HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/05/09 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, May 9, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
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: (a) PCZ-89-M: Request to prezone 11.7 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
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-K-M: City initiated proposal to rezone certain territory,
generally bounded by Main Street, Rios Avenue, the agricultural
lands adjacent to the Otay River Valley, and a line 310 feet west
of Date Street from its City-adopted County zone classifications
to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista.
The proposed rezonings are confined to the Broderick's Otay Acres
subcommunity of Montgomery, and are governed by the Montgomery
Specific Plan adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on
January 12, 1988 and on September 13, 1988. Short form of Title
of Proposal: Broderick's Otay Acres
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-10: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Tiara
at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10 - Donald L. Bren
Company
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-05: Consideration of amendments to Title 19 of the
Municipal Code to delete provisions which require rezonings,
planned unit developments, precise plans, conditional use permits
and variances to be processed within a specified number of days
City initiated
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of May 16, 1990 at 5:00 p.m.
in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
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 l0 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 po?tion 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 10,000
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 resultinQ
from the project. Because of the configuration of some of the proposeo
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 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 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 66473.6 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
I/4. -SEC 97' .~! ,e' ' 'SHEET I OF 1 SHEET
---~ ~.~/ ' 55__/[/,'-~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION VICINITYMAP
t
! ~:' "ASSESSORS PARCEL "O.
~' TAX RATE AREA
~t . j, ACREAGE
'., b., GRADING
~;~TE PREPARED
NO. oF LOTS
'~ENERAL NOTES OWNERS .
~~~ :SOBDIViD~ & AGENT,
'UT'ILITIE~
z ~ ~'~ ~
ommunit¥
Planning
Oroup
APR I 6 1990
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 Hammond, Cha±rperson
Sweetwater Community Planning Group
JH/rrw
c c: LAFCO P.O. Box 460, Bonita, California 92002-0460
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 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
TP/rrw
cc:LAFCO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSIIIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
IWIllCll WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON TIlE PART OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. '
The following information must be disclosed: "
l. List tile hames of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
CAMEO DEVELOPMENT tO., A CA. Corp.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest inthe property'involveU.
John L. Knorr & Frances I. Knorr,. Delbert L. Huqhes & Janice V. Huqh~
Gately Sorens~n Co.t A California CorporatiQn, Robert R. Crowther &
Juanita Crowther, William L. Shipley
2. If any person identified pursuant t6 il) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than )0% of the shares in the cor?oration
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
Aaron ti. Kolkey
Mart±n R. Kolkey
3. If any persgn 'identified pursuant to (1). above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, lisb the names of any person .serving as director 'of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
.N/x
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?'
Yes__ No X If yes, please .indicate person(s)
I Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, associ.ation,
soc-'6-E'~'F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
._~. I.o ~'~ ~".'~, .
December 26,1989
TO: City of Chula Vista
476 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
Cameo Development Co., a California Corporation is hereby
authorized to act as subdivider for the processing of the Lynndale
Hills Tentative Subdivision Hap, Chula Vista Tract No. 90-6
(APN 592-100-30,49).
OWNERs
APH §92-100-30
~anc~e ~ K~orr
APN 592-100-49
Delbert L, Hughes Janice Y Hughes '
Robert R. Crowther Juanita Crowther
Gately Sorensen Company
a California Corporation Signing of this authorization does not
obligate the sellers to any monetary
responsibility to said subdivider or
subdivision map #90-6 (APN 592-100-30-49)
or does not constitute any change in
original escrow, dated February 24th. 1989.
William b. Shipley
December 26,1989 JA~ 1 1 1990
TO: City of Chula Vista
476 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vieta, 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 §92-100-$0
John L. Knorr Francis I, Knorr
APN 592-100-49
-' .... , d , :.7,-7~-~'--~-~-~,/~L_'''~'-'---~
Delbert L.' Hughes
R6~e~C R, C~ow%her Suanita Crowth.r
OatelF So~ensen Company Si~nin~ of this authorization floes not
a California Oo~poration obligate the sellers to any monetary
~:>~,~-'~' a~. responsibility to said subdivider or
subdivision map ~90-6 (APN 592-100-30,~9)
.>Y~/-:/- : %~: / ' ~ does not constitute any change in
-~'" -- · -~ .......... ~ ' / orgional escrow, dated FeY 2~th 1989.
William L, Shipley
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Lynndale Hills
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 11.7 acre project site is located on the south side of the
Sweetwater River Valley, northeast of the intersection of Interstate
805 and H 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 l0 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 CI~YOF
· environmental review section CHUL~k Vl~-rA
-2-
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of the prezoning, annexation of the 11.7
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,
Prezonlng, 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 ILOS) 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 S~eetwater 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 (Opuntia ~),
Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), San Diego Sunflower
Viguiera laciniata), and Ashy-footed Clubmoss (Selaginella
cinerascens)~tive zoological resources also found on-site
include five San Diego Cactus Wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)
and l0 California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila 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, Man~nillaria, Opuntia parryi var. serpintina,
~ littoralis cactus occurring within the areas to be
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 laurin~ra laciniata, Rhus ln~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 §eotechnical 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, 19gO.
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.
ENVIROJ~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 7484P
-~' ~ FOR OFFICE USE
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.___~
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by ~ .(_~ ·
Application Form Project
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE LYNNDALE HILLS
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or dJscription) LYNNDALE LANE
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 59.2-10.0-30~ 592-100-49
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
4. Name of Applicant CAMEO DEk4~LOPP1ENT 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) 278-5)10
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
x 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 Map __Arch. Elevations __ Eng. Geology Report
__Grading Plan __Landscape Plans __Hydrological Study
__Site Plan x Photos of Site & )(' Biological Study
__Parcel Map ,~etting ~Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan ~l/Tentative Subd. Map ~ Noise Assessment
Specific Plan " Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or ,~7-Soils Report
Approvals Required
(Rev, 12/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 6f~c~f,~or acreage ~ /[.~7
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
/.~ .~ACRES FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES
2. Complete this section if project is .r~sidential.
a. Type development: Single family x Two family
Multi family. Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights -~-SINGLE FAMILY HOhl~S
EQUAL TO 35'
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 10 4 bedrooms-7 ~ Total units
d. Gross density {DU/total acres~/11.9 ACRES = ~ DU/AC
e. Net density (DU/total acres m~us any dedication~DU/9.g~AC
= ~ DU/A(
f. Estimated project populationlG~4~l/~ PEOPLE
g. Estimated sale or rental price range $250,000 - $~50,000
h. Square footage of floor area{s) 2200 - 2800 SQ. FT.
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures ~ 20%
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 2 & ) CAR GARAGES
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface ~
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure{s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of
shifts Total
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
j. Hours of operation
k. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
N/A
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated YFS
{If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? 120,000 Cu.Yd. (Estimate)
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 120,000 Cu.Yd. (Estimate)
C. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? -~I:C-ACRES
d. What will be the Maxi mum depth of cuticleS' ~Y~f~. ~)
Average depth of cut ~: ~'
Maximum depth of fill LS?-~ Y$~Y
Average depth of fill 1~" ~
- 4 -
3. Describe all ener~cv 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
/7o
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 STREETSt EXTENSION OF GAS~ WATER~ SEWER ~¢~D ELECTRICr GRADING TO
CREATE BUILDABLE SITES
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property~ NO
(If yes, please attach) '
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? NO
IIf yes, please attach)
2. IJydrolo§y
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 DRAINAGE DITCH IS LOC~ATED ALONG THE
EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE A[x]ACENT TO THE PROPERTY. CONCRETE DP~AINAGE
D[T£HES ARE ALSO LOCqTED WITHIN THE 1-805 RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO
THE PROPERTY,, 4N
- 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. DRAINAGE SWALES WHERE ~EEDED, CURB AND GUI-FER . ~-~
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
lif any) will be removed by the project, so~ FRUIT TREES AROUND
THE EXISTING HOUSE, A PALM TREE, PEPPER TREE.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? NO
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? NO
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. VACANT LAND WITH 1 EXISTING HOUSE
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RR1
South HIGHWAY~ S-94
East SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES~ P.C, (PLY~qNED COMML~ITY)
West SINGLE FAMIL~ RESIDENCES~ RR1
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, hou many?) 1 SINGLE FAMILY
b. Are there an~ cuPrent 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
or
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
Case No. /5-~-8~/
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: R-~-[ (~0'~ ~
North
East
West ~ -~-I ~' ~': _
Does th~ project conform to th~ current zoning? ~ _ ~
2. General Plan ]and use
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?o~e~t/~/'~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. ) t /~-,,~c ~ ~-c /~,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 ~:~,'~¢ I~,~-.- 1~ ,_~
Sr. High b~!~ ~//~ F-,,.'~
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) /o
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Director o~/Planning or Representative. Date
Case No. \S ~;c~-~c~
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~ ~--~%ll~6 b~_~.~ ~ ~C~LtT~
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ ~-s~
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? I ~'~ ~ ~" ~To~ o~ e~e~
~. Are they adequate to serve the pPoject?
