Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/09/28 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, September 28, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of August 10, 1988 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: PCM-89-2: Consideration of a precise plan application for the 211 acre site known as Otay Rio Business Park located on the southwest side of Otay Valley Road/Heritage Road - Otay Rio Business Park 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-2: Consideration of a City-initiated proposal to amend the Chula Vista General Plan by the redesigna- tion of certain lands, with a total area of approximately 52 acres, and located to the east of Second Avenue, and to the south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, from "Parks and Public Open Space" to "Medium Density Residential" (4 to 12 dwelling units/gross acre) on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element 3. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-89-A: Consideration to rezone 20.6 acres located directly south and adjoining the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, between North Second Avenue and the 1-805 Freeway, from R-1 and Unzoned to M-H-P and R-3-P-6 City Initiated (b) PCZ-89-B: Consideration to rezone 17.5 acres located directly south and adjoining the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, between North Second Avenue and the 1-805 Freeway, from A, R-1 and Unzoned to R-3-P-11 - Mascot Realty OTHER BUSINESS: Boards/Commissions/Committees Absence Policy DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of October 12, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-2 - Consideration of a proposed precise plan within the IL-P zone for Otay Rio Business Park - Otay Rio Business Park. A. BACKGROUND On July 28, 1987 the City Council granted a request for a general plan amendment, rezone and subdivision of 211 acres for industrial uses, for the project known as Otay Rio Business Park located in the extreme southeast corner of the City. The project site is bounded on the east by Otay Valley Road and on the north by the Otay River. Approximately 132 acres were designated IL-P limited industrial, with certain support commercial uses as provided in the zoning ordinance upon approval of a master conditional use permit. The applicant has now submitted a precise plan to establish planning and design standards for development within the IL-P zone. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project and was certified by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1987. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that no additional environmental review is required for the proposed precise plan at this time. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the findings contained in Section D of this report, adopt a motion to approve the proposed precise plan for Otay Rio Business Park subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The typical road section for Otay Valley Road shown on page 11 shall be revised to conform to that approved for the tentative subdivision map (Tract 87-6). b. The second paragraph of page 1 discussing environmental regulation shall be revised to state that individual projects that are in substantial conformance with the Precise Plan may proceed with site plan and building design review and/or other discretionary actions with supplemental environmental documentation, as determined by the Environmental Review Coordinator. c. The text which discusses project identity signs (la. page 31) of the precise plan guidelines shall be revised to eliminate total permitted aggregate sign area of 3 square feet of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage. d. Revise the second paragraph of page 20 discussing revegetation and fencing of lot 83 to delete the timing of the revegetation to future residential development. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 2 C. ANALYSIS The proposed precise plan guidelines submitted by Otay Rio Business Park were developed through continued consultation with planning staff. The precise plan text was written to provide development and design guidelines and serve as an informational document to prospective tenants within the industrial park. The project guidelines, land uses, circulation, landscape and design standards are generally self explanatory. Some aspects of the guidelines which should be highlighted include: the potential for development of commercial support uses through approval of a master conditional use permit, areas to be included in an open space maintenance district, setbacks and buffers, and architectural and site design guidelines. Commercial Support Uses Within the IL-P zone, specified commercial uses would be permitted to occur in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the project (lot 3) subject to approval of a master conditional use permit. Those uses are intended as support facilities for the surrounding industrial park and are discussed on page 6 of the Precise Plan. The development standards specified for a support commercial project would be required in addition to design review approval and conditions of approval of the CUP. Proposed setbacks and buffers reflect the proximity of lot 3 to Otay Valley Road and the Otay River. Open Space Maintenance District Otay Rio Business Park contains approximately 73 acres of land designated for inclusion in an open space maintenance district. The majority of the southern portion of the project is to be revegetated and fenced to prevent future erosion. The timing of revegetation is controlled by the agreement for public improvements to be negotiated with the City. A riparian habitat area designated in the northwest corner of the project would also be maintained in the same district, as would designated 3:1 slopes along the frontage for Otay Valley Road. The Precise Plan includes extensive discussion of landscape standards to be applied to these areas through the landscape master plan, as a component of the developers responsibilities in forming the Open Space District. Setbacks and Buffers The setbacks and landscape buffers to be applied by the Precise Plan (pages 9-12) reflect the project's visual exposure to the Otay River and Otay Valley Road. Additional landscape buffers would be provided on the western project boundary for the lots between the riparian open space and the southern open space area. Standards are provided through the Master Landscape Plan, {p. 15-22). City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 3 Architectural and Site Design Guidelines The guidelines for architecture are general and do not prescribe any specific theme or style (p. 24-29). The stated intent is to ensure consistency in design throughout the park and to give a well maintained appearance. For example, building design policy guidelines are structured to limit height, bulk, and building mass. Building standards include the prohibition of florescent or garish colors and prescribe at least two types of building texture or materials. Outdoor storage is limited to 20% of the total gross floor area with specified exceptions. Any specific proposals for development are subject to Design Review approval. Signs The proposed sign program allows each business a ground sign up to 50 sq. ft. (maximum) and a wall sign up to 50 sq. ft. (maximum) for an aggregate total of 100 sq. ft. Based on these restrictions, the added provision of allowing for 3 sq. ft. of sign area for each lineal foot of building area represents a potential conflict and, therefore, is recommended to be deleted. In summary, the proposed precise plan document provides a framework for specific evaluation of individual projects while providing a generalized users guide for approaching development within the park. It is staff's recommendation to approve the document as conditioned. D. FINDINGS The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is located is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristic, access, configuration, traffic circulation or some social or historic situation requiring special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. The 211-acre project area exhibits extremes in topography ranging from steep slopes to level flood plain, requiring implementation of design policies to ensure sensitive treatment of unique property features through the proposed setbacks, buffers; landscaping and ope) space maintenance areas defined through the precise plan. The property or area to which the P ~odifying district is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses and the development of a precise plan will allo~ the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise )e incompatible. The project area is situated betweeT the floodplain and floodway zoned regions of the Otay River Valley and r(.sidential planned areas within the boundaries of the City of San Diego. The precise plan is required to maintain a harmonious balance between widely diver!)nt land uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 4 The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or the City appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. The blending of commercial support uses within the project area in conjunction with adjacent industrial, residential, and open space areas is more consistently applied through guidelines for land uses developed for the proposed precise plan. WPC 5539P Appendix C CITY OF CNULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Otay Rio Business Park, A Joint Venture Ota~ Rio Business Park I, A Joint Venture List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. The Chillingworth Corporation DcKA Investments~ LTD. Amalgamated Citrus Growers, Inc. Liebau Investments, LTD. 