast Cholla (Opuntia prolifera), in the Otay Valley off-site and upstreara of the study area, and on a small canyon creek near Dulzura. Small populations have been recorded on south-facing hillsides of Otay VaLley one mile east of the study corridor. California S inebush (Adolphia califomica) California Spinebush is CNPS listed as 1-2-1 and is considered moderately endangered. Twenty to thirty California Splneb~sh grow on a mesa east of Nirvana Avenue and south of Energy Way. San Die o Marsh-Elder (Ira hayesiana) The Otay River Valley and its tributaries have the heaviest concentrations of San Diego Marsh-Elder known in the County. Within the floodplain, Ira is a dominant shrub along both cobbly and sandy channels paralleling Otay Valley Road. This species carries a listing of 2-2-1 and is considered to be of moderate rarity and endangerment. This shrub is opportunistic and locally common in the Otay, Tijuana, San Diegulto, San Diego, and Sweetwater river beds; however, its U.S. range is limited to these few San Diego County riparian sites· o3/o8/~ 10 PSBS #738 The following species also occur in the region: San Diego Thornmlnt (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) grows ia cracked clay soils as in Poggi Canyon. It was searched for where suitable conditions occurred, but was not found. This species is known from only a few south county locations. San Diego Saguwort (d~rtemisiapalme~) may b¢ present in the Otay river bed in small numbers, but no populations are currently known or have previously been located in the study area. San Diego Ragweed (Ambrosiapumilla) is an extremely rare ragweed; however, localized reports in the Otay region, upon further investigation, have turned out to be Weak-leaf Burbush (Ambrosia confertiflorum). Orcutt's Brodiaea (Brodiaea omuttii) prefers deep vernal pool habitats not found at the site. Orcutt's Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus orcutt/anus) was historically found in extensive numbers in the Otay River floodplain. No appropriate habitat occurs on-site. San Diego Hasseaathns (Dudleya vatiegata) occurs on open, xeric bluffs, and in broken, rocky habitat. Both Cliff Spurgu (Euphorbia misers) and San Diego Burbush (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) are found on Otay Mesa, with the latter growing at its northernmost known locale to the east in Rice Canyon. Adder's-tongue Fern Ophioglossum califomicum was searched for but was not found. This highly cryptic species is very difficult to fred except following heavy rains. Nightshade (Solanum tenuilobatum) is extremely localized on Otay Mountain and Otay Mesa. This species was not found within the study area. All plants not found could have been identified during the survey period. Had any of these species been present in the study area in appreciable numbers, they should have been detected during the field surveys. SENSITIVE VERTEBRATES Three species of sensitive vertebrates were observed on the site: Orange-throated Whiptail, Coastal Cactus Wren, and California Gnatcatcher. Orange-throated Whiptail (Caemidophonts hypeo,thms beldingi) LISTING: SDNGWS (1976) - Special Concern CITES (1976) - Category II IUCN (1979) - Rare USFWS (1986) - Category II SDHS (1980) - Threatened CDFG (1977, 1988, 1989) - Protected (Sensitive) 031o819o 11 PSBS #738 DISTRIBUTION: Limited; found from southern Orange County, western Riverside and San Diego counties south to southern Baja California, Mexico. HABITAT:. Open scrublund STATUS: Limited distribution; found only in western San Diego County and Baja California, Mexico. An unusually large, adult Orange-throated Whiptail was observed on-site. ~ (Campylorhynchus brUnneicapillus sandiegense) LISTING: No official listing; however, knowledgeable ornithologists consider this subspecies to be one of the most endangered birds in Southern California. DISTRIBUTION: Very patchy pattern of distribution from southern Ventura County, California to Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. HABITAT:. Patches of prickly pear and cholla cactus STATUS: This distinctive subspecies is becoming less and less common due to habitat distinctiun with t~p to 50% of the population's having become extinct in the past 10 years (Amadeo M. Rea, pers. comm.). Two pairs were seen in the northeastern portion of the site. While their nests were on the northernmost hilklde, both pairs were observed foraging on the adjacent slopes across the drainage. An additional Cactus Wren was sighted on the central ridge through the site. Although additional birds may be present on-site judging from other nests ia the area, they were not observed. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica) LISTING: Remsen (1980) - Priority II Everett (1979) ~ Declining USFWS (1986) - Category II DISrRIBUTION: San Diego County, Riverside County, and Orange County; Baja California, Mexico. HABrrAT: Diegan Sage Scrub STATUS: Coastal species seriously declining to loss of habitat. Permanent resident. United States population estimated 1200 pairs (Atwood 1980). San Diego County most important United States region. One pair of California Gnatcatchers were observed in the northernmost drainage, just west of the two pairs of Cactus Wrens. In the second drainage from the northern boundary, one pair was utilizing the northern slope while a second pair with two fledglings were bounding about the California Sagebrush. A tburth pair occupies habitat in the southwestern corner near the freeway on-ramp. o31o819o 12 PSBS #738 EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The proposed project has been reviewed and drastically modified on thc basis of input from both City staff and the project biologist. With these changes the residual impacts of the project would be the loss of one pair of gnatcatchers with the possible loss of a sccond pair of birds. Thc project would also Icad to thc loss of thc single Coast Barrel Cactus present approximately one-haft of thc San Diego Sunflower plants, one of flu'ce stands of Snake Cholla, and most of the Ashy-footed Clubmoss present on the site. The project wouJd also lead to the loss of approximately 8 ao'es of Diegan Sage Scrub habitat occupied by a COmmon assemblage of native spccins and at least one Orange-throated Whiptaii. Under thc proposed project design, 2-3 pairs of California Gnatcatchcrs and all three pairs of Coastal Cactus Wrens would be preserved in a single dedicated open space. Also preserved in this open space would bc approximately one-half of thc San Diego Sumqowcr plants and two of three stands of the sensitive Snake ChoLla. The partial preservation of the resources on thc site would substantially reduce impacts; however, impacts remaining are cousidercd to be significant, but mitigablc through thc careful implementation of a varlcty of enhancement and protective measures. These are identified in thc following section of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The following measures are recommended to mitigate biological impacts to a level of non-significance. Full implementation of these measures would achieve this purpose. 