Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/07/13 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, July 13, 1988 - 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: PCS-88-8: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Canyon View, Chula Vista Tract 88-8 - Kelton Title Corporation 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-56: Request to establish child day care center at 275-281 Beech Avenue - Thomas W. Delaney and Douglas O. Haigh, Jr. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-O: Consideration to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone - EastLake Development Company OTHER BUSINESS: General Plan Update; Open Space Policies Report DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of July 20, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-8: Consideration of tentative subdivision?~.~_ ~or Canyon View, Chula Vista lract 88-8 - Kelton Iltle Corporation A. BACKGROUND This item is a tentative subdivision map for 40 single-family lots and two common open space lots on ll.4 acres at the southwest and southeast corners of East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue. On December 2, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of a rezoning (from R-1-H to R-l-H-P) and precise plan for the project, provided that the following issues be addressed and returned for Commission review concurrent with the tentative subdivision map: common vs. private open space; walls and fences; streets, walks and drives; storage and trash; and development standards. The Commission adopted the Negative Declaration for this proposal at the meeting of December 2, 1987. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Canyon View, Chula Vista Tract 88-8, subject to the following conditions: 1. The open space areas adjacent to East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue shall be included within an open space maintenance district. The exact boundaries of the district shall be subject to review and approval of Engineering and Planning. The remaining common areas shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The slopes on lots 17 and 18 on the east side of Rutgers Avenue shall be included within the common area under the jurisdiction of the homeowners association. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements in Rutgers Avenue along the entire frontage of the subject property. Said improvements shall include but not be limited to: A.C. pavement, base, P.C.C. monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water facilities, drainage facilities, traffic signs, pedestrian ramps, street lights and fire hydrants. Said improvements shall include widening of Rutgers Avenue to a maximum width of 76 feet (curb to curb) to provide for a left turn lane at the intersection with East "H" Street. Construction of said improvements shall also include relocation of traffic signal detector loops as required. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 2 3. All streets within the development shall be private. Plans for said streets shall be a part of the improvement plans for the subdivision for approval by the City Engineer. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards for private streets. 4. The private street entrances from Rutgers Avenue shall be either an alley type or conventional street intersections with minimum curb return radii of 25 feet. These intersections shall be so treated as to clearly indicate that they are entrances to private streets. 5. The developer shall offer to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along the subdivision frontage on East "H" Street to provide for future left turn and right turn pockets. 6. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along both sides of Rutgers Avenue and the southerly side of East "H" Street. Said easements shall extend to a line l0 feet from the back of sidewalk. 7. Access rights shall be relinquished to East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue from any residential lots which are contiguous to said streets. 8. Dedications, easements and access relinquishments described in conditions 5, 6 and 7 shall not be required if those portions of lots 19 and 23 abutting East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue are granted to the City for open space maintenance. 9. Any sanitary sewer serving less than lO units shall be constructed at a grade of not less than 1 percent. 10. 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. 11. All lots shall be graded to drain to the private street or to brow ditches located in the open space lots behind the residential units. Specific methods of handling storm drainage shall be subject to detailed review in conjunction with approval of the grading plans. 12. The developer shall include in CC&R's for the subject development provisions for the maintenance of private streets, storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, parking areas and common area slopes. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater Union High School Districts. 