2. Transportation
a. ~hat Poads provide pPi~aPy access to the pPoject?
b. ~ha~ ~s ~he estimated number o¢ one-way auto ~r~ps ~o be
generated by ~he pro~ec~ (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
' "~ After
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the progect?
e. ~ill it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify, the general nature of the 'necessary actions.
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction?
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ty 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
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 r x 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons I X 18.3 :
NOx (NO2) \-/0 X 20.0 =
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generatedby the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~r-~-.FG ~, Liquid z~-~"O~" ~N~_/~
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? I~'~ ~tua~ ~ ~¢~ ~ ~6t~L~ L~e
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, et~. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City ~ng~,~eer or ~epresentati~e Date
-13-
Case No. ~-~ m: ?- o~
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? Q.~ ~/:~
7 ~ ,'~-~
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-~-o°~
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 ~')0
Community parks /~Z~ ~c~-~--
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~O~_~ ./9~]~/.~ .
Community parks I ~ '
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.
59:l-100-30 & 49
Prepared for
Cameo Development Company
512~ Convoy #301
San Diego, CA 92111
(619) 2924330
Prepared by
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 985
National City, CA 92050
Phone: 619/477-5333
FAX: 619/477-1245
21 August 1989
(Revised 8 March 1990)
~e President
PSBS #738
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................... 1
INTRODU(:rlON ................................................................ 1
METHODS ..................................................................... 1
LOCATION ..................................................................... 2
GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 2
VEGETATION .............................................................. 2
Disturbed/Ex~fic ..................................... ... ..... .. ..... . 6
FLORA ................................................................... 6
ZOOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
BIRDS
SENSrI'IVE BIOLOGICAL P,~.SOURCES
SENSITIVI~ VI~GETATION ...................................................... 8
SENsrrwE PLANTS OCCUmUNG ON-SIT~ ......................................... 8
San Die o Barrel Cactus ............................................... 8
Snake Cholla ........................................................ 8
Ashy Soike Moss ..................................................... 9
San Diego Vi~uiera~ ................................................... 9
SP~SlTIVE PLANTS OCCURRING IN THE REGION BUT NOT OBSERVED ON-SITE ............ 9
Otav Tar~veed ....................................................... 9
Cleveland's Golden Stars .............................................. I0
Greene's Ground CherT .............................................. 10
California Spinebush ................................................. 10
San Diego Marsh-Elder ............................................... 10
SENSITIVE VERTEBRATES .................................................... 11
Oran¢,e-throated Whlptail ............................................. 11
Coastal Cactus Wren ................................................. 12
California Gnatcatcher
EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ............................................... 13
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ........................... 13
LITERATURE CITED
o~/os/~o
o
PSBS #738
FIGURES AND TABLES
F~GURE 1. V~c~NrrY MAP ............................ 3
FIGURE 2. VEGETATION AND SFaNSITIVE RESOURCES Ma~P .............................. 4
TABLE 1. FLORAL CHECKLIST .................................................. 16
TABLE 2. ANIMALS OBSERVED OR DETEcteD ..................................... 19
o3/o8/~o ii
PSBS #738
SUMMARY
A biological survey of the 11.9 acre 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 Whiptail, a sensitive lizard of the region, is well established on site.
Given the rarity of the San Diego Cactus Wren (commensurate with the Least Bell's Vireo and
California Least 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 ia most strongly recommended that development be limited to the western and southernmost portions
of the site.
INTRODUCTION
A biological 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. Reiser 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" = 1.00' 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 Keith W. Merkel. Wildlife identifications were
0310819o 1
PSBS #738
aided by binoculars (10 x 40 power). Unobserved species were identified through indirect signs (i.e., scat, tracks,
calls, nests and burrows, 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 is from the following standard references: vegetation,
Holland (1986); flora, Beauchamp (1986) and Manz (1974); birds, Unitt (1984); reptiles and amphibians, Stebbins
(1985); and mammals, Jameson and Peeters (1988). Wildlife habitat delineations generally follow Mayer and
Laudenslayer (1988).
LOCATION
The site is 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 hills interdigitate with three minor drainages. Low elevation is
approximately 75 feet in the southwestern corner of the site. High elevation is approximately 160 feet along £di
slopes on the eastern boundary.
Soils for the site are Salinas Clay on falrly 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).
0310819o 2
PSBS #738
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP
, USGS 7.5' National City Quadrangle
PSBS #T38
T6
100
125
125
5O
150
IOQ
VEGETATION
[~ Diegan Sage Scrub
M
ulefat Riparian
~ Disturbed/Exotic
~ Proposed Open Space
SENSITIVE RESOURCES
] Coastal Cactus Wren
[~] California Gnatcatcher I 0 0
~-] Orange-Throated Whiptail
[-~ Snake Cholla
Ashy-Footed Clubmoss
[~ Coast Barrel Cactus
[~ San Diego Sunflower
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 sympatrically 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 t~tiliTed 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
(Mammilla~ia 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 viddescens) was noted.
Non-cactus elements associated with the preceding species are 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 (Edogonum fasciculatum) with its
distinctive, umbellate inflorescences. Occasional shrubs include San Diego Sunflower (~qguiera laciniata),
Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Goldenbush (Isocoma veneta), Bladderpod (Cleome isomeds), and Mojave
Yucca (Yucca schidigera) with its lance-shaped, leathery leaves and tree-like, basal trunks.
Within the understory is Fimbriate Spineflower (Chorizanthe fimbdata), Annual Three Awn Grass
(Adstida adscensionis) with its beet red color, Plumed Beardgrass (Bo&dochloa barbb~odis), and Fascicled
Tarweed (Hemizoniafasciculata). At the few mesic locales, where water resources are greater, grow Golden
Stars (Bloomeria crocea), Checkerbloom (Sidalcea malvaeflora), and in the flats, Tarragon (Artemisia
dracunculus ).
Riparian (0.2 acre)
This miniscule habitat includes a thicket of Mule Fat (Bacchads salicifolia). Several Arroyo Willow
(Salbc lasiolepis) grow at the head of the northernmost drainage. The handful of wetland species in the
PSBS #738
undcrstory include the weedy Cocklcburr (Xanthium strumarium) 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 preva/l.
These include Wild Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronariurn), Horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Pig
Thistle (Sonchus asper).
Seventy-two species of plants were recorded on site of which twenty-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
Aimost the entire site is covered by Diegan Sage Scrub with a small inholding of riparian habitat in 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 quallty habitat for sensitive bird
species which are generally restricted to San Diego County's Coastal Sage Scrub communities, such as the
California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica) and the Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus bntnneicapillus
sandiegense), as well a number of sensitive lizards, such as the Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophonts
hyperythrus) and, possibly, the San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum).
The large, mature stands of Coast Cholla are excellent nesting sites for the Cactus Wrens; virtually every
large stand had at least one day-nest and/or a previously active nest.