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. .. The Chillingworth Corporation- S.C. Chillingworth Amalgamated Citrus Growers, Inc. - B.J. Holmes Liebau Investments, LTD. - F.J. Liebau DcKA Investments, LTD. - B.J. Holmes 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. Nave 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) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc~a~ club, fraternal organization, corporationt estate, trust, recelve~, syndicate, this and any oth? county, city and county, city! municipality, distr}ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Otay Rio Business Park Th~ K½illlnnwnrf½ £n~nnr~inn R/?~/88 Signa~app¥icant/dat~ WPC 0701P Robert H. McCra~y~ ~r, A-IlO Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-89-2, Consideration of a City-initiated proposal to amend the Chula Vista General Plan by the redesignation of certain lands, with a total area ol approximately 60 acres, and located to the east o~' Second Avenue, and to the south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, from "Parks and Public Ope~ Space" to "Parks and Public Open Space" and "Medium Density Residential" (4 to 12 dwelling units/gros~ acre) on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element. (PCZ-89-A&B, City-initiated and private-initiated proposals for the rezoning of the above-described lands are a dependent, companion cases of GPA-89-2) A. BACKGROUND The City Council, meeting in regular session on July 12, 1988, considered the matter of the proposed establishment of an affordable-housing, mobile home park project on a City-owned, 14.3-acre parcel of land, situated to the east of North Second Avenue, and to the south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, in North Central Chula Vista. Since the subject proposal engendered much controversy, the Council determined that the land use planning and zoning issues related to the project should be resolved prior to the substantive addressment of the actual, proposed housing project. The Council, therefore, instructed the Planning Department to prepare the draft general plan amendment and rezoning proposals which would be essential to the accommodation of the housing project in question. The proposed general plan amendment has been prepared, and is evaluated in this report. It's approval and adoption are prerequisite to the approval and adoption of the proposed rezoning of the involved lands. The City Council also authorized the owners of adjoining holdings, which are designated "Parks & Public Open Space" to include their lands within the subject City-initiated proposal to amend the Chula Vista General Plan. The aggregate area of the land involved in the proposed amendment, therefore, is about 60 acres (please see Exhibit A). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-18. 2. Adopt a motion to approve GPA-89-2. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 2 C. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Subject property The subject lands are designated "Parks and Public Open Space" on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, and were, for the most part, slated for inclusion within the Sweetwater Regional Park. Several years ago the County determined that it would not extend the Regional Park to the west of 1-805, and declared the lands which it had acquired for this park extension to be "surplus." The City of Chula Vista's Redevelopment Agency purchased 14.3 acres as a result of this declaration, for the purpose of providing affordable housing for low and moderate income households. The dominant, existing land use in the area of the proposed amendment is the KOA Kampgrounds. 2. Adjacent general plan designations (please see Exhibit B). North: Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel and R-54 Freeway South: Medium Density Residential East: 1-805 Freeway West: Public and Quasi-Public Institutions and North Second Avenue 3. Adjacent zoning and land use (please see Exhibit C). North: F-1 Flood Control Channel, R-54 South: R-1 Single-Family Dwellings, Vacant East: 1-805 West: R-3 Psychiatric Care Facility D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-18, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-18. E. ANALYSIS 1. While much of the subject territory was formerly slated for inclusion within the Sweetwater Regional Park, the County no longer proposes this inclusion. This territory, furthermore, is no longer subject to periodic flooding, due to the construction of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 2. The proposed redesignation of most of the subject territory to '- -i l" "Medium Density Reslaen% a would bring it into a state of consistency with the general planning of adjacent lands. It should be noted that the original Chula Vista General Plan--1990, adopted in 1965, had designated nearly the territory in question "Medium Density Residential." 3. The subject lands are substantially isolated from the adjacent residential areas, to the south, due to topography, and their development should not adversely affect residential enjoyment or environmental quality within the Las Flores Drive-Minot Avenue area. 4. The plan diagram which accompanies this proposed general plan amendment depicts a significant stretch of "Parks and Public Open Space" land along the southerly side of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. This open space reservation would protect the City of Chula Vista's proposal to eventually establish a greenbelt along the circumference of its entire urban pattern. 5. The development of the proposed Medium Density Residential area at a density of 4 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre could produce a range between 200 to 600 dwelling units. Based on the staff recommendations, the Traffic Engineer has estimated the project will generate approximately 2,600 trips per average weekday. An adequate circulatory system running easterly from North Second Avenue, could preclude the said traffic volume from overburdening adjacent residential districts. 6. There is a clear and present need for medium-density, affordable housing within the Central Chula Vista community. The proposed general plan amendment would better enable the City to address this need. F. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment would enable the City of Chula Vista to better meet its housing needs, without adversely affecting its interest in establishing public open space, or protecting the order, amenity, and stability of its existing residential areas. WPC 5488P 563-330 -37 k.O.a. 13-330-34 563-330-36 K.O.A. K.O.a. 563-330-46 563-350-13 REDV.AGENCY- st, 563-330-45 CITY OF C.V. MASCOT REALTY C ST. 566-110-40 566-131-01 566-132-55 I ' REDV.AGENCY- MROSS .... ~ MASCOT REALTY CITY OF C.V. Sea Vale 'St. O Cilia Viata St. TERRITORIAl. GPA-89-2 OWNERSHIP CHANGE FROM PARKS & PUBLIC MAI= ~"~.~ OPEN SPACE TO PARKS AND lOO 200 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND MEDIUM 0 400 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXHIBIT A City of Chul& Vista-Planning Dept.-8/12188 ~ MED,UM DENS'TY BES. GPA'89--2 ~ HIGH DENSITY RES. ~1~ CHANGE FROM PARKS & PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO PARKS AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL 260 ~00 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND MEDlUI~ RESEARCH & LIMITED IND. 0 1000 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ PARKS & PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ~-] EXHIBIT ~ City of Chula Vleta-Pl&nning Dept.-8/12/88 SFD CAMPGI CAMPGROUND & STORAGE KOA PADDOCK & GRAZING VACANT ~ VACANT\ VACANT C ST. r , ~ VACANT VACANT VACANT Chula Vista St. --~ EXISTING LAND USE GPA-89-2 & CHANGE FROM PARKS & PUBLIC ZONING A OPEN SPACE TO PARKS AND ~oo 2oo PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND MEDIUM o 4oo DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXHIBIT C City of Chula Vista-Planning Dept.-8/12/88 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Lower Sweetwater General Plan Amendment/Zoning PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel and to the East of North Second Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-89-18 DATE: September 17, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is located south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel (State Route 54 is to the north of the channel), 1-805 is to the east and Southwood Hospital and North Second Avenue is to the west. The property to the south has been previously subdivided into single-family dwelling unit lots. Because of the presence of alluvial and the potential for groundwater, there is a potential for liquefaction. However, a soils report prepared for the site does not identify any significant problem. The project site is within the existing legal flood plain of the Sweetwater River. The completion of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, which is now assured, will provide full 100 year and 500 year flood protection. State Route 54 is located to the north of the project across the flood control channel and 1-805 is to the east of the project. State 54 will have minimal acoustical impact on the proposed project because of the separation provided by the flood control channel. 1-805 could produce adverse noise levels on the project site but required conformance to State requirements and the City's noise elements of the General Plan will avoid any substantial and adverse impact. The adjacency of the freeways also could produce adverse air quality impacts. However, prevailing winds in this area carry pollutants such as CO to the east rather on to the project site. The current average daily traffic count on North Second Avenue is 16,740. Projections show that when SR54 is complete and there is no access to the State Route from North Second Avenue, the ADT will drop to 9,000 as freeway access is shifted to North Fourth Avenue. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section (]HUJJ~ B. Project Description The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment to Iqedium Density Residential (4-11 dwelling units per gross acre) and zoning for the project site would change as follows: 2.73 ac. of unzoned land to R-3-P-6 11.28 ac. of unzoned land to R-3-P-11 9.19 ac. of unzoned land to M-H-P 5.55 ac. of R-1 land to R-3-P-6 4.52 ac. of R-1 land to R-3-P-11 5.06 ac. of R-1 land to M-H-P 1.73 ac. of A land to R-3-P-11 The result would be as follows: 6.28 ac. of R-3-P-6 17.53 ac. of R-3-P-11 14.25 ac. of M-H-P Specific development proposals are not part of this Negative Declaration and would be subject to further environmental review. It is projected that this zoning would permit 38 units in the R-3-P-6 zone, about 200 units in the R-3-P-11 zone and about 150 in the M-H-P. The total unit could would be about 388 and the total population would be about 833. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project consists of an amendment to the General Plan. If the amendment is adopted, the zoning will be consistent with the General Plan. The subject lands are substantially isolated from the adjacent residential areas to the south due to topography, and their development should not adversely affect residential enjoyment or environmental quality within the Las Flores Drive-Minot Avenue area. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The estimated Fire/EMS response time is six minutes which is within the seven-minute threshold standard. 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard. -2- 3. Traffic A traffic report was done for this project (9-15-88) and it concluded that the project traffic could be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hour traffic conditions and that future traffic volumes would be reduced when the SR54 North Second interchange is eliminated. Thus the west of 1-805 threshold standard will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation The threshold standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this project because it is located west of 1-805. 5. Drainage Review of the specific development proposals by the City will assure that storm water flows and volumes will not exceed engineering standards. 6. Sewer Review of the specific development proposals by the City will ensure that sewage flows and volumes will not exceed City engineering standards. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority was contacted and indicated they could serve this project. E. Identification of Environmental Effects Geology/Soils Alluvial soils with a low expansion potential appear to be present at or near the existing ground surface of the subject property. Apparently, undocumented fill soils are located locally at the northern extremity of the property. Landslides do not appear to be present on the site. Seeps, springs, and high ground water levels are not known to exist on or near the subject property. Active faults are not known to exist on or near the subject property. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by conformance to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Based on field and laboratory data, the potential for liquefaction or seismically induced dynamic settlement of the subsurface materials due to the design earthquake encountered at the subject property is generally considered low. Our calculations indicate a moderate potential for liquefaction at a depth from l0 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Due to the depth of this layer below pad grade and the return period for this event (approximately 180 years), it is not considered a significant constraint to development. 2. Ground water Ground water was encountered in the alluvial soils on the site to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet below the existing grade. Ground water levels are subject to seasonal fluctuation and may be expected to be closer to the ground surface after periods of heavy rainfall. Ground water is not expected to be a constraint to site development provided that the recommendations of this report are followed. The ground water that is present is not of a quality that could be used for domestic or agricultural purposes. 3. Drainage The project site is currently within the lO0-year-flood plain of the Sweetwater Channel. When the flood control channel is complete, the property will be protected from the lO0-year and 500-year floods. 4. Noise 1-805 could adversely affect the easterly portion of the property. Prior to consideration of a precise plan for that area an acoustical report should be prepared. 5. Traffic The project will generate approximately 2,600 trips per average week day. The proposed land uses which include residential and mobile home uses is expected to produce less of an impact during the peak hours than what commonly occurs in residential areas. Based on SANDAG's traffic generation statistics, the peak hour traffic impact resulting from project generated traffic will be around 8 percent as opposed to the 10 percent factor normally associated with standard residential type developments. Analysis of existing traffic on Second Avenue coupled with project traffic during the peak hour at the intersection of the project access road and North Second Avenue revealed that the intersection would operate at an acceptable "C" level of service. It should be noted that when State Route (SR) 54 is completed between 1-805 and I-5 traffic volumes on North Second Avenue is expected to drop from 16,700 vehicles per day to 9,000 vehicles per day. This reduction will occur because SR 54 will have an interchange with Fourth Avenue and it will no longer be possible to access SR 54 via North Second Avenue. Therefore, peak hour traffic conditions on North Second Avenue can be expected to improve in the future. Initially, before SR 54 is completed and assuming the proposed project is built out and occupied, traffic volumes on North Second Avenue south of the project will increase by around 1,300 vehicles per day for a total of 18,000 vehicles per day. The added project traffic can be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hours traffic condition since future volumes will be significantly less on Second Avenue. It is our conclusion that the proposed land uses noted in the project application will not create an unmitigable traffic impact. 6. Schools The secondary capacity and enrollment are as follows: Permanent Enrollment Capacity As of 3/88 Chula Vista High School 1356 1814 Chula Vista Junior High School 1070 1325 Hilltop High School 1388 1490 Hilltop Junior High School 1386 1364 Relocatable structures and/or temporary classrooms have been constructed at school sites to alleviate the overcrowded conditions; however, this does not satisfy the long-term school needs. Sweetwater Union High School District will not oppose the zoning and re-zoning actions; however, any future development on the property will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Enrollment and capacity of the elementary school is as follows: Permanent Enrollment Capacity Rosebank 611 550 There are currently two relocatable structures and one trailer being used at this school. -5- F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Soils/Geology The development of the property is feasible from a soils/geology standpoint if recommendations from the appropriate soils engineer are followed. There are no geotechnical constraints known to be present on the site which cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design and sound construction practices. 2. Noise When precise plans for development of the property have been prepared, acoustical report(s) will be prepared to evaluate any impacts and establish mitigation measures. 3. Traffic l~ith signalization of the access point on to North Second Avenue and good design of the intersection, the level of service will not be lowered and may improve in the future when access to SR 54 from North Second is eliminated. 4. Schools Sweetwater Union High School District request that this project be reviewed for a Community Facilities District Mello-Roos or other applicable funding mechanism to ensure the adequate housing for students as a condition of approval of the project application. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will most likely collect fees prior to issuance of building permits but is exploring the possibility of forming Mello-Roos Districts west of 1-805 to construct additional permanent classrooms on existing sites. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. Although the project has the potential of significant environmental impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significant through measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study. 2. The project conforms to or is modifying the long-term goals of the City and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project site is bound by the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel on the north, 1-805 on the east and developed property to the south and west. There are also grade separation to the south and west. Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impact. -6- 4. The project site is now out of the lO0-year flood plain (although legally still within the federally designated flood plain). There are no hazardous materials on the property. The project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code North Second Traffic Study, September 15, 1988 Material Report for the Proposed Fill Site of the Sweetwater Channel Improvement, Work Authorization UH 1228, County of San Diego, March 18, 1985 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation {Rio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Dec. 4, 1987 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation {Rio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Nov. 16, 1987 A Report of a Biological Survey of the Lower Sweetwater River Acquisition Site, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 20 June 1986 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5534P -7- Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FISH AVENUE September 15, 1988 Mr. Douglas D. Reid City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue SEP ~ 6 ~88 Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: IS-89-18 Location: East of North Second Avenue and South of Route 54. Description: General Plan Amendment. zoning and re-zoning actions that will result in 14.25 acres of Mobile Home Park zoning, 6.28 acres of R- 3-P (MFD) and 17.53 acres of R-3-P-11 (11 per acre). Project Applicant: City of Chula Vista Sweetwater Union High School District will not oppose the above zoning and re-zoning actions; however, any future development on the property will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Sweetwater Union High School District facilities are currently operating at 107 percent of capacity. The present capacity and current enrollment of the junior and senior high schools which could serve the project areas in question are as follows: Permanent Enrollment Capacity As of 3/88 Chula Vista High School 1356 1814 Chula Vista Junior High School 1070 1325 Hilltop High School 1388 1490 Hilltop Junior High School 1386 1364 Relocatable structures and/or temporary classrooms have been constructed at school sites to alleviate the overcrowded conditions: however, this does not satisfy the long term school needs. Sweetwater Union High School District request that this project be reviewed for a Community Facilities District Mello/Roos or other applicable funding mechanism to ensure the adequate housing for students as a condition of approval of the project application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitute to contact me at 691-5553. Respectfully~,~/, ~lrhomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly P, ECEIVED September 14, 1988 TO: Douglas Reid Envirom~ental Review Coordinator City of C~ula Vista PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA FR~M: Peter Watry 81 Second Avenue C~ula Vista, CA. 92010 SUB3ECT: The Initial studies for the 3 properties east of the EDA Kampground (The 14.25 acre, 6.28 acre, and 17.53 acre sites.) a) The additional vehicle trips generated per day by these three properties if re-zoned as anticipated by the current proposals would total some 2500-3000 trips per day. They will all exit at one point onto Second Avenue. That point is the ,'apex" of a convex curve in Second Avenue. b) Not only that, but directly across the street on the west side of Second Avenue is a 77-unit condo complex that presumably dumps 600+ vehicle trips per day out onto Second Avenue at vir~z~]ly the same point. c) Not only that, but the parking in the condo cooL,lex is apparently inadeqltate because there are always many vehicles parked on the west side of Second Avenue near the entrance to the condos. d) Not only that, but the KOA Kampground entrance is at that same point. And I am told that the KOA will generate 1,600 trips per day at peak when fully developed. e) Not only that, but the Engineering Department tells me that the most recent traffic count at that point is 16,740 trips per day now. Addir~ these 2500-3000 additional trips per day onto Second Avenue at that point is simply intolerable--it will creata gridlock and/or accidents at that point on Second Avenue, plus creating intolerable conditions at other points on 2-lane Second Avenue. And the recently completed 2-lane bridge precludes Second Avenue being widened. There is simply no need or rationale for that intense of development on those properties° Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc. Franchisee of Kampgrounds o£ Amcrlca, loc, I 11 NORTH SECOND AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 TELEPHONE {619) 427-3601 September 13. 1988 Mr. Douglas Reid ' "~.~,,. Environmental Review Coordinator ~Q~_ City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1037 Chula Vista. CA 92072 RE: Case ~IS-89-18 We have reviewed the above mentioned file and we believe there will be n significant impact to the immediate area. While there are other areas of concern to us and the neighborhood generally, we feel it appropriate to focus on the one affecting our property and business. At this time. it is our understanding that the City intends to gain access to their landlocked property through the parcels owned by Robert Scott and then through our property to Second Avenue. The type and size of roadway required to service this and other projects in the valley will have a major impact on our business. The application for the Rio Vista Project on the Scott property indicates that it will produce 1.600 vehicle trips per day. We believe the total possible traffic load should be considered as the City staff has recommended all traffic from any new development should exit to North Second Avenue, Doug Reid indicates the relocation park, the subject of this I.S.. could produce 900 trips per day. or more. While the use of the Mross property is unknown at this time. multiple housing density should be applied for the purpose of the traffic study due to the proposed use of neighboring property. This would bring the new traffic to the area to about 3,000 trips per day. We still do not know where KOA traffic may be handled, d~rect to North Second Avenue or to the new street. KOA will generate at peak season approximately 1,600 trips per day when totally developed. The design and amount of width required will impact where our park entrance will have to be relocated. Sizing and design also will reduce the number of campsites we can offer. The number o[ sites los~: can exceed the point at which we can profitably operate the park. If this were to happen, the City could be faced with an expensive condemnat, ion settlement and loss of significant T,O. Tax revenue. Coup[ed with this is the lack ,}f any definitiw,~ drawings, engineering or plans with respect to the project. It woutd therefore seem impossible to consider "mitigating factors included in the project" as stated in your letter, since none yet exist. For these reasons we feel the project will create significant environmental impacts that will require farther study. Sincerely, Michael T. Bell Vice President September 15, 1988 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmenta[ Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P. O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: In response to your "Notice of Initial Study," (copy attached), dated September 6, 1988, Case. No. IS-89-18, the following is submitted. I strongly urge you to prepare a full and complete Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Sweetwater Valley Rezoning Proposal. Of specific concern is any ~ezoning that would provide for multiple family units, mobile home parks, apartments, condominiums, o~ othe~ than R-1 single family residences, agriculture or open-space. Several significant environmental factors are at issue, including, but not limited to: Traffic Water Quality Public Safety Land Use Noise Aesthetics Geology Density Drainage Community Infrastructure A~r Quality Utilities The proposed area of development is primarily virgin, uninhabited land ~ecently removed from the status of flood plain (untested and currently incomplete). There are no facilities for schooling, shopping, or public transportation in the area. I own property (43 Corte Maria) immediately south of the a~ea ~ad contiguous to that portion proposed for mobile home park zoning. Mr. Douglas D. Reid September 15, 1988 Page 2 Can anyone seriously promise me that an additional 491 dwelling units in my back yard, a potential increase of 2,000 neighgbors, will not affect me? That increased noise levels will not affect me or my neighbors? Is not the potential for a mobile home relocation park a significant environmental issue? How about apartments or similar multi-family units? Do these additions really warrant a "negative declaration?" The catalyst for this ~ezoning project was a Chula Vista City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of July 12, 1988. As a result of the public hearing (Agenda Item 822) regarding a proposal to develop a ~elocation mobile home park, staff was directed to analyze this area for potential rezoning. Discussions between Council and staff confirmed the necessity of an Environmental Impact Report. Questions by Councilman Nader regarding the need for an EIR were affirmed by both City Manager John Goss, and Planning Director George Krempl. Anything less than a full Environmental Impact Report would be an affront to me, my neighbors, and to your City Council. Is not Mayor Cox's proposal for a green belt surrounding Chula Vista an environmental issue? This proposed ~ezoning of the northern boundary of Chula Vista would eliminate this dream forever. Is not Police Captain Keith Hawkins' memorandum to you declaring the proposed development a burden to current police personnel, which ~ould necessitate a minimum increase to staff of two persons, a significant environmental issue? Mr. Douglas D. Reid September 15, 1988 Page 3 Your "negative ~eclaration" would be irresponsible and misleading to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and to the citizens of "old" Chula Vista. Re ectfu ly,/ ~lan R. Campb~l_l 43 Corte Maria Chula Vista, CA 92010 422-0243 (home) 236-1173 (office) ARC/c3 Attachment cc: Mayor Gregory Cox City Council Members City Manager John Goss Planning Director George Krempl Director of Community Development Paul Desrochers City Attorney Thomas Herron Other Interested Parties NOTICE OF INITIAL STUDY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is conducting an Initial Study (IS) to determine if the project identified and described below will have a significant impact on the environment. If the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of the project. If the project will not have a significant environmental impact or if mitigation measures have been included in the project which will avoid any significant impacts, a Negative Declaration will be prepared. This determination does~not constitute approval or rejection of the project. The IS application, project description and other material are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. Any comments on this Initial Study must be presented in w~iting to the Environmental Review Coordinator, P.O. Box 1087, Chula Vista, CA 92012, prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 1988. If you have any questions or comments on this IS, please call the Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department at (619) 691-5101. Project Description: GPA, zoning and re-zoning actions that will result in 14.25 acres of MHP zoning, 6.28 acres of R-3-P and 17.53 acres of R-3-P-11 Project Location: East of North Second Avenue & South of Rt. 54 Project Applicant: City of Chula Vista ~eD~t aR~ i dRe~v~- iw/Coo r d i ~la t o r Date: September 6, 1988 Case No: IS-89-18 EN 5 (Rev. 12/82) FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /~-~/~ Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. . - Date Rec'd ~.