1. All Ferocactus, Mammillatia, Opuntia parryi var. serpentina, Opuntia prolifera and Opuntia littoralis cactus occurring within the areas to be developed should be transplanted to the disturbed portions of the open space and along the fringes of this area which face the development. 2. All disturbed scrub vegetation including: Isocoma veneta, Artemisia californica, Eriogonutn fasciculatttm, Bacchatis sarothroides, Malosma lautina, Viguiera laciniata, Rhus integrifolia, Simmondsia chinensis. 3. Fencing of all lots facing the open space lot and other easy accesses to this area should be removed or adequately blocked. 4. Clearing activities on the site should be restricted from occurring within IIX} feet of any active California Gnatcatcher or Cactus Wren nests or all clearing should be restricted from occurring between 15 March and 1 August. 03/08/913 13 Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a = e d b ¥ D U K E S August 26. 1989 FILE: 9704 .REP ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT Lynndale Hills Pre-zone No. 77-205440 Environmental Initial Study No 89-1004 PREPARED FOR CAMEO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 5125 CONVOY STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92111 619/292-4330 ATTENTION: MARTIN R. KOLKEY XINOS ENTERPRISES 9619 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 102 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 619/278-5310 ATTENTION: JUDITH A. ANNALA PREPARED BY DUKES Noise Control 7940 Silverton Avenue Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92126 (619) 549-2119 i 800 44 NOISE (446-6473) Lynndele Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y D U K E S August 26, 1989 FILE: 9704.REP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................... 1 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Observations 1.3 Conclusions 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................... 2 2.1 Project ~i~%ig~ 2.2 Project Location 2.3 Legal Description 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................... 3 3.1 Existing Noise Source 3.2 Field Survey 3.3 Future Noise Source 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................ 5 4.1 Roadway Noise Calculations 4.2 Traffic Model Adjustment 4.3 Equipment 5.0 IMPACT ..................................... 7 5.1 Exterior Noise 6.0 MITIGATION ................................. 7 6.1 Exterior Noise 7.0 CERTIFICATION .............................. 8 8.0 REFERENCES ................................. 9 8.1 Notes 8.2 Bibliography TABLE 3.1 Traffic Noise Survey ........................... 3 TABLE 3.2 CNEL Range on Site ............................. 4 i L~ndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ b U K E S August 26. 1989 FILE: 9704.REP EXIBITS A Vicinity Map (current USGS 7.5 Minute series topographic) B-i&B-2 County of San Diego Orthographic Maps showing topography in the immediate area of the project, and calculation cross-section locations. The Design Layout has been super- imposed over the map. 1-805 and the H Street extension were not built at the time this map was prepared. The distances and elevations used in the roadway elevation exhibits were ascertained with the aid of Caltrans "As Built" Construction documents, some of which are included, and physical measure- ments during the field surveys. C Conceptual Design Layout showing locations of the existing and future 65 dB, CNEL contours and the project parameters. D-1 through D-6 Topography sections showing perspective of project elements, such as buildings, property lines, etc. in relation to the roadway at each calculation cross-section. E-1 through E-4 Caltrans "As Built" Plans used for determination of distances and elevations for 1-805 and H Street. PSBS #738 ~ (Mu#la ctevelandii) Cleveland's Golden Stars, although not inhabiting vernal pools, are often associated with Mima Mounds and the environs of vernal pools. The County range extends fi.om Rancho Santa Fe south to Otay Mesa, with the easternmost collection fi.om Foster, just east of El Cajon. An Otay Valley Road population grows in a vernally moist cxacked clay soil along the periphery of an .drtemisia californica dominated Diegan Sage Scrub. CNPS listed as 2-2-2; the plant is considered endangered within a portion of its range. Greene's Ground Cherry (Physalis greenei) An estimated 200 Physalis greenei grow beneath shrubs on a south-facing hilkide adjacent to the intersection of Otay Valley Road and the unpaved Otay River Road. Listed by CNPS but um'anked owing to taxonomic questions, Greene's Ground Cherry, as currently constituted, is an extremely rare coastal species related to P. cra~sifolia on the desert. Other substantial sites occur in Salt Creek within a large stand of Coast Cholla (Opuntia prolifera), in the Otay Valley off-site and upstream of the study area, and on a small canyon creek near Dulzura. Small populations have been recorded on south-facing hillsides of Otay Valley one mile east of the study corridor. California Slfinebnsh (Adolphia californica) California Spinebush is CNPS listed as 1-2-1 and is considered moderately endangered. Twenty to thirty California Spinebush grow on a mesa east of Nirvana Avenue and south of Energy Way. ~ (/va hayesiana) The Otay River Valley and its tributaries have the heaviest concentrations of San Diego Marsh-Elder known in the County. Within the floodplain, Iva is a dominant shrub along both cobbly and sandy channels paralleling Otay Valley Road. This species carries a listing of 2-2-1 and is considered to be of moderate rarity and endangerment. This shrub is opportunistic and locally common in the Otay, Tijuana, San Dieguito, San Diego, and Sweetwater river beds; however, its U.S. range is limited to these few San Diego County riparian sites. 03/08/90 10 Lynndale Hills Pre-zon~ P r e p a r e d b ¥ U K E S August 26. 1989 FILE: 9704 .REP 1 _ O SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1.1 Purpose This analysis addresses the existing and future noise impact and the acoustical mitigation required at the proposed project. This report may be submitted as evidence of compliance with existing and applicable provisions of the City of Chula Vista Noise Element to the General Plan. 1.2 OBSERVATION The project, Lynndale Hills Pre-zone, is located northeast of the intersection of 1-805 (Interstate 805) and H Street. The calculated CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) caused by traffic varies on the site from 46.8 to 64.9 decibels under current traffic conditions and increase to between 44.1 and 65.0 decibels under future conditions. 