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
While no amphibians are expected to occur on-site, two species of reptiles were observed. An unusually
large, adult Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophoms I~vperythms) was observed in the sage scrub on thc
031o8190 6
PSBS #738
northern portion of the site. Very few individuals of this size are usually seen in the wild. In addition, Western
Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) were present on the property. Although no San Diego Coast Horned
Lizards 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 (/lphelocoma coerulescens), and Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx
californianus). In addition, an Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinera~cens) was observed in the ravine in
the southern portion of the site. The rather ubiquitous House Finch (Carpodacus nteMcanus), Mourning Dove
(Zenaida macn~ura), and Common Raven (Corvus corax) 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 cholla. 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 (Sylvilagus audubonii), Botta's Pocket
Gopher (Thomomys bottae), and California Ground Squirrel (Spennophihts beecheyi), the tracks and bones of
a Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were found on the site (Table 2).
7
PSBS #738
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SENSITIVE VEGETATION
~eruh
The historically extensive Diegan Sage Scrub which occurred throughout coastal and inland San Diego
County has been heavily impacted by urbzni?ztion pressures. Large blocks of Dicgan 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 bird species.
SENSITIVE PLANTS OCCURRrNG ON-SI'IE
The following four spccles of scnsltlve plants were seen on the property:.
San Di o Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viddescens)
LISTING: CNPS List 2 R-E-D Code 1-3-1 State/Fed. Status --/C2
(California Native Plant Society, Smith and Berg 1988)
DI~'P, IBIYrION: Coastal San Diego County;, Baja California, Mexico California
HABITAT: Diegan Sage Scrub hilkides, periphery of vernal pools
KNOWN SITES: Barrel Cactus occurs at many locales throughout the coastal region. It should be looked
for particularly on killsides 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 Miguel 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 parryi var. serpentina)
LISTING: CNPS List lB R-E-D Code 3-3-2 State/Fed. Status -- /C2
DISTRIBUTION: 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 McClelland Road. Significant populations
on the northern slopes and bluffs of Poggi Canyon.
03/~/~ 8
PSBS #738
STATUS: Substantially declining. This cactus is not being protected in situ when it occurs in areas
of development and is becoming extremely rare. Mitigation plans are regularly ignoring
its presence or moving cacti to newly cut slopes in artificial habitats where its long term
establishment is extremely suspect.
Three small stands of this cacti were found on-site. Owing to the few extant sites known for the species,
the population on-site must be considered significant.
Ashy S1}ike Moss (Selaginella cinerascens)
LISTING: CNPS List 4 R-E-D Code 1-2-1 State/Fed. Status -- None
DIKrR/BUTION: San Diego, Orange counties; Baja California, Mexico
HABITAT:. Undisturbed chaparral, Diegan Sage Scrub
KNOWN SrlEs: 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: Declining 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 significant.
~ (Hguiera laciniata)
LISTING: CNPS List 2 R-E-D Code 1-2-1 State/Fed. Status -- None
DISTRIBUTION: San Diego Couaty, Baja California, Mexico
HABITAT:. Diegan Sage Scrub
KNOWN SITES: A dominant shrub in southern San Diego County in Diegan Sage Scrub habitat away from
the immediate coast. Very 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
Otav Tarweed (Hemizonia conjugens)
Only two sizeable extant populations are known for the Otay Tarwced: 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/o8/,~ 9
PSBS #T38
~ (Muilla clevelandii)
Cleveland's Golden Stars, although not inhabiting vernal pools, are often associated with Mima Mounds
and thc environs of vernal pools. Thc County range extends from Rancho Santa Fe south to Otay Mesa, with
thc 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 an,'lrtemisia califomica dominated Diegun Sage Scrub.
CNPS listed as 2-2-2; the plant ~s considered endangered within a portion of its range.
Greene's Ground Cher~ (Physalis greenei)
An estimated 200 Physalis greenei grow beneath shrubs on a south-facing hillside adjacent to the
intcrsection of Otay Valley Road and the unpaved Otay River Road. Listed by CNPS but uuranked owing to
taxonomic questions, Greene'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 upstream of the study area, and on a small canyon
creek near Dulzura. Small populations have been recorded on south-facing hill~ides of Otay VaLley oae mile
east of the study corridor.
~ (Adolphia califomica)
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.
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. Withia 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/o8/90 10
PSBS #738
The following species also occur in the region:
San Diego Thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) grows in 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 Sagewort (Artemisiapalmeri) may be 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 (Ambrosia pumilla) is an extremely rare ragweed; however, localized reports in the
Otay region, upon further investigation, have turned out to be Weak-leaf Burbnsh (Ambrosia confeniflorum).
Orcutt's Brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) prefers deep vernal pool habitats not found at the site.
Orcutt's Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus orcuttianus) was historically found in extensive numbers in the Otay
River floodplain. No appropriate habitat occurs on-site.
San Diego Hnsseanthus (Dudleya vatiegata) occurs on open, xeric bluffs, and in broken, rocky habitat.
Both Cliff Spurge (Euphorbia misera) 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.
Oranee-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophonts hyperythrus 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)
03/08/90 11
PSBS #738
DISTRIBUTION: Limited; found from southern Orange County, western Riverside and San Diego counties
south to southern Baja California, Mexico.
HABITAT:. Open scrubland
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 Caldornla, Mexico.
HABITAT:. Patches of prickly pear and cholla cactus
STATUS: This distinctive subspecies is becoming less and less common due to habitat distinction with
up 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
hillside, 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 in the area, they were not observed.
California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica)
LISTING: Remsen (1980) - Priority II
Everett (1979) - Declining
USFWS (1986) - Category II
DISTRIBUTION: 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 fourth pair
occupies habitat in the southwestern corner near the freeway on-ramp.
03/08/9o 12
PSBS #738
EXPECTED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The proposed project has been reviewed and drastically modified on the 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 second pair of birds. The project would also lead to the loss of
the single Coast Barrel Cactus present approximately one-half of the San Diego Sunflower plants, one of three
stands of Snake Cholla, and most of the Ashy-footed Clubmoss present on the site. The project would also lead
to the loss of approximately 8 acres of Diegan Sage Scrub habitat occupied by a common assemblage of native
species and at least one Orange-throated Whiptall.
Under the proposed project design, 2-3 pairs of California Guatcatchers and all three pairs of Coastal
Cactus Wrens would be preserved in a single dedicated open space. Also preserved in this open space would
be approximately one-half of the San Diego Sunflower plants and two of three stands of the sensitive Snake
Cho[la.
The partial preservation of the resources on the site would substantially reduce impacts; however,
impacts remaining are considered to be significant, but mitigable through the careful implementation of a variety
of enhancement and protective measures. These are identified in the following section of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The fo[lowing measures are recommended to mitigate biologlcal impacts to a level of non-significance.
Full implementation of these measures would achieve this purpose.
1. All Ferocacms, Mammillaria, 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, Anemisia califomica, Edogonum
fasciculatttm, Baccharis sarothroides, Malosma laurina, l~gltiera laciniata, Rhtts integtifolia,
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 100 feet of any
active California Gnatcatcher or Cactus Wren nests or all clearing should be restricted
from occurring between 15 March and 1 August.
03/08/90 13
L~nndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D U K E S
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704, REP
ACOUSTICA5 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
1 800 44 NOISE (446-6473)
- Lynndsle Hills Pre-zone P r e p s r e d b ¥ D U K E S
August 26, 1989
PILE: 9704.REP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................... 1
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Observations
1.3 Conclusions
INTRODUCTION .....................
2.1 Project ~;sc~i~%i;~
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
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y D d K E S
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704.REP
a~-XlBI'I"8
A Vicinity Map (current USGS 7.5 Minute series topographic
B-i&B-2
County Diego Orthographic Maps showing topography in
of
San
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.
ii
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ · 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 will 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 ¥ D 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-l-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 partially shielded from 1-805 by a knoll.
Please refer to the Thomas Guide page 70, coordinates A-3.
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
exceeding 65 decibels.1
2
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y D U 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.2
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 m±x.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 Hil~s Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D ( E S
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
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D { E S
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704.REP
4 . 0 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
decrease during peak hours; and
frequently
- 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 y D [ E $
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704.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
Prepared by DU ES
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704.REP
5.0 IMPACT
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 exis%ing 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 ~oadway.