-~-~-~' City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT x _~m 2. PROJECT LOCATION {Street address or description) Assessors-Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. Address ~d ~~ I Phone ~/'-~/~/ City ~, ~ State ~ Zip 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~~ ~ Address ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ Phone City ~ I~ State ~ Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit ~ Design Review Board Specific P1 an ~ Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit ~ Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ~ Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans ~ Hydrological Study ~ Site Plan ~ Photos of Site & ~ Biological Study ~ Parcel Map ~ Setting ~ Archaeological Survey ~ Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ~ Noise Assessment ~ Specific Plan ~ Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report ApprovalOther AgenCYs RequiPermitred or ~ Soils Report ~ Other~ - 2 - PROPOSED PROJECT Land Area: sq. footage or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. ~. Complete this section if project is residential.~)~/-~/~-~, a. Type development: Single family ~ Two family Multi family ~ Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom --- 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms ~-~ 4 bedrooms -- Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) ~/ ~l ~ /I-/2 e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures~. j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface ] Complete this section if is commercial project 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 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 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of t~e property anticipated (If yes, complete the following.) ,~¢~-~,~ ~--E~,~,- a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth wilt be excavated? h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area /sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used {air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~_~ 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project Isq. ft. or acres) ~ .~ 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. .~ ~.~ ~--_ Z~--~ 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? ~ 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? ~ ~r~'T~ 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: nev~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? {If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? {If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? i~?~ {If yes, please explain in detail.) ~]j~_~ ~ a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? /~ b.Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? ~ - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? .~-~ e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ./~ ~1~ '~- -~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? !~./_~ b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? .-)~_. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the ! -6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. South East west ~x~ -~~ ~ . 7. Social a. ~re there any residents on s~te?~ (If so, how many?) ,~ b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, ho~t many and what type?) Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant 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-~?-/~- C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning onNorth site: ~t~/Z~/_ ., ~-~ ~ ~,~ East ~ ~ West 1~'--~ / _,~; ~.-~,Z 0 ,, /2-1 goe proje o,fo , 2z e, o, ,gt . 2. Geneva] Plan ]~n~ use designation on site: (~ North South ~~ ~,/~I East ~ ~ West .~) ~. Is ~he projec~ compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~ What is the curren~t park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~. ~C /-~Q_ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) /.~(.]/~r~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~ -9- 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary ~ Jr. High L'~ Sr. High ~"~ '~'/~'~ i~'~ /~ 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) ~/~,'~c Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director of ?/qanniKg or R~epresentative Date -10- Case No. ~-/~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? Tms /' b. Will the proje, ct 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 e. Are they adequate to serve ~he project? ~/~/7 ~ f. What is-the location and desc,r, ipt~on of existing off-site g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ 2. ,Transportation a. W,~t roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? 2~© -I~/~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After d.Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project~ If not, explain briefly. ~' ~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? _'(~j , If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -11 - Case No. 3. _Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards?' ~,~ Liquefaction?, > ,7~ o oj ~ Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~0' ~ /~c~ ~L,~((~c ~. so~ ~,f~ a. Are there anF anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~,' ~C~,~ ~ ~,/~ ~ ~. ~ ~, z. ava~ ~e,e a~>~e ,o~ co~o.'~ c. IS a soils report necessary? y~' h~ ~ ~Z~cOJ 5. Land Form D~/~ w ~/~r~c a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ' 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 Hydrocarbons ,~ X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) ,~ X 20.0 : Particulates " ~ 1.5 = Sulfur ~ X .78 = / 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? What is the location and size of existing sewer l~nes on or ad'acent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact ~f 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 pu~ic street, sewer, culvert, etc. servin~the project Re~ar~s/necessary ~ga~o~ ~easures TRAFFIC REPORT FOR NORTH SECOND AVENUE September 16, 1988 The project will generate approximately 2,600 trips per average week day. The proposed land uses which include residential and mobile home uses are expected to produce less of an impact during the peak hours than what commonly occurs in residential areas. Based on SANDAG's traffic generation statistics the peak hour traffic impact resulting from project generated traffic will be around 8 per cent of the 24 hour volume as opposed to the 10 per cent factor normally associated with standard residential type developments. Analysis of existing traffic on North Second Avenue coupled with projected traffic during the peak hour at the intersection of the project access road and North Second Avenue revealed that this intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service with the addition of a left-turn pocket and a traffic signal. It should be noted that when State Route (SR) 54 is completed between 1-805 and I-5 traffic volumes on North Second Avenue is expected to drop from 16,700 vehicles per day to 9,000 vehicles per day. This reduction will occur because SR 54 will have an interchange with Fourth Avenue and it will not longer be possible to access SR 54 via North Second Avenue. Therefore, peak hour traffic conditions on N. Second Avenue can be expected to improve in the future. Initially, before SR 54 is completed and assuming the proposed project is built out and occupied , traffic volumes on North Second Avenue south of the project will increase by around 1,300 vehicles per day for a total of 18,000 vehicles.per day. The added project traffic can be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hours traffic condition. Since future volumes will be significantly less on North Second Avenue. It is our conclusion that the proposed land uses noted in the project application will not create an unmitigable traffic impact. However, it is desirable to have a secondary access from First Avenue. This secondary access may negate the need for a traffic signal at North Second Avenue and the project access road. This secondary road would also serve as an alternate emergency route. MS:jg/rb (A~MEMOS~NSECAVE.DOC) H. FIRE DEPARTNENT . ' 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? /.~'~/,$ , 2. ~ill the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire .' protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment. or personnel? ~ · ...- .. Ir -13(a)- Case No. 1~--~- {~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 1 3. Public Hearing: (a) PCZ-89-A; Consideration to rezone 20.6 acres located directly south and adjoinin9 the Sweetwater River flood control channel, between N. Second Avenue and the 1-805 Freeway, from R-1 and Unzoned to A, M-H-P and R-3-P-6 - City initiated (b) PCZ-89-B; Consideration to rezone 17.5 acres located directly south and adjoinin9 the Sweetwater River flood control channel, between N. Second Avenue and the 1-805 Freeway, from A, R-1 and Unzoned to R-3-P-11 - Mascot Realty A. BACKGROUND This item involves two separate but related rezoning proposals for the area located directly south and adjoining the Sweetwater River flood control channel, between N. Second Avenue and the 1-805 Freeway. The proposals are depicted on Exhibit A and described as follows: 1. A City-initiated proposal to rezone (1) a 14.3 acre City-owned site from R-1 (Single family) and Unzoned to M-H-P (Mobile home park), (2) a 5.9 acre site directly to the east of the City-owned property from R-1 and Unzoned to R-3-P-6 (Multiple family/6 dwelling units per acre), and (3) two single-family lots totaling 0.41 acres at 115 and 119 N. Second Avenue from unzoned to R-3-P-6. 