1.3 CONCLUSIONS Exterior Noise Neither the existing nor the future CNEL will exceed 65 decibels on the property; Therefore no mitigation other than the natural noise attenuation as the result of topography and distances is required. Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y L K E S August 26, 1989 FILE: 9704.REP 2_0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a prezone application for the subdivision of .. thirty-three lots for R-i-10 zoning. The conceptual design layout is shown in Exhibit C with existing and future noise contours. ] 2.2 Site Description The site is located north east of the intersection of 1-805 and H Street in the City of Chula Vista, and is situated above both road- ways being ~artially shielded from 1-805 by a knoll. Please refer to the Thomas Guide page 70, coordinates A-3. '1 Also refer to the attached Site Plan, Exhibit A, and the local topography cross-sections, Exhibits D-1 through D-6, which show the relationship of the site to the surrounding topography and the roadways. 2.3 Report Requirements This report is required to supplement the application for the -] Initial Study and to satisfy the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Noise Element to the General Plan which deems residential land use to be incompatible with CNEL 'J exceeding 65 decibels.~ ~nndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D ~ K E S August 26, 1989 · FILE: 9704.REP 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES Interstate 805, an eight-lane road west of the site, is a significant noise source in the area with an existing Average Daily Trip load of 132,000, a 2.5 percent medium, and a 2.5 percent heavy truck mix.z H Street, a six-lane road south of the site, is a significant noise source in the area with an existing Average Daily Trip load of 51,760, a two percent medium, and a two percent heavy truck mix.3 3.2 FIELD SURVEY Sound level measurements were conducted on the site as indicated below: TABLE 3.1 TRAFFIC NOISE SURVEY MEASUREMENT DATE PERIOD LEQ AUTOS MEDIUM HEAVY POSITION (hfs) (dB) TRUCKS TRUCKS A 08/08/89 1300-1400 63.0 8,312 167 165 B 08/08/89 1430-1530 56.8 9,014 165 126 C 08/08/89 1630-1700 60.7 5,749 101 63 The calculated and measured noise levels were found to be in close agreement with those values measured for the same traffic conditions. Please refer to the roadway noise calculations provided in the exterior noise section of this report for detailed calculation results. Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ ! K E $ August 26. 1989 FILE: 9704.REP 3.3 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS 3.3.1 FUTURE NOISE SOURCES Interstate 805 ADT will increase to 213,000 with eight-lanes; 2.5 percent medium and 2.5 percent heavy truck mix. H Street ADT will increase to 54,000 with six-lanes; two percent medium and two percent heavy truck mix. 3.3.2 CALCULATED TRAFFIC CNEL The following is a summary of the traffic noise levels on the site taken from in the Exterior Noise Section of this report: TABLE 3.2 CNEL RANGE ON SITE Receptor EXISTING FUTURE elevation CNEL (dB) CNEL (dB) 1st floor: 46.8 to 53.7 44.1 to 58.8 2nd floor: 53.7 to 64.9 47.3 to 65.0 4 Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D { E S August 26, 1989 FILE: 9704.R£P 4 __ O METHODOLOGY 4.1 ROADWAY NOISE CALCULATIONS The current version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) STAMINA 2.0 TRAFFIC MODEL was used to calculate the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) at designated positions in the attached detailed calculations. A modification of this program, written by DUKES, also calculates minimum barrier heights necessary for compliance with a given exterior land use criteria. The FHWA model addresses the following traffic conditions: - Heavy truck height and emission levels; - Medium truck height and emission levels; - Passenger car height and emission levels; Relative elevations, and distances of the roadway, banks or walls to the receptor; Increased emissions of uphill bound heavy trucks; Receptor's angle of view of the roadway to the left and right; Overall traffic flow and vehicle speeds; and The mixture of passenger vehicles, medium and heavy trucks. The program does not account for: - Grade surface variations; - Uneven rate of acoustical propagation; - Acoustical reflection from walls or roadway cut slopes; - Variations in traffic speed due to congestion or the presence of on/off ramps; - Hourly variations in truck traffic mix (Heavy truck percentages frequently decrease during peak hours; and - Modification to vehicles such as off-road tires which are common in some areas. 4.2 TRAFFIC MODEL ADJUSTMENT The FHWA STAMINA 2.0 TRAFFIC MODEL is a generalized prediction tool which has provided correlation between traffic conditions and Sound 5 Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D E S August 26, 1989 FILE: 9?04.REP Levels. Since the model is a generalized predictor, on-site Average Sound Exposure levels (LEQ) (with appropriate observations concerning traffic characteristics and site conditions) are measured for comparison with the model's prediction at specific locations on the site. The purpose of the field survey is to insure that the calculated nois levels truly represent on-site conditions. Using the traffic counts from the field survey above, the Leq is calculated and compared with levels actually measured. Under most circumstances, the FHWA model us to determine noise levels, overestimates. When this occurs, the calcu lated levels are accepted as a worst case scenario. However, when measured levels are higher, unforeseen on-site factors such as reflection from buildings, roadway cut embankments, etc. may be the cause of noise which is higher than predicted. When this occurs, the calculated values are adjusted upward. This adjustment is then taken into~consideration when calculating barrier heights and other mitigation. 4.3 EQUIPMENT Sound Level Monitoring The following equipment was used in the acoustical survey. Type: Precision integrating Sound Level Meter, ANSI, Type I Model: 2230 Serial No.1211376 Manufacturer: Bruel & Kjaer Type: Time integrating Sound Level Meter, ANSI, Type II Model: 710M; serial No. 0787A0317 Manufacturer: Larson-Davis Laboratories Miscellaneous Three register traffic counters, distance measuring wheel, tripod, wind screen, calibrator, three Heat-Set two-way radios. 