L~ndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b y b U K E $
August 26. 1989
FILE: 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 Na]afi
PROJECT STAFF
Carlos Gomez Acoustical Technician
My-Thanh Dinh Computer Data Technician
Dario Alcocer Senior Programmer
Darrell Reich Associate Programmer
Lynndale Hills Pre-zone P r e p a r e d b ¥ D U K E $
August 26, 1989
FILE: 9704.R£P
8.0 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. Rorer to $~ND~G (San D±e~o ~ssoc±at±on of Re~±onal Governmonts),
$or~os VII: 2010 tra££~c pro~oct~ons, ~pr±l 1988.
Information was also provided dur±ng telephone conversation with
Robert Gibbs as 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 b., 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
August 21, 1989
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, demonsu:ated that the site was not significant and
retained no further research potential. The proposed development will impact Site LH- I; however,
because the site lacks research potential and sensitive deposits, the impacts are not considered
significant and no mitigation measures will be require&
1
ir · F C?rl-~T~Tf~q
84 EAST "J" STRICItT * CllULAVISTA, CAIJFOI~.NIA92010 * 619 425-9600
EACtt CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
BOARD OF EDUCAIION January 29, 1990
JOSEPH 0 CUMMINGS, Fl~ D.
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A JUDD
F~,~x~xn~,~m,O Planning Department
,~E~mu City of Chula Vista
SUPEnm~ENDENT 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: CV Tract No. PCS-90-06
Subdivision - Lynndale Hills
Deposit No. DP-727
APN 592-100-30 & 49
Ot.mer/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
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 S.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,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
APR 5 19~
KS :d p
cc: F,a~in R. Kolkey
Sweetwater Union High School District
March I9. 1990
'.~ 23 19~j
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 project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union
High School District. Payment of school fees will be
required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 fDeveloper
Fees). prior to issuance of building permit.
Respectfully.
Director of Planning
TS:ml
23 March 1990
Mr. Douglas D. Reid,
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
P. 0. box 1087
Chula Vista, California 92012
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-89-8~. The area for which this project is planned is virgin
California brush_land enveloping an extremely steep hill.
During nor~l 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, western 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 Fa/~ms), 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
could 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.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Lindeay
4370 Lynndale Lane
Bonita, California 92002
cc Supervisor Brian Bilbray LJ~CO - Jane Merrill
Sweetwater Community Planning Group ..........
March 19, 1990
2 3 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 1-805 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 environment.
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 environmental hazards, there would be significant
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,
J~dy T. Basante
3112 Lynndale Lane
Chula Vista, Ca. 92010
,'."'/. ...,~_,f '~ ,~.~ ....
LAFCO 1600 Pacific Highway-Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 · (619) 531-54OO
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Cchairpcrson April 23, 1990
Fred Nagcl
Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Members Planning Department
Brian t~ Bilhra~ City of Chula Vista
~.l,,.r, ...... 276 Fourth Ave.
Lincll Fromm Chula Vista, CA 92010
Marjoric }tcr~om SUBJECT: Lynndale Hills Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Reid:
~:'"~:'~'" Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned project.
.IOhnc,.unl~MacDonaldBoard of LAFCO finds the environmental review to be comprehensive and adequate,
~upcrx:i~or~ and has no substantive comments.
~ikc (;otch J~NE P. MERRILL
(~,un~iimcmhcr <:it, ,,t JPM:DMS:ih
Counsel
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
CAMEO DEVELOPMENT nn_, A CA. Corp.
List the names of all persons havingany ownership interest in the property'involve~.
John L. Knorr & Frances I. Knorr, Delbert L. Huqhes & Janice V. Huqhe
Gately 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 individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
Aaron H. Kolkey
Mart±n R. Kolkey
3. If any person 'identified pursuant to (1). above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, lis~ 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. Itave you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Counci! within the past twelve months?'
Yes No X If yes, please.indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation~ estate,, trus~, receive[, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, c~ty, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other~g~9? or combination acting as a unit.,
(NOTE: Attach additional
nature of applica t/d
WPC 070]P ~,0% ~A .~ : jJrt%8 R. Kolkev Vice-President
A-I]0 ~ ... i ....2x~nt 0m type name 0f applicant
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-K-M City-initiated proposal to rezone certain
territory, generally bounde~ by Main Street, Rios
Avenue, agriculture lands adjacent to the Otay River
Valley at the southern boundary of the City and a line
310 feet west of Date Street from its City-adopted
County zone classifications to City classifications
utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed
specific rezonings and their precise territorial
limits are depicted on attached Exhibit "A".
(Continued)
A. BACKGROUND
1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Broderick's Otay Acres
Subconmnunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The area is generally
bounded by Main Street to the north, the Otay River valley to the
south, Rios Avenue to the east and vacant and industrial land to the
west. The western boundary extends north-south from Main Street to
the Otay River, approximately 310 feet west of Date Street.
Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted
County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows:
A. C36 to R-1-5-P
B. RV15 to R-1-5-P
C. A70 (No change proposed at this time)
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted Initial Studies,
IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M, of potential environmental impacts associated
with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial
Studies 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 March 7, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee unanimously
directed staff to change staff recommendations from R-2-P to R-1-5-P
for the areas that are zoned RV15 and C36, as noted above.
4. This item was continued from the meeting of April ll, 1990, so that
the matter could be renoticed indicating the recommendation of the
Montgomery Planning Committee. The Motion (4-2 - Tugenberg and
Fuller voted no, Shipe absent) was to continue this item for four
weeks.
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 2
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Studies and comments on the Initial Studies 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 City Council adopt an ordinance
to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A".
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North RS6 (proposed for R-1-6-P single family
as part of Woodlawn
Park Rezonings)
South FW {San Diego City) Otay River,
A-l-lO {San Diego City) open fields
West M52 vacant
M54 industrial suites
A-l-lO {San Diego City) open fields,
fl ood way
East R-2-P mul ti -fatal 1 y
R-2 mul ti-family
A-l-lO (San Diego City) single family,
fields
FW (San Diego City) Otay River
2. Existing site characteristics.
The topography of the area is generally flat with a southerly slope
towards the Otay River valley. The gradient is steepest immediately
south of Main Street. The plan area is almost entirely improved with
single family residential units with some duplex or two units on one
lot mixed throughout. The main streets in the community Date
Street and Palm Avenue run north-south. Narrow private drives
access interior lots, often requiring five and more dwelling units to
use the same private drive.
The area is not generally improved with complete curb, gutter and
sidewalks although recently developed parcels may include frontage
improvements. The streets may need further dedication and widening
in the future. The City is undertaking public improvements regarding
drainage problems associated with the north-south running streets.
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 3
Otay Valley Road traverses the plan area in an east-west fashion at
the north and intersects with Main Street. This is the area's only
outlet onto Main Street and it is difficult to negotiate traffic at
times.
Broderick's Otay Acres covers approximately 72 acres and consists of
190 lots. The average lot size per dwelling unit is slightly over one
quarter acre. Approximately 73 % or 148 units of the residentially
zoned land is developed with single family dwelling units.
Approximately 13 percent or 24 units is improved with duplexes or two
units on one lot. Eighteen lots comprising approximately 4.58 acres
or 9% of the residentially zoned land are vacant. Their average lot
size is 0.25 acre. There are no churches, parks or other community
land uses within the boundaries.
3. Specific Plan.
The Broderick's Otay Acres subcommunity area contains two land use
designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan (per Exhibit B):
Area Generally North of the Otay River Floodplain
This entire area is designated "Low Medium Density Residential",
3-6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning amendment is
from C36 to R-1-5-P for the three most northwesterly lots and
from RVl5 to R-1-5-P for the remaining area. Of the lots
currently zoned C36, one is vacant and the other two appear to
have single family residential and associated uses.
For those areas designated Low/Medium Density Residential, it is
recommended that the zoning classifications be changed from RV15
to R-1-5-P. This would preserve the predominant single-family
character of the area but permit the construction of an
additional unit on those lots which can achieve a density of one
dwelling unit per 5,000 sq. ft., when measured from the center
line of adjacent streets and alleys.
Area Generally Within the Otay River Floodplain
The remaining land in this subcommunity has been zoned by the
County ATO, Limited Agriculture. The Montgomery Specific Plan
designates the land "Whitelands, Parks and Open Space". No zone
change is proposed at this time, pending further special
comprehensive study for a regional park and/or open space area.