14. The precise plan for the project (reference P-88-5) shall be further conditioned as follows: City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 3 a. A landscape plan for all common areas shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of development permits for the project. The plan shall give due consideration to the preservation of views for surrounding properties. b. Areas outside the fence line on residential lots shall be incorporated into the landscape plan for common areas, and shall be subject to design control and maintenance by the homeowners association as reflected in the CC&R's. c. The development standards shall prohibit any additions or substantial modifications to the exterior of the dwellings with the exception of open patio covers. The type and extent of any allowable minor modifications to the exterior of the dwellings shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and included in the development standards. d. All wrought iron fencing shall have bars spaced at no greater than 4 inches on center. e. The retaining walls adjacent to the west side of Rutgers shall be stucco or equal design subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. f. Retaining walls which may in the future be constructed along East "H" Street shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Appropriate design solutions for higher wall sections may include separate parallel walls or crib walls. g. Driveways shall be at least 20 ft. in length or no more than l0 ft. in length from the inside edge of the sidewalk. h. The CC&R's shall prohibit the parking or storage of RVs in guest parking bays or on private lots. i. The street lighting program including the design and location of fixtures shall be subject to review and approval in conjunction with improvement plans. C. DISCUSSION The property consists of 11.4 net acres of moderate to steeply sloping terrain bisected by Rutgers Avenue. Single family homes encircle and overlook the property to the west, east and south. Single family homes and a site recently approved for a child day care center are located to the north across East "H" Street. The northwest portion of the property abuts Tiffany Park. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 4 The project consists of 40 single family attached units on 11.4 net acres -- 22 units in ll structures on 6.4 acres west of Rutgers (3.4 du/net acre), and 18 units in 9 structures on 5.0 acres east of Rutgers (3.6 du/net acre). The individual lots range from 3,528 sq. ft. to 8,799 sq. ft., with an average lot size of 5,406 sq. ft. The sites will be terraced, with major slopes adjacent to the intersection of East "H" Street and Rutgers, and multiple intermediate slopes running the length of each site. Each property will be served by a single, private cul-de-sac street with access off Rutgers toward the southerly boundary of the project. The dwellings are Mediterranean-style, 2-story or split-level attached units each containing 1,950-2,500 sq. ft. of living area and a two-car garage. The majority of the dwellings straddle one of the intermediate slopes, creating a split-pad condition with the levels of the dwellings stepped up or down with the direction of the slope. The structures would be elevated above East "H" Street and Rutgers and below the surrounding single family homes. The private streets have a 25 ft.-wide roadway with no on-street parking and "T" type turn-arounds adequate to accommodate fire equipment. Parking bays interspersed along each street provide a total of 63 guest parking spaces -- 23 guest spaces or a ratio 1.3 per unit east of Rutgers, and 40 guest spaces or a ratio of 1.8 per unit west of Rutgers. The major slopes adjacent to East "H" Street and Rutgers Avenue are to be included in an open space maintenance district. All other common areas as well as the private streets and parking areas would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. D. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission has already approved the basic layout and design of the project with the exception of the remaining issues noted in Section A above. The tentative map establishes the individual lot lines and thus addresses the distinction between private yards and common areas. This issue along with the other unresolved issues from the original submittal are discussed below. The lot lines have been established so that most of the prominent interior slopes are within an open space lot subject to a coordinated landscape and maintenance program under the jurisdiction of a homeowners association (the slopes adjacent to East "H" Street and Rutgers are to be included within an open space maintenance district). The staff is recommending that the slopes abutting lots 17 and 18 (east side of Rutgers) also be included in the common area because of the desire for a consistent landscape treatment for areas of high visibility from the public and private streets. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 5 It has also been the position of staff that the narrow private streets with common parking bays, the extensive common areas adjacent to these streets, and the close relationship of the attached units with separate private yards, strongly favors a coordinated landscape design and consistent high level of maintenance along the frontage of the lots. Accordingly, we have recommended that the areas outside the fence line on the private lots be incorporated into the overall landscape plan and that these areas be maintained by the homeowners association. The landscape plan for all common areas would be subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. The plan should give due consideration in terms of design and selection of plant materials to the preservation of views for the surrounding single family dwellings. As noted earlier, the private lots vary in size from 3,500-8,800 sq. ft. Many of the rear yards are modest, but most of the lots