2. A privately-initiated proposal to rezone 17.5 acres located directly to the west of the City-owned site from A (Agricultural), R-1 (Single family) and Unzoned to R-3-P-11 (Multiple family/Il dwelling units per acre). The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-15, 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-89-15. As noted in the companion report on GPA-89-2, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a draft general plan amendment and rezoning which might authorize the establishment of an affordable-housing mobile home park project on the 14.3 acre City-owned site. The staff has chosen to include within the City-initiated proposal the vacant acreage to the east of the City site, as well as the two unzoned single family lots at 115 and 119 N. Second Avenue. the property owner of the 17.5 acres directly to the west of the City site has filed the separate request for R-3-P-11 zoning based on a conceptual development plan attached hereto. The adjacent KOA facility is a conforming conditional use on A-zoned acreage and no change in zone is proposed. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 2 Consideration of the rezonings assumes a favorable recommendation on the preceding item, GPA-89-2, which would redesi§nate the area for Medium Density Residential use. Should the Commission recommend denial of the general plan amendment, however, we are recommending that action also be taken on the rezonings. This would allow the Council to consider the amendment and rezonings at one time, rather than first referring the rezonings back to the Commission for recommendation should they choose to approve the general plan amendment. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-15. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the rezonings as depicted on Exhibit B subject to the following development standards: a. A master plan for circulation and open space to include all of the properties south of the flood control channel, between the 1-805 Freeway and N. Second Avenue, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval of development plans for any of the subject properties. b. Developers shall reach agreement with the school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the development prior to approval of any plans for the subject properties. C. DISCUSSION 1. General Plan The area is presently designated for Parks and Public Open Space on the Chula Vista General Plan. A proposed amendment to Medium Density Residential (4-12 du/ac) is the preceding item on the agenda. 2. Adjacent zoning and land use North: F-1 Flood control channel, SR 54 South: R-1 Single family, vacant East: 1-805 Freeway West: A, R-3 KOA, psychiatric facility City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 3 3. Site characteristics The property is located in the Sweetwater Valley, between the flood control channel and the slopes which form the southerly margin of the valley between the 1-805 Freeway and N. Second Avenue. The majority of the acreage is vacant and level; the exceptions being the two single family dwellings which front on N. Second Avenue between the KOA entrance and the flood channel, and a "finger" of steep terrain which rises to N. Second Avenue directly to the east of Shirley Street. Access to the area is provided by a 60 ft.-wide easement from N. Second Avenue at the entrance to KOA which extends easterly along the southerly line of the flood control channel. Two additional potential points of access are Las Flores Drive and a landlocked "paper" extension of First Avenue. These public streets are located in the two tributary canyons which extend southerly from the area and are stubbed-out at the southerly boundary of the property. D. ANALYSIS 1. The land uses most closely associated with the proposal area include the KOA campground facility to the west and the single family areas to the south. The single family homes are located on the hilltops overlooking the area at an elevation which varies between 50-75 ft. above the valley properties. This topographic separation has provided a physical buffer from the KOA facility, and provides a similar opportunity to introduce a somewhat different character and density of residential development to the balance of the valley properties. 2. The City-initiated proposals for M-H-P and R-3-P-6 zoning are not inconsistent with the expected activity impacts of single family development, and would be expected to generate substantially less activity than the existing KOA facility. Based upon maximum dwelling units per care {du/ac) and average population per household figures {pph), single family development would be expected to generate 14 residents per acre (4.5 du/ac @ 3.1 pph). R-3-P-6 development would also be expected to generate 14 residents per acre (6 du/ac @ 2.4 pph), while mobile home park development would be expected to generate 16 residents per acre {10 du/ac @ 1.6 pph). 3. The bulk and scale of development under either the M-H-P or R-3-P-6 zone would also not be expected to represent an adverse visual impact on adjacent single family areas. Mobile home park development consists of single or double-wide single-story units on individual spaces with associated yards, circulation lanes and perimeter landscaping. R-3-P-6 development is only 1.5 du/ac greater than the density of traditional R-1 7,000 sq. ft. lots, and could be implemented in a number of ways, including a small-lot (6,000 sq. ft.) single family product, single-story duplexes, or clustered low-rise townhomes. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 4 4. The privately-initiated proposal for R-3-P-11 zoning would result in more traditional apartment or condominium type development as exemplified by the attached conceptual development plan. It would also be expected to generate 23 residents per acre (ll du/ac @ 2.1 pph), resulting in activity levels and traffic impacts almost twice as great as either M-H-P or R-3-P-6 zoning. Specifically, the excess traffic from R-3-P-11 development would increase the need for secondary access to the area as discussed in the following item. For these reasons, we are recommending that the 17.5 acres in question be rezoned to R-3-P-6 (Exhibit B) rather than R-3-P-11. This would be consistent with the City's proposal for the adjoining areas. 5. As noted earlier, the property is now served by a 60 ft.-wide access easement off N. Second Avenue, and Las Flores Drive and First Avenue extended are stubbed-out on the southerly boundary of the area. A traffic report prepared by the Engineering Department Iplease see attached) states that the zoning proposals would not place an undue burden on N. Second Avenue under present conditions, and that these conditions are expected to improve significantly with the completion of SR 54. The report goes on to say that the intersection of N. Second with the access road would operate at an acceptable peak hour service level with the addition of a left-turn pocket and traffic signal, but that it would also be desirable to have secondary access to the area via First Avenue from the south. The report states that this secondary access point may negate the need for a traffic signal on N. Second, and would also serve as an alternate emergency route. From a land use point of view, we believe it would be undesirable to direct traffic from the project area back through the single family areas to the south. The potential for this connection is a strong argument for holding densities/traffic generation to a modest level as discussed in item 4 above. The ultimate decision on whether or not to make a second connection or establish a traffic signal or both must be a compromise between traffic and land use implications. As a result, we have recommended the inclusion of a condition which would require the preparation of an internal traffic circulation master plan prior to the approval of any development on the involved properties. 6. The proposal for A (Agricultural) zoning for the two single family lots at ll5 and ll9 Second Avenue recognizes the fact that the ultimate use of these properties is tied to the future use/plans for the KOA property, which is also zoned agricultural. This zoning action, then, is simply the application of a holding zone to property which is presently unzoned and to a district which is consistent with adjacent acreage. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of September 28, 1988 Page 5 7. The proposed general plan amendment retains an open space corridor along the southerly boundary of the flood control channel. This corridor provides the continuing visual and physical link in the Sweetwater Valley joining Bonita Valley to the Bay. The corridor should be preplanned and coordinated prior to approval of development plans for any of the individual properties, and a condition of approval in this regard has been recommended. 8. The school districts have indicated that the schools serving the area are presently over-capacity and have recommended that the area be considered for a Mello-Roos district or offer applicable funding mechanism to ensure adequate school facilities. This has been included as a condition of approval. 9. The development of the R-3-P-6 acreage requires the approval of a precise plan, while development in the M-H-P zone is subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The recommended conditions of approval for the rezoning can only be attached to the precise plan (R-3-P-6). But the staff will consider these conditions as directives with regard to development under a conditional use permit in the M-H-P zone as well. WPC 5537P KO~ 24 AC ~ ~ ~ea Vale ~,-~SS£L~ KOA 24AC A ~~ ~ LOCATOR K0A 24 AC A ~l Vale .