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.
Chula Vista Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 4
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
as was the requirement under county zoning. The precise plan modifier
will allow for discretionary review of projects prior to building
permits.
3. The deferment of zoning in the Special Comprehensive Study Area will
allow the city to consider the needs and possibilities of a regional
park and open space lands for the Broderick's 0tay Acres and the
Montgomery community.
4. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to
convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning and to
zoning compatible with the existing land uses without adversely
impacting development capability of the properties.
WPC 7442P
R~l-5-p
~ i;, --; --~,-
BRODERICK'S OTAY ACRES EXHIBIT A
Proposed Zone Classifications
--SCA1.E: 1" = 400'
LETTIERI - MclNTYRE and ASSOCIATES :
MAIN
WHITELANDS ,
Montgomery Specific Plan Deslgnat,ons
LETTIERI - MclNTYRE and ASSOCIATES
EXCERPT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 3/7/90
MONTGOMERY PLANNING 5
COMMITTEE MINUTES March 7, 1990
MS (Creveling/Roberts) that based on findings contained in
Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the
Planning Commission approve the tentative subdivision map
for Villa del Rey Condos, Chula Vista Tract 90-05, subject
to conditions 1 through 18 and Code Requirements 1 through
6.
Member Creveling said he would like a response from Mr.
Goldberg, who owned the property at 516 Oxford, as to his
preference for condos or rentals. Mr. Goldberg replied
that owners take pride in their property, tenants do not.
Mr. Creveling said that on the basis of what he has heard
and also Mr. Goldberg's answer, he would vote "yes" on the
project.
Member Castro indicated he would vote "yes" since this was
a pipeline project.
Member Roberts said he would vote "yes" for the same reason.
Chairman Wheeland said she was concerned about the letter
from the School District and that the
area
was
overcrowded
and would vote "no."
Member McFarlin said she would abstain because the data was
not transferred consistently.
Member Palmer said she would vote "no."
The motion to recommend approval carried 3-2-] with Palmer
and Wheeland voting no and McFarlin abstaining.
3. B. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-90-1M; PCC-90-2M: PCC-90-3M -
Master Conditional Use Permits:
Vehicle parking and storage - H.G.
Fenton Company request continuation
to April 18, 1990
MSUC to continue the public hearings on the item to
the meeting of April 18, 1990. [(Wheeland/Creveling)
6-0]
3. C. PUBLIC HEARfNG: PCZ-90-K-M - City-initiated
proposal to rezone certain
territory, generally bounded by
Main Street, Rios Avenue,
agriculture lands adjacent to the
Otay River valley at the southern
boundary of the City and a line 310
feet west of Date Street from its
MONTGOMERY PLANNING 6
COMMITTEE MINUTES March 7, 1990
City-adopted County zone
classifications to City
classifications utilized throughout
Chula Vista. The proposed specific
rezonings and their precise
territorial limits are depicted on
the attached Exhibit "A"
Zoning and Implementation Consultant Lettieri made
a presentation stating that the purpose of the
hearing was to implement the Montgomery Specific
Plan by the rezoning of Broderick's Otay Acres
Subcommunity from the City-adopted County zoning
to City zoning classifications. These are: C36 to
R-2-P; RVl5 to R-2-P; and A70 to which no change
is proposed at this time. Factors supporting the
rezonings are that (1) These changes would
implement the Montgomery Specific Plan; (2) the
rezonings would continue to allow the type of
single family and duplex developments as exist in
the area today while the precise plan modifier
will allow for discretionary review of projects
prior to building permits; (3) deferment of zoning
in the Special Study Areas will permit consid-
eration of the needs and possibilities of a
regional park and open space lands for the area;
and (4) 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.
Mr. Lettieri noted that a petition had been
received asking that the zone be converted to
R-1-P instead of R-2-P. Staff has no objections
in that R-1-P or R-1-5-P is also consistent with
the Montgomery Specific Plan.
In reply to Member Creveling's question if there
had been any changes in the density since 1985,
Principal Planner Pass replied that the zoning
came into the area in 1965 at R-1-A. The City put
it in the Industrial General Plan designation.
During the latest survey, it was found that the
area had much improved since the original survey
in 1974. When staff first met with the
residents 3 years ago, a higher density was
requested. The majority now talk about R-1-P.
This being the time and the place as advertised,
the public hearing was opened.
MONTGOMERY PLANNING 7
COMMITTEE MINUTES March 7. 199~
Rudy E. Ramirez, 310 Palm Ave., CV, 92011,
representing 330, 334 and 347 Palm Avenue, spoke
in support of the proposal. He favored R-2-P
zoning.
Art Pino, 336 Palm Ave., CV 92011, said he
represented several people, and was of the opinion
that the R-2-P zoning would destroy the
neighborhood. He said the owners did not want
increased traffic and would like even less
density. He objected to rental units which might
have five to six people in residence, parking cars
in front of his home, taking no interest in their
homes and the possibility of crime increase
brought about by overcrowding. Mr. Pino spoke
against absentee landlords who are only interested
in the money from rentals and not the good of the
neighborhood. The residents do not want to live
in a high density neighborhood. He favors R-1-5-P
Patrick Masi, 4001 Valley, CV, 92011, said they
were building a home for their retirement. He
reiterated Mr. Pinos' statements regarding
renters, overcrowding, and emphasized the
difficulty in evicting undesirable renters and the
prevalence of crime in the area. Mr. Masi
contended that the RV-15 was never done legally
and could be challenged. He asked why the
construction of "cracker boxes" on Palm Avenue had
been permitted. He stressed that no more rentals
were needed and that he favored R-1-5-P.
Mr. Pass said he was pleased with Mr. Masi's
presentation from the staff's stand point,
however, the County did rezone to RV-15. He
indicated that R-1-5-P would keep the "cracker
boxes" out of the area.
Diane Rosenthal, 279 Palm Ave., CV 92011, said
she is in favor of R-2-P. She asked, since it is
already R-1-P on all the lots that have been
subdivided, if the owners can proceed and build if
the permits have been already secured? Mr. Pass
replied that what can be built is R-2-P which
equates to 1 du/3500 net sq. ft. or R-1-5-P which
is 1 du/5000 net sq. ft. If less density is
desired, the R-1-5-P is the answer. He added that
the area can still be preserved with a semi-rural
atmosphere.
MONTGOMERY PLANNING 8
COMMITTEE MINUTES March 7, 1990
Carl Davidson of 467 Second Ave., Chula Vista, 92010,
representing Ruth and Jim Childs, 224 Palm, CV, whose
property has been divided into three lots. The R-2-P
allows for the cost of improvements. When subdivided,
anything less than that requires public improvements,
fire hydrants, a 34-foot wide driveway back to the
unit and a two-car garage for each unit. He asked if
a moratori'um could be placed on the R-2-P and the
R-1-5-P in the area until consideration by City
Council. Mr. Pass replied that the Committee could so
recommend but by the time the moratorium is commenced,
the action would be to the Council.
No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Creveling asked for a show of hands in favor of
the two proposals. The result was R-1-5-P = 10; R-2-P
= 7.
Mr. Pass pointed out that the 34-foot driveway is only
when serving duplexes, not single family residences.
Member Palmer reminded the audience that their active
participation would be needed when the item proceeded
to the Planning Commission and to City Council.
MSUC that based on the Initial Studies and com- ments
on the Initial Studies and Negative Declarations, to
find that this reclassification will have no
significant environmental impact and readopt the
Negative Declarations issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M
for the Montgomery Specific Plan. [ (Palmer/McFarlin)
6-0]
MSUC to change staff's recommendation from R-2-P to
R-1-5-P including changing C36 to R-1-5-p
[ (Castro/Palmer) 6-0]
4. INFORMATION ITEM Proposed amendment to the Municipal
Code regarding nonconforming sign
abatement, and transfer of the
initial authority on sign design
issues from the Planning Commission
to the Design Review Committee
Patrick , ,ynthia Nasi
4001 Valley Ave.,
Chula Vista, Ca., 92011-6201,
L~arch 05, 1990;
Ass. Planner, City of Chula Vista,
Prank J. Herrera,
De~ Pranlr ~
Per our conversation of Jan. 24, herewith is approximate text of
letter/flyer we are distributing & explaining to all residents of Broderick's
Otay Acres.