back on to common open space areas, and each lot has one generous side yard. The development standards also limit accessory construction to an open patio cover of no more than 300 sq. ft. Because of the relationship of the units and the modest rear yard, we have further recommended that the development standards contain a "blanket" prohibition against any other additions or substantial modifications to the exterior of the dwellings. The plans show common view fencing along the rear of the lots overlooking East "H" Street and Rutgers. This fencing would consist of a low stucco wall topped with wrought iron at an overall height of 5.5 ft. and interspersed with stucco columns at 30 ft. centers; the fence would also include short sections of solid wood designed to create tree-planting pockets between structures. Those lots at or near grade with the public street would have solid fencing at the rear. The fencing program shows solid wood along sideyards, and a combination of solid wood and view fencing as described above between the structures at the front of the units. This fencing would provide solid sections to screen private yards, and open fencing to reveal the front of the dwellings to the street. The front fence line would also establish the demarcation line on private lots between individual landscape design and maintenance, and the area subject to common landscape design and maintenance along the street frontage. For all wrought iron fencing we have recommended bar spacing at no more than 4 inches on center in order to provide containment for children and pets, and to avoid individual solutions to the containment problem. Additional conditions have been recommended to address the design of retaining walls adjacent to public rights-of-way. Earlier staff concerns with streets and walks, and provisions for storage have been addressed on the tentative map or revised precise plan. Trash storage has been provided for in the garage rather than common trash enclosures, and each unit will offer some general interior storage in City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 6 addition to what is available in the garage. Conditions has been recommended regarding (1) the length of driveways in order to discourage the use of shorter driveways for parking, (2) the prohibition of RV parking in the development, and (3) review of details regarding the street/parking bay lighting program, in order to address the remaining issues. The applicant has indicated the private street would be named Carolyn Drive. The following comments have been submitted by the Engineering Department and the Fire Marshal: 1. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to Sewer Participation Fees prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the subdivision. All utilities serving the subdivision shall be undergrounded. 4. All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. 5. The developer shall plant street trees along Rutgers Avenue and East "H" Street, in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 6. The developer shall pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with Ordinance 2251. 7. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. 8. Required fire hydrants shall be installed and operable prior to delivery of combustible building materials to the project. E. FINDINGS. Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Canyon View, Chula Vista Tract 88-8, 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 July 13, 1988 Page 7 1. The site is physically suitable for the 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 project density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan density of 4-12 dwelling units per acre authorized for the site. b. Circulation: The lots will be served with a private street due to the hillside topography and the provision of guest parking bays. The private street will meet applicable City standards. c. Housing: The project will provide an attached housing alternative consistent with the density of detached housing in the Southwestern College Estates area. d. Conservation: The project site is not known to contain any irreplaceable natural resources or endangered species. e. Park and Recreation Open Space: A significant portion of the site will be retained as open space, and the developer will be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. f. Seismic Safety: The project is not adjacent to a known or inferred fault. g. Safety: On-site fire hydrants have been provided, and the private streets have turn-around$ adequate to accommodate fire equipment. h. Noise: The units will be required to meet the interior noise level standards of the UBC. Noise barriers will also be installed on some units to attenuate noise from East "H" Street. i. Scenic Highway: Substantial open space areas have been reserved along East "H" Street. These areas will be subject to review and approval of a landscape plan. j. Bicycle Routes: There are no designated bicycle routes within or abutting the site. k. Public Buildings: No public buildings are proposed or required on the property. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 8 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 financial resources. WPC 5342P D,,y (REZONE FROM c~_ TO R-1-H-I ~/P-88-5 PCS-88-8 ~/PC~-ee-F · ~%~Elst H 8treet and Rutfers Read PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CANYON VIEW, CHULA VISTA All 40 lots to be developed shall be governed by the provisions specified below: licant shall record covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements to 1. The .app .......... ~ or eave ~roiections, access for purposes , of wr arama c, ,,,,~- r prowae ~ ............. ~'amr~atibilitv of materials, textures, color, maintenance or repair oz suuctmc*, ------r ~ related matters. Such deed restrictions aha easements snan oe recoruea concurrently with the recordation of the subdivision map or maps creating designated lot hnes. 2. No garage shall be converted for living purposes and shall be retained at all time~ for the purpose of parking motor veltficles and storage. 3. All ]~atio structures (covers) sha!}A.b,e constructed pursuant to those specifications listea on the attached Exhibit . The following setback requirements shall pertain to patio structures: a. Exterior S_ide_.Ya.r,d: Variable per Chula Vista Tract 88-8. b. Side Yard: Variable per Chufa Vista Tract 88-8. c. ~d: 5 feet: a minimum of one-half of the width of the structure shall maintain a minimum rear setback of 10 feet. 4. No permanent or portabl.e storage shed, trash enclosure, or similar accessory structure shall be permittea on any lot. ment of existing fencing shall be subject to approval of the City Planning Replace .... , .... :~ ehM1 h limited to the areas shown on 5. Department., t~encin~ aemgn,a, nu ~, ~ [~ Chula Vista unless additional rovea site DlaIl on tile with ~ . . · t~h~eoia-P?:h~ll be ar~vroved by the City planning ,Depart,re. em.' P.,amt_m_g__~o!.~ai..~ "~;~ ;i~ll be ir~'a unifor~ and harmonious color, suvlect to me ~e Hogdeowners' Association. as m front ards and exterior side yards (building to sidew, al~,),and., ar. eas, 6. All are ,' . Iz .... :~- ~irlo yard fencine and sidewalk snau oe lm)~tea between Y . · on the a rovea rote to landscaping, excepting therefrom driveway areas shown PP plan filed with the City of Chula Vista. S as and swimm, ing oois .re. ay be c_o_n~,t,~m..c~t~e~,~'t~ff~[d~r~.~nric°er ts~dt~eYa/eda~s 7 vo~ . no closer than ~e mlmmum per Cn~,. side roe lines, subject to the approval ot the ~ty ¥1annmg ~epanmem. an~z ' p p rty ............ he a,-~,roved bv the City Planning Modifications to these yara reqmrem~ Department. 8. Garage door openers shall be provided for all units with driveways less than 10 feet in length. 9. The foregoing. Development Standards shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions aha Restrictions for the project. EXHIBIT A OOVER~D PATIO STAI~I%RDS JUL 1 1~ The following criteria and sketches show the type of construction that is permitted in this development. Refer to the Patio Standards developed, by Chula vista for all rafter, beam, footings, house attachments and structural connections, unless noted otherwise on the sketches attached. COVERED PATIO RE~fk~CTION~ The maximum covered patio area allowed is 300 square feet. Structures are prohibited within the side yard setback and a minimum of three feet must be maintained at the zero lot line condition. A minimum of five feet must be maintained from the rear property line for structures built within the rear yard. MA'r~{IALS / FINISHES Approved Construction Materials: Resawn Douglas Fir or Redwood. Approved Finishes: Tho~oson Water Seal or match of wood finish to house trim color SLAB Concrete per City of Chula' vista's Standards and Specifications. Roof Slope: Minimum' slope 1/4" per foot / Maximum slope not to exceed roof slope of house. Roof Construction: 2" x 4" Resawn Douglas Fir or Redwood structural members as indicated in attached sketches. Lattice Panels: 1/4" x 1" Redwood Boards, see sketches for spacing and connections, or 4' x 8' pre manufactured Lattice Panels. Masonry: 4x4x8 masonry veneer with top soldier course. Match veneer color of house or paint veneer to match house stucco/siding. Stucco: Finish and color to match stucco of house. Wood: wood siding, cap, and trim to match house in material and painted finish. ~all 'o.f house ? see city standards SKETCH I 'See clt~ s~dard~ for 12" 2x4 ' . structural cc~ections SKET(5{ II CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT iAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Louis L. Kelton List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Louis L. Kelton 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Louis L. Kelton 3. If ~ny 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 A/ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint ventu.re, association, 1 ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate,, trust, receiver., syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, .city, mun~c, ipaltty, dtstr~ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary~ / ~' 'Signature ~f~appl ice'bt/date WPC 0701P ~ ~. /4//~/~/ A-110 Print or type name City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-56; request to establish child day care center at 275-281 Beech Avenue - Thomas W. Delaney and Douglas O. Haigh, Jr. A. BACKGROUND The request is to convert two existing duplex dwellings at 275/277 and 279/281 Beech Avenue in the R-3 zone to a child day care center for approximately 30 two-year olds. The proposal would represent an expansion of the adjoining Early Childhood Learning Center at 273 Beech Avenue. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-82, 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-88-82. The applicant has incorporated sound walls into the project in order to mitigate potential adverse noise impacts per the findings of a noise analysis done for the proposal. 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-88-82. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-88-56, to establish a child day care center at 275-281 Beech Avenue subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall accommodate a maximum total enrollment of 30 children and a staff of four employees (total occupancy of both sites not to exceed 64 children and eight employees--reference PCC-73-22) without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. b. Outdoor play activities, including the numbers of children and hours, shall be limited to those indicated on the existing and proposed schedule of activities submitted with the conditional use permit application without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. (The proposed schedule of activities for the expansion site shows that outdoor play for no more than 6-8 children at any one time would occur between 8:00-9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.-12:00 noon. Outdoor play for all of the children would occur between 4:00-5:00 p.m. Outdoor play for the existing center includes all of the children and occurs between 8:00-9:00 a.m., 10:15-11:00 a.m. and 4:00-5:00 p.m.) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 2 c. The fence across the driveway shall be of solid construction and at least 5 ft. high. The fence shall be relocated to the east to provide an area at least 40 ft. in length measured from the inside edge of the sidewalk in order to accommodate four employee-only tandem parking spaces in the driveway. Employees shall be required to use these spaces rather than on-street spaces for parking. d. The applicant shall apply to the Engineering Department to have the curb along the frontage of the site designated as a loading zone. The application shall include a request of the City to repaint the designated loading zone fronting the existing center. e. The wall along the rear of the existing day care center property at 273 Beech shall be increased to 6 ft. high, and a 6 ft.-high sound wall shall be constructed along the portion of the northerly property line which coincides with the play area. INote: Refer to IS-88-82 regarding the requirement for sound walls on the expansion site.) f. Any proposed signage shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. g. Complaints filed or observations by City staff indicating traffic or parking congestion or hazards, or on-street parking by employees lunder-utilization of designated on-site spaces) shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for modification or revocation. h. Traffic signal and sewer fees shall be required prior to the issuance of building or occupancy permits. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-3 Child day care center South R-3 Multiple family East R-3 Single family West - R-3 Nursing home Existing site characteristics The R-3 property is located just to the north of "F" Street on the east side of Beech Avenue. The site contains 7,800 sq. ft. of land area 165' x 120') and two duplex dwellings (4 units total). The applicant's currently operate a day care facility adjoining the site on the north. A single family dwelling adjoins the property to the east, with apartment units to the south. A convalescent facility and a large vacant lot are located to the west across Beech Avenue. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 3 Proposed use The proposal is to convert the two existing dwellings to child day care use as an expansion to the existing center to the north. The proposal site would accommodate approximately 30 two-year olds with a staff of four employees. The existing facility presently serves 27-34, 3-5 year olds with a staff of four full-time and one part-time employee. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The front building would accommodate an office and a faculty room to serve both sites. The remainder of the front building and the rear building would be devoted to classrooms and activity rooms for the children. A two-car garage attached to the rear building is to be retained. The site plan shows approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of outdoor play areas located between the buildings and the existing center and at the rear of the site. A portion of the driveway would be fenced-off as play area, with the portion adjacent to the street to remain open for what is shown as three off-street parking spaces. The perimeter of the proposal site contains a 4 ft.-high chain link fence and hedge. The existing center (at 273 Beech) has a 4 ft.-high block wall along the rear property line, and 4 ft.-high chain link along the sides. The applicant was required to have a noise analysis prepared in conjunction with the initial environmental study. The report concluded that it will be necessary to construct a 6 ft.