6 Lynndale HElls Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y D E $ August 26, 1989 FILE: 9704.REP 5-0 TI~I~:'ACT 5.1 EXTERIOR NOISE The CNEL varies on the site from 46.8 to 64.9 decibels under current conditions and will increase to 44.1 to 65.0 decibels under future conditions. Refer to the Exterior Noise section of this report for detailed analysis noise levels at each lot. The proposed project is therefore compatible with existing and applic standards of the City of Chulla Vista Noise Element to the General Plan. 6 - O MITIGATION 6.1 EXTERIOR NOISE NO mitigation is required other than the attenuation which is provided by the topography and the distances of the lots from the ,roadway. L~ndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D U K E S August 26. 1989 PILE: 9704.REP 7.0 CERTIFICATION The findings and recommendations of this acoustical report are a true and factual analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed development. Acoustical Engineer Project Engineer Michael Burrill Said Najafi PROJECT STAFF Carlos Gomez Acoustical Technician My-Thanh Dinh Computer Data Technician Dario Alcocer Senior Programmer Darrell Reich Associate Programmer Lynndale Hills Pre-zon~ P r e p a r e d b ¥ D U K E S August 26, 1989 FILE: 9704. REP 8 . O REFERENCES 8.1 NOTES 1. Refer to current City of Chula Vista Noise element to the General Plan. 2. Refer to Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), District XI: 1988 traffic volume, April 1988. Information was researched by Robert Gibbs, Traffic Engineer, Traffic Engineering, Caltrans, (619) 237-6969 and provided to DUKES staff during telephone conversation on August 17, 1989 at 9:20 a.m.. 3. Rarer to SANDAG (San Diego Association of Regional Govarnments), Series VII: 2010 traffic projections, April 1988. was also provided during telephone conversation with Information Robert Gibbs a8 in Note 1. 4. City of Chula Vista Traffic Flow for City of Chula Vista: 1989 Traffic Volumes, 1989, 6. Information was provided during telephone conversation with Frank Rivera, Assistant Civil Engineer, Traffic Engineering, City of Chula Vista, (619) 691-5180 on August 17, 1989 at 10:05 am. 5. SANDAG (San Diego Association of Regional Governments), Senario IV land use: 2010 traffic projections, March 10, 1989. Information was provided during telephone conversation with Mehran Sepehri, Associate Traffic Engineer, Traffic Engineering, City of Chula Vista, (619) 691-5180 on August 17, 1989 at 11:10 am. Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y D U K E S Au~st 26, 1989 FILE: 9704.REP 8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Acoustical Society of America, Vern O. Knudsen and Cyril M. Harris. Acoustical Designing in Architecture. New York: American Institute of Physics. 1978. 55-62. American National Standards Institute. S12.1: Guidelines for the Preparation for Standard Procedures to Determine the Noise Emission From Sources. New York: ANSI. 1983. American Society of Testing and Materials. Book of ASTM Standards for Thermal Insulation; Environmental Acoustics, Vol 04.06, Philadelphia: 1987. Section E90-85, E96-80, E336-84, E398- 83, 13-73, E597-81, E989-84, & E1014-84. New York: American Society of Testing and Materials, 1987. Heeden, Robert A., "Compendium of Materials for Noise Control", U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, November, 1978. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Robert A. Heeden. Compendium of Materials for Noise Control. Chicago: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. November, 1976. U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) STAMINA 2.0 Highway Traffic Noise Program. 10 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE LYNNDALE HILLS PREZONE/ INITIAL STUDY A Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation of 1!.9 Acres Prepared For: The City of Chula Vista and Cameo Development Company 5125 Convoy Court Suite 301 San Diego, California 92111 Prepared By: Brian F. Smith Brian F. Smith and Associates 14678 Ibex Court San Diego, California 92129 (619) 484-0915 Attgttst 21, 1989 1 ABSTRACT The following report has been compiled as part of an initial study for the Lynndale Hills subdivision project located near the intersection of Interstate 805 and H Street in the City of Chula Vista The archaeological study included a survey of the I 1.9-acre parcel and the testing and evaluation of a small prehistoric site identified during the survey. The investigation of the prehistoric site, temporarily designated as LH-1, demonstrated that the site was not significant and retained no further research potential. The proposed development will impact Site LH-1; however, because the site lacks research potential and sensitive deposits, the impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation measures will be required. PROJECT LOCATION MAP LYNNDALE HILLS PREZONE/INITIAL STUDY CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 84 E~T'd" STRI,]ET · CIIU~ VISTA, CALII,'OI[NIA 92010 · 619 425 9600 EACH CHILD IS ~ IND~IDU~ OP GREAT WORTH BOARDOFEDUCAlmON January 29, 1990 J~EPH D CU~MI~GS. ~ O. SHARON GILES PATR~CKA JUDD JUDY ~HULE~SERG F~N~A ~ARANT~NO Planning Department mmEm~ City of Chula Vista SUPEm~E,DE,~ 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 ~HN F VUGR:N, Ph D RE: CV Tract No. PCS-90-06 Subdivision - Lynndale Hills Deposit Eo. DP-727 APN 592-100-30 & 49 Owner/Developer- Cameo Development Company Dear Sir: This is to advise you that the Lynndale Hills Subdivision is located with 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. Allen School is the closest existing facility to the above-referenced project. However, the District is unable at this time to advise the City of Chula Vista or potential homeowners which school children from this subdivision will attend. Schools in this area are at or near capacity and children 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. It is also possible children from Lynndale Hills may attend a new school constructed at some future date. Please be advised that a developer fee of $.69 per square foot of assessable area is currently being charged to assist in providing elementary facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ?[ate Shurson Director of Planning ~S :dp APR ~ .~9~ : c: ?,artin R. Kolkey Sweetwater Union High School District March 19. 