There are very few open, undeveloped parcels of land left in our area;
so why would we want to rezone the area to a denser level???
Non owner-occupied housing (rentals) traditionally increases motor-
vehicle traffic volume more than owner-occupied.
Chula Vista is forcing rental-type development in our area by high
development costs & the fore-noted rezoning.
There are not enough open parcels & developers to finance the ambitious
street/road projects proposed for Date & Palms so why push the High-density zoning
other than to INCREASE tax revenue to the City?????
If the r~.n~uing parcels are zoned at a level of 4 single-family
dwellings per acre, we will have nicer-looking homes and a better community area to
live in: AND the proposed street/r~ad plan won't have to be as flamboyant. The
entire proposal ~.a~Jzs of the Chicken & Egg syndrome.
The Planning Commission proposal will (eventually) widen Date & Palm;
but in the meantime; more than quadruple the traffic volume: - - - AND in the long
term, leave US with an untenable rental and drug-related situation.
In other States, Counties, & Countries; roadside ditches are enclosed
with concrete culverts, covered over, used for adjacent housing storm-drains, and
streets are o~ly wide as necessary; which also reduces maintenance costs.
Conde~u~t~ street-side property, taking away part of resident's
front yards,, leaving only tiny personal yard areas, with homes J~mmed up to the
roadway, is not going to enhance the area, only leave a situation s~m~lar to that
in some European cities, and do nothing for the Homeowner.
Why not access the proposed 0ray P~iver '~Park" by Mase Street?? - - we
don't need the heavy traffic problems, speeding, and littering on either Date or
Palm: this is a residential area and doesn't*a Park Blvd. running thru' it.
The current pa~king problem on Pe~m is Largely due to irresponsible
Drivers, (not lack of roadway) many double-parking opposite lane-direction, and a
complete lack of standard by-law enforcement by our Police Dent. Makt~ the
roadway wider than necessary is like constructing Jails for yet~-unborm citizens.
In Conelusion, the denser rezo~tng does nothing for the residents
except increase motor-vehicular traffic, run-down shabby housing, AND as modern
history has proven; the proliferation of drug trafficking and CRIME.
*NEED
Respectfully, We Remain,
Yours Very Truly.
Patrick & Cynthia Masi. (619) 425-8018.
We the residents and homeowners of Broderick acres are petition-
ing the Montgomery Plannins Committee and Chula Vista City
ccuncit tc zone our area tc R-1-5 instead cf the proposed
R-2-? because of the destruction R-2-P or other up zoning
will cause to our neighborhood.
Name Address Phone
Signature
We the residents and homeowners of Broderick acres are petition-
ing the Montgomery Planning ,Committee and Chu!a Vista City
council to zone our area to R-1-5 instead cf the proposed
R-2~P because of the destruction R-2-? or other up zoning
will cause to our neighborhood.
Name ! Address Phone
Signat~re~ ' , :~ ~
Signature
7.
Signature
8. +
Signa;urs
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-10 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10 -
Donald L. Bren Company
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as
Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10, in order to develop
an eight-lot condominium project consisting of 138 units on 9.8 acres
located on the south side of Ridgeback Road between Del Rey Parkway
and Otay Lakes Road.
2. The Planning Commission previously certified EIR-87-1, which includes
the entire Rancho del Rey SPA I including the site in question.
3. The project design was approved by the Design Review Committee on
March 26, 1990.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require
compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
2. 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.
3. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Otay Water
District to provide terminal water storage and other major facilities
to assure water availability to the project prior to the approval of
a final map.
4. PAD and RCT shall be paid except as otherwise modified by the public
facilities and financing plan for Rancho del Rey.
5. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of agreement with the
Chula Vista City School District regarding the provision of adequate
school facilities for the project prior to the approval of a final
map.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 2
6. The project shall comply with the plans approved by the Design Review
Committee (DRC-90-24).
7. The amount of any fees applicable to the project shall be those in
effect at the time they are collected.
8. All streets within the development shall be private. Detailed
horizontal and vertical alignment of the center line of said streets
shall be reflected on the improvement plans for said developments.
Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private
streets.
9. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and
maintenance easement adjacent to Lot 1 along Ridgeback Road. Said
easement shall extend lO feet from the back of the sidewalk. Slopes
within the streets' tree easement shall conform to City standards.
Slopes greater than 5:1 must be approved by the Director of Planning.
lO. 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 lot.
ll. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate the adequacy
of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets as required by
the City Engineer.
12. The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District
87-1. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated
with reapportionment of assessments as a result of subdivision of
lands within the project boundary. The developer shall request said
reapportionment and shall provide a deposit to cover the initial
costs prior to the approval of the Final Map.
13. A paved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided
to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an
H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer.
14. The developer shall submit for approval by the City Engineer proposed
private streets construction phasing prior to the approval of any
Final Map.
15. Off-site cumulative transportation impacts shall be mitigated to
insignificant levels by participating in the East Chula Vista
Transportation Phasing Plan.
16. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby the developer
agrees that the City may withhold buildings permits for any units in
the subject subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road or East 'H'
Street exceeds the levels of service identified in the City's adopted
thresholds.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 3
17. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to individual
lots for all franchised cable television companies.
18. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall
include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways and
drainage systems which are private. The City of Chula vista shall be
named as a party to said Declaration authorizing the City to endorse
the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any
owner within the subdivision.
19. The recreation area ILot 4) shall be constructed with the first phase
of development.
20. A minimum lO ft. level width shall be provided between back of
sidewalk and property line adjacent to Ridgeback Road. This area
plus any additional area between the perimeter wall and back of
sidewalk shall be included within an open space maintenance district.
21. The design and configuration of the perimeter landscape area, plus
the location, height and materials for any retaining or garden walls
or combinations thereof shall be subject to review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator and the City Landscape Architect.
22. Fire hydrants are to be installed, tested and fully operational prior
to any combustible materials being placed on site.
23. The CC&R's shall contain a disclosure to buyers regarding future
construction of above-ground and below-ground facilities planned by
SDG&E for the easement.
24. The CC&R's shall contain a prohibition against RV parking within the
project as outlined in the Planned Community District regulations.
The following are code requirements submitted by the Engineering
Department:
1. The developer shall plant trees along all dedicated streets within
the subdivision. The species, location and number shall be
determined by the City Engineer.
2. The developer shall pay Eastern Area Development Impact Fees prior to
issuance of building permits.
$. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation Fees in
accordance with City Council Policy prior to issuance of building
permits.
4. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not
limited to Sewer Connection Fees, prior to issuance of building
permits.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 4
5. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans
shall be in accordance with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act,
Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula
Vista.
C. DISCUSSION
The property consists of two separate sites bisected by the 250 ft.-wide
SDG&E easement. The RdR SPA I Plan designates the sites for multiple
family development at a target density of 15.2 and 15.3 du/ac and a
maximum yield of 143 units. Bonita Vista Junior High School is located to
the north, small-lot single family to the west, a 94-unit apartment
complex to the east, and the RdR Community Park site to the south.
The project involves a total of 138 two-story townhouse units in three and
five-unit structures -- 55 units on 3.7 acres westerly of the easement,
and 83 units on 6.1 acres easterly of the easement. Each site has a
single access point from Ridgeback Road, with private streets providing
access to a total of 318 parking spaces -- 255 enclosed garage spaces, and
63 open parking spaces distributed in bays along the interior street
system.
Common open space areas are distributed throughout the project, with an
extensive system of pedestrian pathways within and between the two sites.
A common recreation area on the easterly site contains a swimming pool,
SPA and cabana. Each dwelling unit also has a private fenced patio area
averaging 100 sq. ft. in area. The SDG&E easement will contain a trails
system which connects to the Community Park and the trails systems to the
west.