-high sound wall along the rear property line and portions of the southerly property line in order to mitigate noise impacts (please see exhibit). Arrivals and departures are expected to be staggered between the hours of 6:30-8:30 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. An arrival/departure schedule submitted by the applicant for the existing center shows generally no more than three arrivals or departures at any one time. Staff spot checks of the existing facility support these figures. D. ANALYSIS The site appears generally well suited for day care. The potential noise impacts should be substantially less than the existing facility because of the location of the primary play area between the structures, the requirement for sound walls, and the fact that fewer children will be involved in outdoor activities, at least during the morning hours. Also, the apartment units to the south are oriented away from the site and are visually buffered by a substantial hedge along the common property line. The apartment tenants have signed a petition in support of the proposal (please see attached). One concern with noise is the combined impact of both sites on single family dwellings to the east and north, particularly between the hours of 4:00-5:00 p.m. when all of the children from both sites are scheduled for City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 4 outside play activities. We believe the incremental increase in noise contributed by the new site is adequate justification for requiring consistent noise attenuation measures on the existing site. This would necessitate increasing the height of the existing wall along the rear property line from 4 ft. to 6 ft., and constructing a 6 ft.-high sound wall along the portion of the northerly boundary which coincides with the play area. The most significant issue is off-street parking. The new site will have four employees, but the site plan shows only three off-street parking spaces, and in actuality the driveway is only wide enough to comfortably accommodate two single-loaded spaces. Two additional on-street spaces are shown along the street frontage, but these spaces will need to be available for drop-offs and pick-ups. The garage would also be available for parking, but is only accessible through a fenced play area. The existing site was approved Il5 years ago) with two off-street spaces to serve four employees, plus the curb fronting the site has been painted yellow (loading zone) to accommodate drop-offs and pick-ups. Although the lack of off-street parking has not created problems to date because of ample on-street parking in the area, this will not likely remain the case when the vacant property on the west side of Beech is developed, and/or other surrounding properties redevelop from single to multiple family use. In order to ensure adequate parking, the expansion site should provide four off-street spaces for employees and an adequate area for drop-offs and pick-ups. The off-street spaces can be provided via tandem parking in the existing driveway by relocating the play area fence a distance of 40 ft. from the inside edge of the sidewalk. Employees should be "required" to use this parking. Because of the staggered flow of arrivals and departures, the two on-street spaces should be adequate for drop-offs and pick-ups provided the curb is designated as a loading zone. An additional condition has been recommended to require that the fencing across the driveway be solid and at least 5 ft. in height in order to act as a visual screen between the play area and the street. The Building Department and Fire Marshal have submitted the following comments: 1. Provide fire alarm system. 2. Provide fire extinguishers - 2AIOBC. 3. All decorative material: curtains, drapes, blinds, carpeting shall be of flame retardant materials or shall be treated with a flame retardant by a licensed agent. 4. Occupant factor for day care is 35 sq. ft. per child. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 5 5. Provide smoke detectors. 6. Provide evacuation plan. 7. Doors (exits) shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge. No slide or thumb on dead bolts will be allowed. 8. The project must meet all handicap regulations. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. Approval of the request will allow the applicant to provide day care for a greater number of families within the community. 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. A noise study has shown that the proposal can be designed to comply with the noise ordinance. Adequate parking shall be provided to accommodate both employees and clients. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all conditions and applicable codes and regulations shall be required prior to the issuance of permits or occupancy of the site. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The General Plan designation on the property allows for child day care facilities upon the approval of a conditional use permit. WPC 5339P/2652P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Chula Vista Early Learning Center PROJECT LOCATION: 275/277 and 279/281 Beech Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: Thomas W. Delaney Douglas O. Haigh, Jr. 4343 Morena Blvd., #1 San Diego, CA 92117 CASE NO: IS-88-82 DATE: July 1, 1988 A. Project Setting The property is located just to the north of "F" Street on the east side of Beech Avenue. The site contains 7,800 sq. ft. of land area (65' x 120') and two duplex dwellings, (4 units total). The applicant's currently operate the existing day care facility adjoining the site on the north. A single family dwelling adjoins the property to the east, with apartment units to the south. A convalescent facility and a large vacant lot are located to the west across Beech Avenue. The project site is in the urbanized area of Chula Vista and is void of any natural or cultural resources. To determine the potential noise levels associated with outdoor play, a noise meter was placed at the edge of the existing play area at 273 Beech Street. The meter location was about four feet off the ground, at the property line between the subject property and the parcel to the east. This point is about 30 feet from the