~SSEL~ TRAFFIC REPORT FOR NORTH SECOND AVENUE September 16, 1988 The project will generate approximately 2,600 trips per average week day. The proposed land uses which include residential and mobile home uses are expected to produce less of an impact during the peak hours than what commonly occurs in residential areas. Based on SANDAG's traffic generation statistics the peak hour traffic impact resulting from project generated traffic will be around 8 per cent of the 24 hour volume as opposed to the 10 per cent factor normally associated with standard residential type developments. Analysis of existing traffic on North Second Avenue coupled with projected traffic during the peak hour at the intersection of the project access road and North Second Avenue revealed that this intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service with the addition of a left-turn pocket and a traffic signal. It should be noted that when State Route (SR) 54 is completed between 1-805 and I-5 traffic volumes on North Second Avenue is expected to drop from 16,700 vehicles per day to 9,000 vehicles per day. This reduction will occur because SR 54 will have an interchange with Fourth Avenue and it will not longer be possible to access SR 54 via North Second Avenue. Therefore, peak hour traffic conditions on N. Second Avenue can be expected to improve in the future. Initially, before SR 54 is completed and assuming the proposed project is built out and occupied , traffic volumes on North Second Avenue south of the project will increase by around 1,300 vehicles per day for a total of 18,000 vehicles.per day. The added project traffic can be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hours traffic condition. Since future volumes will be significantly less on North Second Avenue. It is our conclusion that the proposed land uses noted in the project application will not create an unmitigable traffic impact. However, it is desirable to have a secondary access from First Avenue. This secondary access may negate the need for a traffic signal at North Second Avenue and the project access road. This secondary road would also serve as an alternate emergency route. MS:jg/rb (A~MEMOS~NSECAVE.DOC) michael jones architect inc APART] CONSTRUCTION negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Rio Vista PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel and to the East of North Second Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Mascot Realty, Inc. CASE NO: IS-89-15 DATE: September 17, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is located south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel (State Route 54 is to the north of the channel), vacant lands are to the east and the KOA and North Second Avenue is to the west. The property to the south has been previously subdivided into single-family dwelling unit lots. Because of the presence of alluvial and the potential for groundwater, there is a potential for liquefaction. However, a soils report prepared for the site does not identify any significant problem. The project site is within the existing legal flood plain of the Sweetwater River. The completion of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, which is now assured, will provide full lO0 year and 500 year flood protection. State Route 54 is located to the north of the project across the flood control channel and 1-805 is to the east of the project. State 54 will have minimal acoustical impact on the proposed project because of the separation provided by the flood control channel. Required conformance to State acoustical standards and the City's noise elements of the General Plan will avoid any substantial and adverse impact. The current average daily traffic count on North Second Avenue is 16,740. Projections show that when SR54 is complete and there is no access to the State Route from Horth Second Avenue, the ADT will drop to 9,000 as freeway access is shifted to North Fourth Avenue. B. Project Description The project consists of a 200 dwelling unit project located south of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel and to the east of the KOA Campground and Las Flores Drive. The project would include 56 one-bedroom units and 144 two-bedroom units. The Code requires 372 parking spaces, the project provides 470 spaces. The density of the 18.25 acre project is about ll dwelling units per acre. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOt: environmental review section CHULA VISTA The proposed two-story structures have a minimum 32' setback from existing single-family zones and a 95' to 215' setback from the access easement which is on the northern portion of the project site. A central recreational center with a pool and tot lot is indicated on the plans along with separate spa and tennis court areas. Main access to the project would be via an access easement to North Second Avenue. Emergency access only would be from Las Flores Drive. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project involves a preceding amendment to the General Plan. If the amendment is adopted, the zoning will be consistent with the General Plan. The subject lands are substantially isolated from the adjacent residential areas to the south due to topography, and their development should not adversely affect residential enjoyment or environmental quality within the Las Flores Drive-Minot Avenue area. D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The estimated Fire/EMS response time is six minutes which is within the seven-minute threshold standard. 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard. 3. Traffic A traffic report was done for this and other projects in the immediate vicinity (9-16-88) and it concluded that the project traffic could be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hour traffic conditions and that future traffic volumes would be reduced when the SR54 North Second interchange is eliminated. Thus the west of 1-805 threshold standard will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation The threshold standard for Parks and Recreation does not apply to this project because it is located west of 1-805. 5. Drainage Review of the specific development proposals by the City will assure that storm water flows and volumes will not exceed engineering standards. -2- 6. Sewer Review of the specific development proposals by the City will ensure that sewage flows and volumes will not exceed City engineering standards. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority was contacted and indicated they could serve this project. E. Identification of Environmental Effects Geology/Soils Alluvial soils with a low expansion potential appear to be present at or near the existing ground surface of the subject property. Apparently, undocumented fill soils are located locally at the northern extremity of the property. Landslides do not appear to be present on the site. Seeps, springs, and high ground water levels are not known to exist on or near the subject property. Active faults are not known to exist on or near the subject property. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by conformance to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Based on field and laboratory data, the potential for liquefaction or seismically induced dynamic settlement of the subsurface materials due to the design earthquake encountered at the subject property is generally considered low. Our calculations indicate a moderate potential for liquefaction at a depth from 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Due to the depth of this layer below pad grade and the return period for this event (approximately 180 years), it is not considered a significant constraint to development. 2. Ground water Ground water was encountered in the alluvial soils on the site to depths ranging from approximately l0 to 15 feet below the existing grade. Ground water levels are subject to seasonal fluctuation and may be expected to be -3= closer to the ground surface after periods of heavy rainfall. Ground water is not expected to be a constraint to site development provided that the recommendations of this report are followed. The ground water that is present is not of a quality that could be used for domestic or agricultural purposes. 3. Drainage The project site is currently within the lO0-year-flood plain of the Sweetwater Channel. When the flood control channel is complete, the property will be protected from the lO0-year and 500-year floods. 4. Noise 1-808 could adversely affect the northern portion of the property. Prior to consideration of a precise plan for that area an acoustical report will be prepared. 5. Traffic This project and others in the project vicinity will generate approximately 2,600 trips per average week day. The proposed land uses which include residential and mobile home uses is expected to produce less of an impact during the peak hours than what commonly occurs in residential areas. Based on SANDAG's traffic generation statistics, the peak hour traffic impact resulting from project generated traffic will be around 8 percent as opposed to the 10 percent factor normally associated with standard residential type developments. Analysis of existing traffic on Second Avenue coupled with project traffic during the peak hour at the intersection of the project access road and North Second Avenue revealed that the intersection would operate at an acceptable "C" level of service. It should be noted that when State Route (SR) 54 is completed between 1-805 and I-5 traffic volumes on North Second Avenue is expected to drop from 16,700 vehicles per day to 9,000 vehicles per day. This reduction will occur because SR 64 will have an interchange with Fourth Avenue and it will no longer be possible to access SR 54 via North Second Avenue. Therefore, peak hour traffic conditions on North Second Avenue can be expected to improve in the future. Initially, before SR 54 is completed and assuming the proposed projects are built out and occupied, traffic volumes on North Second Avenue south of the project will increase by around 1,300 vehicles per day for a total of 18,000 vehicles per day. The added project traffic can be absorbed without any noticeable deterioration in peak hours traffic condition since future volumes will be significantly less on Second Avenue. It is concluded that the proposed land uses will not create an unmitigable cumulative traffic impact. -4- 4. Schools Sweetwater Union High School District request that this project be reviewed for a Community Facilities District Mello-Roos or other applicable funding mechanism to ensure the adequate housing for students as a condition of approval of the project application. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will most likely collect fees prior to issuance of building permits but is exploring the possibility of forming Mello-Roos Districts west of 1-805 to construct additional permanent classrooms on existing sites. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. Although the project has the potential of significant environmental impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significant through measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study. 2. The project conforms to or is modifying the long-term goals of the City and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project site is bound by the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel on the north, 1-805 on the east and developed property to the south and west. There are also grade separation to the south and west. Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impact. 4. The project site is now out of the lO0-year flood plain (although legally still within the federally designated flood plain). There are no hazardous materials on the property. The project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer -6- 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code North Second Traffic Study, September 15, 1988 Material Report for the Proposed Fill Site of the Sweetwater Channel Improvement, Work Authorization UH 1228, County of San Diego, March 18, 1985 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Rio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Dec. 4, 1987 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Rio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Nov. 16, 1987 A Report of a Biological Survey of the Lower Sweetwater River Acquisition Site, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 20 June 1986 IS-89-19 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONI~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5536P -7- 4. The project site is now out of the lO0-year flood plain (although legally still within the federally designated flood plain). There are no hazardous materials on the property. The project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code North Second Traffic Study, September 15, 1988 Material Report for the Proposed Fill Site of the Sweetwater Channel Improvement, Work Authorization UH 1228, County of San Diego, March 18, 1985 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation IRio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Dec. 4, 1987 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation {Rio Vista) Leighton & Assoc. Nov. 16, 1987 A Report of a Biological Survey of the Lower Sweetwater River Acquisition Site, Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 20 June 1986 IS-89-19 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONr~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5534P -7- NOVEMBER 4, 1986 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF REGULATORY BRANCH P. 0, BOX 2711 Los ANGELES, CA 90053-2325 ATTENTION: GLENN LUKOS, CHIEF, SOUTH COAST SECTION PAM BEARE DEAR PAM: G THE UEbRAAF PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE No, SPLC0-R-86-211-PB - DEGRAAF. 1. THE AREA OF THE TEMPORARY POND IS NOT CONSIDERED AS WETLANDS. 2. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY WETLANDS PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN ITS FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY. 3. iT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SHOW THAT NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTS OTHER THAN FILLING THE WETLANDS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, q. FINALLY, IF WE STAY OFF THE WETLAND AREA NO ARMY CORPS 404 PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. IF THE ABOVE IS CORRECT, COULD YOU PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE A COPY OF THIS LETTER AND RETURN IT TO ME FOR MY FILE, ]F YOU PREFER~ SEND ME A LETTER ON YOUR LETTERHEAD CORRECTING OR CONFIRMING MY UNDERSTANDINGS, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONTINUING HELP, CORDIALLY, ROBERT SCOTT RS:Bs  /~~ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY January 16, 1987 Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch Mascot Incorporated ATTENTION: Robert Scott P.O. Box 847 Bonita, California 92002 Gentlemen: Reference is made to your letter of November 4, 1986 requesting confirmation of a previous telephone conversation. The points listed in your letter are essentially correct. Item No. 3 needs some clarification. For non-water dependent projects, such as yours, the assumption is made that there is a less damaging alternative than filling of wetlands. You would have to clearly demonstrate that there is no alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem than filling the wetlands on the DeGraaf property. If you have any question on this matt'er please call Pam Beare at (213) 894-0349. ' Glenn Lukos Chief, South Coast Section Sweetwater Union High School District September 2. 1988 .r. Douglas D. Reid SEP 8 1988 Environmental Review Coordiuator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: IS-89-15 Location: North Las Flores, East of KOA I2nd Ave./Edgemere), Description: 200 unit residential apartment- condominium development. Request: Mascot Realty, Inc. S~eetwater Union High School District facilities are currently operating at 107 percent of capacity. The present capacity and current enrollment of the junior and senior high schools which could serve the project areas in question are as follows: Permanent Enrollment Capacity As of 3/88 Chula Vista High School i356 1814 Chula Vista Junior High School 1070 1325 Hii1top High School 1388 1490 Hiiltop ,Junior High School 1386 1364 Relocatable structures and/or temporary classrooms have been constructed at school sites to alleviate the overcrowded conditions: however, this does uot satisfy the long term school needs. Sweetwater Union High School District request that this project be reviewed for a Community Facilities District Mello/Roos or other applicable funding mechanism to ensure the adeqnate hoasiug for students as a condition of approval of the projecL application. Thank you ~or your time and consideration regarding this important matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 69l 5553. Resp~e~fully, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly Kampgrounds Enterprises, Inc. Franchlsc~o£Kampground$o£America, Inc. R E C E I V E D 11 I NORTH SECOND AVENUE BY_~_~ ......................................... CHUIA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 TELEPHONE ,619)427-360! SEP 9 1988 September 8. 1988 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Case ~15-89-15 Chula Vista. CA 92012 Rio Vista - Mascot Realty We have reviewed the above mentioned file and believe there will be a significant impact to the neighborhood from this project and those that wilt immediately follow in three areas only; traffic, noise and drainage. TRAFFIC The application indicates the Rio Vista Project will produce 1,600 vehicle trips per day, We believe the total possible traffic load should be considered as the City staff has recommended all traffic from any new development should exit to North Second Avenue. Doug Reid indicates the relocation park could produce 900 trips per day, or more, while the use of the Morros peoperty ts unknown at this time. Multiple housing density should be applied for the purpose of the traffic study do to the proposed use of neighboring property. This would bring the new traffic to the area to about 3,000 trips per day. We still do not know where KOA traffic may be handled, direct to North Second Avenue or to the new street. KOA will generate at peak season approximately 1,600 trips per day when totally developed. NOISE Traffic will increase from 0 to 3,000 trips per day causing the noise level to increase many times, plus the average noise of 200 families. According to the proposed plan. garages will border the campground. The opening and closing of vehicle doors plus other garage related activity wilt be a substantial disturbance, particularly to tent campers. DRAINAGE Drainage from Las Flores has been a problem in the past ','ear even before the Las Flores project was t'inished and the total average runoff observed. Our property was flooded twice. The problem has been temporarily addressed but still unknown. We observed engineering problems that Chula Vista approved and later had Co be changed during cnnstruction of the Las Flores. Rio Vista project. In view of these problems and the substantial runoff that additional development will generate, we want the opportunity to review und have our engineer and attorney apprnve all design plans anti changes prior to City approval. Ted Bell President CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~E~NT NT'SSTATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS~--] WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING 1 ION 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. Mascot Realty, Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Mascot Realty, Inc. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than I0% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Robert Scott Barbara A. Scott 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person servino as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trus~or 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 x No If yes, please indicate person(s) william cannon ' Per~-J-~-sonis defined as' "An~ -. · Y .umvloual, tlrm, co artner i ' ' I~ ~lub, fraternal organization, Cornoratio~ es+'~[P'?°l~t ven~ I~n~s ano any other count,, ci~- J ~ . ~. ~o~, crus~, receiver, s ndicat Ipoliti~'al subdivision ~- ]~' -~Y eno County, c~y, municipality ~tsynn~disa~t~ ~~ ,~.~,, v, any 0<ne~as-~,uni~t~j,, (NOTE' Attach addition-' ~' ~ pages as necessary.) ~/ Y- / ~ S gda~re of applicant/date WPC 0701P Robert Scott A-110 Print or type name of applicant