The applicant has proposed the following street names:
Street A Callejon Espana
Street B Callejon Montefrio
Street C Callejon Palacios
Street D Callejon Segovia
Street E Callejon Alhambra
Street F Callejon Malaga
Street G Callejon Carbon
Street H Callejon Ciudad
Street I Callejon Cervantes
Street J Callejon Andalusia
D. FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Tiara at Rancho del Rey, Chula Vista Tract 90-10, is
found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General
Plan based on the following:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 5
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The residential type and density proposed is
consistent with the adopted RdR SPA I Plan.
b. Circulation - Circulation consists of private streets consistent
with City standards.
c. Housing - The project will provide an attached townhouse product
as one of several housing alternatives within the RdR community.
d. Conservation - The conservation of major land forms and
environmentally sensitive areas was addressed by the ERdR
Specific Plan and RdR SPA Plan. The project is consistent with
those plans.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The overall
park/recreation/open space program has been established by the
ERdR and RdR Plans.
f. Seismic Safety - Mitigation measures relating to slope stability
and grading identified in the environmental document for the SPA
Plan have been incorporated into the project.
g. Safety The project will be within existing or proposed
response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with
the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to
approval of final maps.
h. Noise All dwellings will be designed so as not to exceed
interior noise levels of 45 dBA.
i. Scenic Highway - The project is not adjacent to a Scenic Route.
j. Bicycle Routes All of the major roads within RdR have been
designed to accommodate bicycle travel.
k. Public Buildings - The RdR, Public Facilities and Financing Plan
include provisions for the dedication and improvement and/or
contributions for various public facilities including school
sites, parks, fire facilities and libraries.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 6
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. To the extent feasible, structures have been sized and sited in a
manner to provide for passive or natural heating and cooling
opportunities.
WPC 7647P/OOllY
PROJECT ARE,~
q~.
R.D.R. OOMMUNIT¥
TENTATIVE MAP
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 90-10
TIARA AT RANCHO DEL REY
SITE PLAN
CHULA VISTA TRACT N0.90-10
TIARA AT RANCHO DEL REY
Appendix C ~
CITY OF £HULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No ~<[ If yes, please indicate person(s)
~ ~ef~e~as: ."Any i~d?idual, firm,~'~Opartnership, joint venture associa ·
i~u~d~ cluo, traterna/ organization coroor~tinn ~-~-~ - - · '
Ithis anH ..... '- r .... , :~Ld~e, trust, receiver, syndicate
I:~:,~t'J~ an~..O~n~r court:y, c,~y ano County, city, municipality, district
LPull~ltdl SUDO1V1SIOn, or any other grou or comb~na ~ - - ,, ...... .
P ·nation acting as ~ unit.
(NOT~: Attach additional pages as necessary.y) _., ~C'~ ~t-. ~ 0
S~gnat~l~e of app~can~L~te
WPC 0701P bI. j i~Li~FVi
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-90-05; Consideration of amendments to Title 19 of
the Municipal Code to delete provisions which require
rezonings, planned unit developments, precise plans,
conditional use permits and variances to be processed
within a specified number of da~/s - CitJ~ initiated
A. BACKGROUND
On February 14, 1990, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to amend a draft
policy on adequate lead time for Commission review of agenda items. The
Commission directed staff to return with the amended policy and any
necessary Code amendments to implement the policy.
The proposed amendments would delete provisions from the Code which
require rezonings, planned unit developments, precise plans, conditional
use permits and variances to be processed within a specified number of
days.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed
amendments are exempt from environmental review and are considered a
non-significant action per Section 2.4.3.2 of the environmental review
procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution PCM-90-17 establishing a policy of minimum time
frames for consideration of written documents and correspondence
considered for action by the Planning Commission.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact the
amendments to the Municipal Code contained in Exhibit A.
C. DISCUSSION
The impetus for these amendments comes not only from the aforementioned
Commission policy, but also from recent State legislation regarding the
public noticing and review period for environmental documents.
On January 1, 1990, two amendments to the California Environmental Quality
Act {CEQA) became effective. The first amendment requires that the public
review period for Negative Declarations shall not be less than 21 days
prior to project consideration {prior to this amendment, a lO-day review
period was required). The second amendment requires that a notice of no
significant environmental impact {Negative Declaration) be posted with the
County Clerk for a period of 30 days prior to the project going before a
decision-making body {prior to this amendment, there was no such
stipulation). Because of these two amendments, an additional 30 days
minimum is required to process projects requiring an Initial
(Environmental) Study.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 2
Because of the State legislation, the minimum time required to process an
application for a project that requires an Initial Study is now 66 days
from the date of receipt of the completed Initial Study application to the
date it goes before the decision-making body. If the application is
incomplete, or if the project raises complicated issues, this processing
time may be longer. As a result, the application time frames currently
contained in the Municipal Code are no longer valid for projects which
require environmental review.
The Commission policy requires: (1) all projects and/or reports under
consideration by the Planning Commission shall be received by the Planning
Commission no later than one (1) week prior to the requested action, and
(2) all written communications from project applicants including requested
modifications or additions to conditions of approval must be received by
the Planning Commission no later than 24 hours prior to the requested
action. (Note: The underlined portion represents the amendment to the
draft policy requested by the Commission.) This policy will add
approximately one week to the current processing time for projects going
before the Commission, and is not consistent with the time frames
established in the Code regardless of whether or not a project requires
environmental review.
The proposal is to delete rather than change the time frames currently
reflected in the Code. This will allow the Department to respond to new
legislation or policies without th? necessity of a Code amendment. The
Planning Department's current policy is, and will continue to be, to
process all applications in as timely manner as feasible.
For comparison purposes, staff contacted several other cities within the
County regarding processing time frames. Of the five cities contacted
(Escondido, San Marcos, Vista, and the City and County of San Diego) none
operate under any specific time frames other than those established by
State mandates.
The applicable State mandates include the State CEQA Guidelines and the
Permit Streamlining Act. Under CEQA, all Negative Declarations must be
completed and certified within 105 days (3.5 months) of receipt of
completed application. This is followed by the 30-day posting period
noted above, for a total of 4.5 months.
Under the Permit Streamlining Act, projects that require an EIR must be
approved or disapproved within one year of receipt of a completed
application, and projects which require a Negative Declaration must be
approved or disapproved within 6 months of receipt of a completed
application. These mandates do not apply to general plan amendments or
rezones.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 9, 1990 Page 3
As a matter of policy, the Planning Department will attempt to process
applications within five weeks. This is consistent with the new
Commission policy and will add approximately one week to the existing time
frames. For applications that require environmental review, the five-week
period will begin upon receipt of proof of posting of the notice of no
significant environmental impact at the County Clerk's office. This time
frame is based on the average or "straight forward" project and assumes
the application, when received, is complete. If the application is
incomplete, or raises complicated issues, this timeframe will likely be
extended.
Attached is the Commission policy, as amended. Exhibit A contains the
proposed Code amendments. Also attached are the Commission minutes from
the meeting of February 14, 1990.
WPC 7450P
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-90-17
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF MINIMUM TIME
FRAMES FOR CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND
CORRESPONDENCE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft policy
language that would provide the Commission with adequate time to review
various written documents and correspondence under consideration by the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that projects of major
significance, complex issues, or lengthy documents must be in Commissioners'
hands a minimum of one week prior to requested action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission packets are normally assembled in a
single mailing format requiring a consistent mailing date for all items; and
WHEREAS, any written communication must be in the Commissioners'
possession a minimum of 24 hours in advance of a scheduled hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT from facts presented at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1990, and February 14, 1990, that
the Planning Commission adopts the following policy and recommends any changes
required in the Municipal Code to effectuate this policy.
Chula Vista Planning Commission policy regarding receipt of written
reports and correspondence shall be as follows:
l) All projects and/or reports under consideration by the Planning
Commission shall be received by the Planning Commission no later
than one (1) week prior to the requested action.
2) All written communication from project applicants, including
requested modifications or additions to conditions of approval,
must be received by the Planning Commission no later than 24
hours prior to the requested action.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this day of , 1990, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Robert E. Tugenberg, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
Planning Commission
WPC 7652P
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 19.12
LEGISLATIVE ZONING PROCEDURE
Sections:
19.12.010 Purpose, intent and scope of provisions-Zoning defined.
19.12.020 Authorization for requirements.
19.12.030 Rezoning-Application required-Filing fee.
19.12.040 Setback lines-Establishment and change procedure.
19.12.050 Modifying districts-Establishment or attachment procedure.
19.12.060 Hearings-Required when.
19.12.070 Hearings-Notice required-Methods and additional contents of
notice.