1990 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-89-84 DESCRIPTION: 17 Single Family Detached Dwellings LOCATION: North of East 'H" Street. to the east of 1-805 and south of Lyndale Lane APPLICANT: Cameo Development Company The above ~roject will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 IDeveloper Feesl. prior to issuance of building permit. Respectfully. Director of Plannin~ TS:mi 23 March 1990 Mr. Douglas D. Reid, ~lUvironmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P. O. box 1087 Chu/a Vista, California 92012 ~A~ 2 8 1990 Re: Case No. IS-89-84 Dear Mr. Reid: Cameo Development Company is the project Applicant for the project locat- ed north of East H Street, east of 1-805 and south of Lynndale Lane, Case No. IS-89-84. The area for which this project is planned is virgin California brush_land enveloping an extremely steep hill During norma/ rainfall there is a drainage problem in the valley below. If the proposed 17 single-family detached dwellings are constructed atop the hill, it would necessitate cutting down the hill and the use of fill dirt in an expansive soil area. The natural watershed would be destroyed, impervious surfaces created and a major flooding problem would occur en- dangering the residences below. The proposed project would also destroy the natural habitat of ground squirrels, California quail, foxes, opossums, weasels, skunks, rabbits, Red-tailed hawks, weste~ meadow larks, doves, orioles, the endangered least Bell's vireo plus other native birds. The only ingress and egress to this proposed project is from Bonita Road onto Lynnwood Drive which is one block east of 1-805 opposite Bonita Plaza Road which is one of the most congested and dangerous areas in San Diego County. The level of service on Bonita Road at this point is way below the acceptable level. We believe it to be LOS F. Lynnwood Drive is not a through street and there are now between eighty and ninety dwellings, a business (Pacific Tree Farms), also Bob's Firewood, and the future Beth Torah Temple using this narrow, winding two-lane road. If the project area off Lynndale Lane was rezoned to four times its present density, it cou/d cause a very expensive as well as dangerous problem. The area is now zoned one dwelling unit per acre which is compatible to the terrain, the circulation element and the existing dwellings in the unincorporated area. We definitely believe this proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment and it is imperative an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Sinc erely Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Lindsay 4370 Lynndale Lane Bonita, California 92002 cc Supervisor Brian Bilbray I~=CO - Jane Merrill £weetwater Community Planning Croup March 19, 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 ' Chula Vista, CA 92012 RE: I S for Project of Property located north of East 'H' Street, to the east of I-$05 and south of Lynndale Lane. Dear Sir, We the undersigned, believe that the above mentioned project being proposed by Cameo Development Company will have a significant adverse effect on the nvlronment. e The 11.7 undeveloped area provides a habitat for many of our native animals and plants, such as: Red-Winged Hawks, Vireo birds, and other small animals. The plants that would be destroyed would be many species of native cactus, wildflowers, and Jojoba plants. In addition to nvlronmental hazards, there would be significant e ' safety issues. The street, Lynndale Place, that would exit all the additional cars, at least 25, has only one exit. This would create a hazardous condition in the event of a natural disaster or fire. Also, there is a drainage problem and this most certainly would cause more water to pool at the beginning of the street, creating a potential for accidents because of increased traffic. We hope that you will seriously consider our concerns and issue a recommendation against the project. Sincerely, ' / / Jady T. 'Basante 3112 Lynndale Lane Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 -/ ~'~ ~' ,~i ' ' ' " ' " ' "' ' LAFCO 1600 Pacific Highway-Room 452 San Diego, CA 92101 · (619) 531-5400 San Diego Local Agency. Formation Commission Cchairpcrson April 23, 1990 Fred Nagcl Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator Members Planning Department Brian E Bilbray City of Chula Vista s.e~-r, ..... 276 Fourth Ave. I.incll Fromm Chula Vista, CA 92010 Marioric Hcrsom SUBJECT: Lynndale Hills Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Reid: MarkJ Loschcr ~,,~ar~,~ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned project. John Macl)onald LAFCO finds the environmental review to be comprehensive and adequate, 5uper~:isors and has no substantive comments. ~,, ~)~g,, Sincerely, Mtkc Gotch JUUU~NE P. MERRILL . ~ ,,.b.~ ',~m~-~ Executive Officer ~ 0 J.~.r~0 { ou,lcilmtmhcr Cit, ,,t JPM:DMS:ih 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 fo)lowing information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. CAMEO DEvELnPMEMT C~.~ A CA. Corp. List the names of all persons having.any ownership interest in the property'~nvolve~l. John L. Knorr & Frances I. Knorr, Delbert L. Huqhes & Janice V. Huqh~ Gatel¥ Sorens~n Co.~ A California Corporation, Robert R. Crowther & Juanita Crowther, William L. Shipley 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all in,dlvidua{s owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Aaron H. Kolker, Martin R. Kolkey 3. If any person 'identified pursuant to (l). 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. · N/A 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 twe]ve months? Yes No X If yes, please .indicate person(s) ~s. defined as:. "Any individu--~l-, firm, copartnership, joint venture~ association,~ I~s,oc.~al c./ub, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,, trust, receiver., syndicate, I th!.s..and~ any other county, city and county, city, mun,cipa]ity, distr~ct or other IPO~tica] subdivision, or any other grou.p or combination acting as a unit." %~%~na~ure o~ appi]cant/d~ . ", ~,, '~ iD R. Kolk. v Vice-President ~ ... 19 ..'.~tnt or type nm~:e or ap iicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page I 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-42; request to utilize dwellinq at 1515 Hilltop Drive as shelter for homeless south - South BaS Community Services, Inc. A. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of June 13, 1990. This will allow the applicant additional time to meet and confer with neighbors, and will allow staff the opportunity to visit and report on comparable facilities located in other areas of the County. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to continue PCC-90-42 to the meeting of June 13, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 1 ~. RESOLUTION: Designating proposed boundaries for the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and approving a preliminary plan A. BACKGROUND At its meeting of May 3, 1990, the Redevelopment Agency approved the Montgomery Planning Committee's recommended boundaries for the new Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The Project Area generally includes the office, commercial, and industrial zoned properties along the Main Street, Third Avenue and Broadway corridors within the Montgomery Specific Planning Area. In addition, industrial/commercial areas along Arizona, West Fairfield, along Palomar, the SDG&E property west of Bay Boulevard and south of L Street, and two parcels at the City's northern boundary are included in the project area. B. DISCUSSION As a condition of the annexation of Montgomery to the City of Chula Vista from the County of San Diego in 1986, the City was precluded from organizing redevelopment projects within the annexed area until January l, 1990. With the expiration of this prohibition and in response to the call for redevelopment activities in the Montgomery Community by the Montgomery Specific Plan, staff from the Community Development Department, Planning Department and Redevelopment Consultants Rosenow, Spevacek Group, Inc. identified areas suitable for redevelopment in the City's southwest section. These areas were reviewed and in some cases altered by the Montgomery Planning Committee at its meetings of March 21 and April 4. The Redevelopment Agency at it May 3, 1990 meeting substantially adopted the recommendations of the Montgomery Planning Committee, while adding several parcels outside the Montgomery Specific Planning area. The proposed redevelopment area submitted to the Planning Commission includes all of the areas authorized by the Agency. It should be noted that approval of preliminary boundaries is the first step in the process of determining the final project area. It is likely that the preliminary project area will be reduced, and areas may not be added beyond those approved at this meeting of the Commission. Process By the attached resolution, the Commission will officially approve the Preliminary Plan and boundaries and begin the process of forming a new redevelopment project area within the City. The legal description and attached maps will set preliminary project boundaries. A project schedule is also attached. The legal description will be available at the Commission meeting. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 2 The Preliminary Plan is required by law as the initial step, and most general description of, the purpose for formation of a redevelopment project area. The plan contains the following elements: 1. A description of the project boundaries; 2. A general statement of land uses, the layout of principle streets, building intensities and standards proposed for the project area; 3. Show that the purpose of the Preliminary Plan would be attained by redevelopment action; 4. Show that the Preliminary Plan conforms to the General Plan; and 5. Describe generally the impact of the redevelopment project on residents and surrounding neighborhoods. Setting of boundaries and approval of the Preliminary Plan precedes development of the Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report is the document that will include detailed land use survey incorporation and specific goals and objectives to be implemented by the redevelopment project. These two documents, the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Report, should not be confused. The first, initiates the process and studies, the second contains the studies, information and goals. The Redevelopment Agency will review and approve the Preliminary Report. After Planning Commission approval of preliminary boundaries and the preliminary plan, the plan is submitted to the Redevelopment A~ency. At this meeting on June 7, the Agency will direct that notification of the City's intent to form a project area be sent to the County, school districts and other affected taxing authorities. In response, the County will begin generating base-year tax assessment information on the properties within the area. During June and July, redevelopment consultants will draft the Preliminary Report, a document that will identify in detail the land uses and existing conditions in the project area that require action. At this time, the Program EIR will also be started, identifying potential impacts and mitigating measures for the redevelopment plan. In the June and July period, formation of the Project Area Committee {PAC) will also take place. Members will be elected from residents, tenants and business owners within the project area at a town meeting. The members of the PAC and the election will be affirmed by the City Council on July 17. to have significant input in the Preliminary Plan and The PAC will go on the prioritization of actions and goals. Notification Also in June, notification to all residents, tenants, business owners and property owners in the project area will go out. At the direction of the Agency, this notification will, in addition to the noticing required by State law, include plain language descriptions and explanations of what redevelQpment is and what residents, property owners and tenants can expect in the future. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 23, 1990 Page 3 A package of proposed notices will be included in the June 7 report to the Agency. Condemnation At the direction of the Agency, staff is preparing a series of policy options with regard to the power of eminent domain within the project area. This information will also be reported to the Agency at its June 7 meeting. Staff will also report on the number and location of residentially-zoned property located within the project's preliminary boundaries. To the extent possible, with the exceptions of Woodlawn Park and Broderick's 0tay Acres recommended for inclusion by the Montgomery Planning Committee, residential areas have been excluded from the project area. WPC 4447H RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SELECTING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND FORMULATING AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, upon receipt of information from the legislative body of the City, and upon further testimony and documentation, this Commission has considered the area to be included within the Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, the California "Community Redevelopment Law" provide that the City Planning Commission may select one or more project areas comprised of all or part of a redevelopment survey area, and may formulate a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of each selected project area; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission desires to select the boundaries of and to formulate a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of a project area within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Area. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of Chula Vista hereby selects and designates as the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area of said City that area within the expanded Redevelopment Survey, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of this City hereby formulates and approves the "Preliminary Plan" for the redevelopment of the described Project Area, which Preliminary Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 4. That the Planning Director of this City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the Preliminary Plan to said Redevelopment Agency of this City for the preparation of official Plan. And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary WPC 4449H CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA MILESTONE DATES May 23, 1990 Planning Commission - Approve Preliminary Plan June 7, 1990 Redevelopment Agency - Authorizes transmiHal of Preliminary Plan Weeks of June 18 and PAC formation and election June 25, 1990 meetings July 17, 1990 City Council - Affirm PAC Redevelopment Agency - September 4, 1990 Approves and authorizes transmittal of'. Preliminary Report, Draft EIR and Draft Redevelopment Plan September 25, 1990 Last day to coil for Fiscal Review Fiscal Review process October 1 through NO December 27, 1990 October 15, 1990 PAC - December 17, 1990 Submit report on Redevelopment Plan to Agency November 13, 1990 Agency and Council- January 15, 1991 Public Hearing December 29, 1990 Ordinance Effective February 28, 1991 December, 1991 First increment received December, 1992 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT May11,1990 Prepared for: Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 (619) 691-5047 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541-4585 510 North Pacific, Suite 1 Oceanside, California 92054 (619) 967-6462 PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 SECTION I1. THE PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .............. 2 SECTION II1. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS ................................................................. 3 A. Land Use .............................................................................. 3 B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets ................................................................ 3 C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ........... 4 D. General Statement of Proposed Building intensities ............. 4 E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards ............. 5 SECTION IV. A I I AINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW ....................... 5 SECTION V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY ......... 7 SECTION VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ................................... 7 EXHIBIT A MAPS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION This document is the Preliminary Plan ("Plan") for the Southwest Redevelopment Project. The Plan's purpose is to designate the boundaries of the proposed Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, and to provide a general description of the proposed Southwest Redevelopment Project. It has been prepared pursuant to the authorization set forth by the Redevelopment Agency on May 3, 1990. This Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 33324 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Health and Safety Code") which states that the Plan should: (a) Describe the boundaries of the project area; (b) Contain a general statement of land uses, and of the layout of principal streets, population densities, building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area; (c) Show how the purpose of the preliminary plan would be attained by redevelopment; (d) Show how the preliminary plan conforms to the community's general plan; (e) Describe, generally, the impact of the redevelopment project upon residents of the project area and surrounding neighborhoods. I1. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Presented in Exhibit A are maps of the area proposed for inclusion in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). The Project Area generally includes: the mercantile and office commercial, heavy commercial, research and limited industrial zoned properties adjacent to Broadway from James Street to Naples Street; the commercial and industrial zoned property bounded by L Street, the railroad right-of-way, Moss Street, and Broadway (Harborside 'A'); the property bounded by Palomar Street on the south, Bay Boulevard on the east, the City limits on the west, and the extension of L street on the north; the property bounded by I-5 on the east and south and the City limits on the west (West Fairfield); the railroad right-of-way from L Street to the southern City limits; the property north of Ada Street, west of the railroad right-of-way, east of the I-5 freeway, and south of the SDGE right-of-way; the property adjacent to and north of Anita Street between I-5 and the railroad right-of-way; the property south of and adjacent to Palomar Street between Broadway and the railroad right-of-way; the parcels adjacent to the Palomar and Orange intersection; all the property bounded by the City limits on the south, the railroad right-of-way on the west, Main Street on the north, and Rios Avenue on the east; the residential neighborhood of Woodlawn Park; most of the parcels north of and adjacent to Main Street from the railroad right-of-way on the west and Hilltop Drive on the east; and the commercial and industrial zoned property along both sides of Third Avenue from Naples Street south to Main Street. There are two non-contiguous areas within the proposed Project Area boundaries. These areas generally include: the property to the south of the City limits, north of State Highway 54, between National City Boulevard and 5th Avenue; and the parcels bounded by Highway 54 on the south, Highland Avenue on the west, the City limits on the north, and Edgemere Avenue on the west. \chula\preplan 2 The Project Area is approximately 1,093 acres in size and is predominantly urbanized pursuant to Section 33320.1 of the Health and Safety Code. Existing development includes single and multi-family dwellings, commercial, office, and industrial uses. Problem conditions that are proposed to be addressed through redevelopment include economic revitalization, deteriorating structures, deficient street and drainage improvements, inadequate parks and open spaces, and deteriorated or deficient public facilities. III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING ELEMENTS A. Land Uses Land uses shall be those permitted by the City of Chula Vista General Plan ("General Plan"), the Zoning Ordinance and the Montgomery Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") adopted in 1988; permitted uses are as follows. o Low/Medium Density Residential (3-6 Du Ac.) o Medium Density Residential (6-11 Du. Ac.) o Medium/High Density Residential (11-18 Du. Ac.) o High Density Residential (18-27 Du. Ac.) o Mercantile & Office Commercial o Heavy Commercial o Research & Limited Industrial o Parks & Open Space B. General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets The principal streets within the Project Area are as shown on Exhibit A. These include Broadway, L Street, Third Avenue, Main Street, Orange Avenue, Palomar Street, and Bay Boulevard. The layout of principal \chula\preplan 3 streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan and to the Montgomery Specific Plan, as currently adopted or is hereafter amended. Existing streets within the Project Area may be widened or otherwise modified and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation. C. General Statement of Proposed Population Densities Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the Montgomery Specific Plan as currently adopted or are hereafter amended, and other applicable codes and ordinances. This Plan and the Redevelopment Project do not propose any changes to population densities, development densities, or land use plan designations. D. General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: (1) the percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage), (2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio), (3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and (4) the height of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Montgomery Specific Plan and other applicable codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are hereafter \chula\preplan 4 amended. This Plan and the Redevelopment Project do not propose any changes to population densities, land use plan designations or building intensities. E. General Statement of Proposed Building Standards Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable codes and ordinances. IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW The selection of the Project Area boundaries was guided by the existence of blight, as defined by the California Community Redevelopment Law. Redevelopment of the Project Area would attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law by alleviating blighting conditions that the private sector, acting alone, cannot remedy. Among the blighting conditions existing in the Project Area are the following: o The subdivision of lots into parcels that are inadequate for proper development and redevelopment. A review of parcel maps for the Project Area shows that many of the parcels are either narrow deep lots, irregularly shaped, and/or dysfunctionally configured. Further, these lots are held by a variety of owners. These conditions make it difficult for the private sector to recycle/redevelop older deteriorated structures. Modern planning and development standards require greater setbacks, open space areas and off-street parking facilities than can be accommodated on existing lots as subdivided. \chula\preplan 5 o There is existing land use incompatibility throughout the Project area. The unplanned mixing of commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial and residential uses within the Project Area causes traffic circulation problems, as well as noise and visual pollution. In some instances, the heavy industrial uses on the south side of Main Street have intruded into the natural habitat area of the Otay River floodplain and wetlands. There are other friction points where residential subdivisions abut industrial uses. This adjacency is especially prevalent in the West Fairfield area. o The existence of inadequate public improvements and facilities. The high concentration of commercial and industrial uses in the Project Area results in overuse of existing improvements and facilities. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are substandard and in need of repair. Additional open space and recreational areas are also needed in the Project Area. The general objectives that will guide implementation activities are as follows: o The desire to increase open space and protect environmentally sensitive areas; to rehabilitate physically obsolete, dilapidated or substandard structures; to rehabilitate existing buildings; to construct, reconstruct, redesign, or reuse streets, utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other associated public improvements; to improve the circulation and drainage systems; to construct and/or reconstruct off-street parking facilities; and to improve and provide additional recreation facilities. \chula\preplsn 6 o The desire to revitalize and upgrade commercial, public, business park and professional/institutional properties and public right-of-ways in order to: provide adequate roadways; provide adequate drainage; improve public facilities, services and infrastructure; provide adequate parking; reduce the cost of providing City services; and promote aesthetic and environmental actions and improvements that will make the Project Area a better place to live, work, shop and enjoy leisure time. V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY This Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista and the Montgomery Specific Plan. It proposes an identical pattern of land uses, and includes all roadways and public facilities as indicated by the General Plan and the Specific Plan. VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS The impact of the Plan upon existing residential uses within the proposed Project Area and residences lying outside of the proposed Project Area will generally be in the areas of improved public facilities, utilities and services, improved living environment and economic activity. Plan implementation may, however, facilitate the early conversion of existing incompatible residential uses through the removal of impediments to development. Residents ceaId be displaced and relocated as a result of this activity. \chula\preplan 7 However, the Redevelopment Agency will be responsible for relocating residents displaced by the Agency and for providing last resort housing if necessary, as well as replacing any Iow and moderate income housing units removed from the housing stock. Plan implementation will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission, the Montgomery Planning Committee and other appropriate bodies after input from affected residents and other interested parties. \chul&\preplan 8 EXHIBIT A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA MAPS AVENUE M.edN~TR~ETJ~Ie ~ U ...... EXHIBIT A-1  ~'~"~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .... ~,,, ,~,~,, SOUTHWEST REDEVE~PMENT ,,~.,o,.,o.~, ,,~.~ ~ PROdECT AREA EXHIBIT A-2 / L,,,.o CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .... c,..ou.~.. SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT c~ PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT A-3 / "'~"° CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ,O..,~LT..,,, .... c,..o..... SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT ..E.E.,o.,.o.,~o .,..cE ~ PROJECT AREA