19.12.080 Hearings-Notice required-Contents.
19.12.090 Commission-Authorization of actions and determination of
restrictiveness of zones.
19.12.100 Commission-Approval actions-Procedure 7%~/)I~I~
19.12.110 Commission-Denial actions-Appeal procedure.
19.12.120 Attachment of conditions-Public improvements and precise plan
requirements.
19.12.130 Interim zoning-Procedure generally-Time limit.
19.12.140 Prezoning-Procedure generally-When effective.
19.12.150 Adopted redevelopment plans.
19.12.100 Commission-Approval actions-Procedure
If the application is approved or a more restrictive zone recommended, the
commission shall forward its resolution and the application with a report of
its findings to the city clerk who shall cause the matter to be set for
hearing before the city council in the same manner as required herein for
setting a hearing before the planning commission.
¢~l~l~ll/s~ll~lll/bblll~ll/a/ll~lll~ll/d/~/a~/WalllW~l~
~~l~ll~ll~l~~l~l~l~d~d~l~N~l~%~
~/~/~/~d~/~d~f~l (Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior
code ~ 33.1203(1).)
Chapter 19.14
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONAL USES AND VARIANCES
19.14.090 Conditional use permit-Public hearing procedure-Finding of facts.
~lW//Wubl/i/~/~lW~/,/s4Ye~4//~//s/e/t//W~/J~/~WW~/~/~y~/~/~¢~
~//~b~y//~aA~/~/~/~)i~//~//~/~t`~l/e~//4/p/p/l~/~bi/j~il/~//~`h/j//~ ~he planning
commission or the zoning administrator shall make a written finding which
shall specify acts relied upon in rendering said decision and attaching such
conditions and safeguards as deemed necessary and desirable not more than ten
days following the decision of the commission or the zoning administrator, and
shall fully set forth wherein the facts and circumstances fulfill or fail to
fulfill the requirements of this section and Section 19.14.080. A copy of
this written finding of facts shall be filed with the city clerk, with the
director of building and housing, and mailed to the applicant. The decision
of the planning commission or zoning administrator shall be final on the
eleventh day following its filing in the office of the city clerk, except
where appeal is taken as provided herein. (Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior
code § 33.1305(B).)
19.14.180 Variance-Public hearing-Procedure-Notice required.
A public hearing shall be held by the zoning administrator in the
following manner:
The zoning administrator shall publish a notice of hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city not less than five days
prior to the date of said hearing. Notice of hearing may also be
made, at the option of the zoning administrator or commission, as the
case may be, by mail to owners of record of surrounding property
within three hundred feet of the property for which said variance is
requested. The zoning administrator or the planning commission shall
have the discretion to include in notice of hearing on such
application notice that the planning commission will consider
classification of other than that for which application is made
and/or additional properties and/or uses. Failure of owners to
receive notice of hearing shall in no way affect the validity of
action taken.
(Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.1308(D).)
19.14.210 Variance-Zoning administrator authority-Notice of action.
The zoning administrator
~a~/s//~ may approve said variance or may grant said variance subject to
specified conditions or may deny said variance. The zoning administrator
shall notify the applicant forthwith of action taken. (Ord. 1212 § 1 (part),
1969: prior code § 33.1308(G).)
19.14.370 Planned unit development-Public hearing-Time-Notice required.
A public hearing shall be held by the planning commission and city council
as provided herein:
)Y A_~_. Such hearing before the city council shall be set for public hearing
by the city clerk within twenty days after planning commission action;
-2-
¢~ B__~. The secretary of the commission and city clerk shall publish notice
of hearings in a newspaper of general circulation in the city not
less than ten days prior to the date of said hearings. Failure of
owners to receive notice of hearing shall in no way affect the
validity of action taken.
(Ord. 1500 § 6 (part), 1973: Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code §
33.1312(A)(4).)
19.14.380 Planned unit development-Planning commission action.
7~l/p~l~$~l~l/sh~ll~¢~l~l~l~~l$~l~lW~
~l ~l l ~y~/~ l l t~h~la/ I /~ l l~ / l l ~l ~l l /a/Wy/ l l~ddd~W~/ l l ~6~ $ ~
~6~X In taking action the commission may recommend to the city
council denial of a planned unit development, may recommend approval of the
planned unit development as submitted, or may recommend approval of a planned
unit development subject to additional conditions. Any planned unit
development as authorized shall be subject to all conditions imposed, and
shall be excepted from other provisions of this chapter only to the extent
specified in said permit or shown by an approved plan. (Ord. 1500 § 6 (part),
1973: Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.1312(A)(5).)
19.14.573 Precise plan approval-Public hearings.
A public hearing shall be held by the planning commission and city council
as provided herein:
~. 7~l~a/r~/~l~¢~l/~l~l~l/~¥~v~l~lll/a/e/l~l~l/~l~
~l A~. The hearing before the city council shall be set by the city clerk
within thirty days after planning commission action.
¢~ B_~_. The secretary of the planning commission and city clerk shall publish
notice of hearings in a newspaper of general circulation in the city
not less than ten days prior to the date of said hearings. Failure
of owners to receive notice of hearings shall in no way affect the
validity of action taken. Any requested exceptions to the
requirements of the underlying zone shall be specified in the public
hearing notice.
{Ord. 1632 § 2 (part), 1975.)
19.14.574 Precise plan approval-Planning commission action.
~l//Wf~l/fo~C~/~d//d/a/y/s/J//~A~//dv~//~/l~l~//~¢~
In taking action the co~ission may reco~end to the city council denial of a
precise plan, approval of the precise plan as submitted, or approval of a
precise plan subject to additional conditions. The planning commission may
recommend approval if, from the facts presented, the co~ission can make the
necessary findings noted in Section 19.14.576. Reco~endation for approval
shall require the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total
membership of the planning commission. Any precise plan, as authorized, shall
be subject to all conditions imposed, and shall be excepted from other
provisions of this title only to the extent specified in the resolution of
approval or shown by an approved plan. {Ord. 1632 ~ 2 (part), 1975.)
WPC 7609P
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- February 14, 1990
MSUC (Shipe/Carson) 7-0 to recommend that the City Council change the name of
Hermosa Avenue to Fourth Avenue.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Establishment of Policy to Provide Adequate Lead Time for Planning
Commission Review of Agenda Items
Director of Planning Leiter presented a draft policy to accomplish:
l) that the Planning Commission would receive reports on projects at least a
week prior to their public hearings; and
2) all written communications to include requested modifications or additions
to a project would have to be received by the Commission no later than 24
hours prior to their action. In order for that to occur, staff would need
to receive them by the previous Friday.
Staff would be getting reports out earlier both to the Commission and to the
applicants, and staff will be asking the applicants to get correspondence to
staff and to the Commission earlier so the Commissioners would have a chance
to look at it before the hearings. Mr. Leiter said this would require some
Code amendments since it would require some changes to requirements for time
frames for processing. He said if the Commission agreed, staff would proceed
and bring that back at the next meeting.
Commissioner Cannon said he was concerned that the public would not have ample
time to get information to the Commission. He was not concerned with the
applicant, who should have had ample time prior to the meeting.
Chairman Tugenberg expressed his dissatisfaction with receiving a large amount
of material just before the meeting, as had been the case recently, and not
having time to review it.
Planning Director Leiter explained that the drafted policy was oriented mainly
toward the applicants. He said the the Commission may wish to change the
draft policy wording to say "written communications from the applicant"
instead of saying "all communications."
Commissioner Cannon concurred with that approach.
Planning Director Leiter asked for direction from the Commission as to whether
to come back with the change and the Code amendments that ~ould accompany it.
MSUC (Cannon/Carson) 7-0 to ask staff to make the change in the draft policy
and bring back the policy and the Code amendments that would accompany it.
Mr. Leiter directed the Commission's attention to a notice regarding the
Planning Commissioners' Institute and for them to let staff know if anyone was
interested in attending.