apparent noise source, on the periphery of the noise producing area. The measured Leo for the play period was 65 dBA. The ambient noise levels were 54 dBA, without the influence of the children. Ambient levels were measured in the front of the school, away from the play area, B. Project Description The proposal is to convert the two existing dwellings to child day care use as an expansion to the existing center to the north. The proposal site would accommodate approximately 30 two-year olds with a staff of four employees. The front building would accommodate offices and a faculty room to serve both sites. The remainder of the front building and the rear building would be devoted to classrooms and activity rooms for the children. A two-car garage attached to the rear building is to be retained. The site plan shows approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of outdoor play areas located between the buildings and the existing center and at the rear of the site. A portion of the driveway would be fenced-off as play area, with the portion adjacent to the street to remain open for what is shown as three off-street parking spaces. city of chula vista planning department CI'IYOF environmental review section CHUIA VIErA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the proposal will conform to the Zoning of the property and the General Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Using the 65 dBA hourly Len estimate for noise at the edge of the play area, noise levels resultin~ from play in the new location could, without attenuation, result in a violation of the noise ordinance. To insure that noise levels on neighboring parcels do not exceed the hourly 55 dBA standard, a noise barrier would be required. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Placing the receptor five feet away from the property line, the hourly average noise level {hourly Le~) would be approximately 63.5 decibels. With this noise level, a reduction of about 8 decibels would be necessary to insure conformance to the noise ordinance standard during playtime hours. Placing the receptor five feet from the property line, and five feet above grade, a six-foot wall would result in a noise reduction of 7 dBA. This reduction will result in an hourly Leo noise level of slightly over 56 decibels during the times that childreh play for a complete hour. When the play periods last less than an hour this noise level will be less. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. As is noted in the initial study, the proposed project will have no significant impact on the environment and will not curtail the diversity in this urbanizing area. 2. The project is in conformance with the General Plan and achieves those long-term goals and therefore, will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of those long-term goals. 3. Because the project will have no significant impact, it in combination with other projects in the area will not result in any significant cumulative long-range impact. 4. As is noted Jbove, the most probable impact from this type of facility is an acoustical impact on nearby residential uses. In this instance an acoustical analysis was prepared and mitigation incorporated into the project to avoid any significant impact on human beings. city of chula vista planning department CFIYOF environmental review section. CHULAVlErA -3- G. 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 Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code Noise Analysis for Childhood Learning Center RECON (RECON #R-1827) June 21, 1988 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. E,VIRO, J"TAL REVIE OORD NATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5341P city of chula vista planning department (:I1Y OF environmental review section. CHI ]lA VI51'A FUR OFFICE USE Case No. Fee ~/d~/' · ~N[T~AL STUDY Rece~ pt Date Rec ' d~_~. C~ty of Chula VJsta Accepted by ApplJcatJon For~ Project No,~/y~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Chula vista Early Learninq Center (Day Care) 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) ?o-- ~ ~/ ~ Beech Street Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION A clay care facility for aPProximately 3C) cth i 1 clr~=n 4. Name of Applicant Thomas W. Delaney and Douglas O. Naigh, ,Tr. Address 4R4R Mnr~n~ ~1,~., $1 Phone 275-!055 City San Dipgn State CA Zip 92117 5. Name of Preparer/Agent N/A Address Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.  ) 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 Plan Tentative Parcel Map ---- Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review-- Variance Other ) or required by the Environmental Review Enclosures documents (as Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan __ Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan __ Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 6970 or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family X Townhous~.. _ Condominium-' b. Number of structures and heights Two structures -- C. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 4 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units Gross density (DU/total acres) 4 units/6970 Sq. Ft. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) Estimated project population As a day care/ 30 - 40 Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area(s) _Appro×. 1900 Sq. Ft. (?) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 27% (?) Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided Three as per plan Percent of site in road and paved surface ') ~ Complete this section if project is com~mercial 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 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 Day Care b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures 1900 d. Height of structure(s) - maximum One story - 10' e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 30 - 40 preschoolers f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided Three §. Square feet of road and paved surfaces ~C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS~ [ If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated z~___ (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 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. ) I r'¢~-I~I ~ro~J~F' 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 describer the nature and type 6. ~ill 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 b~y the project?r ~0 ~-~_r~'~ ~rr'ig°~ ~_~ 8. Describe lif 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. 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) ~ Hydrol o~gy ~ 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? 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. Jr~N ~ JrO~J~FJ ~ ~)~ ~ ~ 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? Children will be playing at certain times. We have visited all surrounding tenants. Ail of the site is fenced with 10' 12' hedge. 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 project site. Two structures 4; 1 BR; rental unit - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Day Care Facility South Apt. House £ast Single family hQme 60 ft. away West Empty lot 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow* Con~su~tan~o~j HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: June 8r l q~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. /_3~ <~2- ~)Z CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: ~F~_ ~ North / i South East West Does t.he project conform to the current zoning? ~, ~ £ 2. General Plan land use designation on site: '~:~Y~ North ,, ~ ~., ~'- South ,~ ,~ East /F /~ West /~ /, Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~_~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ! How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) _ /~A Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? {If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) Water {per day) 6. Remarks: Dirbctor otJPlanning or Representative Da x Case No. Z--S G. ENGINEERING DEPARTbIENT 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 existinq on-site draigage facilities? ~J~J~ J~/~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project?., YES f. What is the location and description of existing off-site g. Are they adequate to serve the project? .. 2. ~ransportation a. Wha~ loads provide primary access to the project? ~hat is the estimated .u~ber of one-way auto trips to generated by the project (per day)? A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~E~ " e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~C~ If so, specify the genecal nature of the necessary actions. Case No. 3. Geology. a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ,"~.,? ~r~:~, Landslide or slippage? ~}, b. Is an engineering geolo~eport necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project b. If yes, what are these adverse soil c~nditions? 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 - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) _Factor Pollution co x 118.3 : Hydrocarbons ~ X 18,3 : HOx (NO2) " X 20.0 : // Particulates ~ X 1.5 : Sul fur ~ X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? olid /Zo iquid What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City '~ng~eer o¥ Representative 'Date Case No, FIRE D£PARTM£NT . 1, What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? ~/~ '~,1~ - ~,~,~,2 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? ~ .~ ~, .Remarks 'r~Marsna~ amlm~ 6' SOUND WALL FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF SOUND WALL REC~N R-1827 6188 T~ whom it md concern: There is currently a day care center in operation at 2?3 Beech Ave. We are planning to obtain the property at 277 Beech Ave. (to the South of the existing sight).. We plan to use this property as a special place for two year olds as there is a great demand for mare of this age group. ?fe would greatly appreciate your support. Signed Address Date CHULA VISTA EARLY LEARNING CENTER (619) 422~-8311 273 Beech Ave. Laura Harris Chuia Vista, CA 92010 D~nector Susan Bonnet Asst. Director 6:30 Open. Teachers set up table activities. Ail children work at a table quietly. 8:00 Clean up. Get ready for outdoor play. 8:30 0utd~-play 9:00 Inside. Cirmle time 9:30 Snack time 9:45 Lesson time I0:15 Outdoor play 11:00 Indoors Story Time 11:30 Lunch Time 12:00-$$O0 Map Time 3 :O0 Snack Time 3:15 Lesson Time 4:00 Outdoor Play 5:00 Indoor~ Wash Up.. Story Time. Quiet Activities 6:00 Close CI~J~ VISTA EARLY LEARNING CENTER (619) 42g-8311 273 Beech Ave. Laura ~rms Chula Vista, CA 92010 Director Susan Bonnet Asst. Director SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES * Most of the children are arriving between 6:30 and &:O0. There are approximately 8, to 10 children that arrive after this time period. The children are outdoors for 1~ hours in the A.M.,(8:30-9:00 & 10:15-1]:00) The children are outside for about 1 hour in the P.Mo The departing times are staggered between 4:00 and 5:00, I would also like to add: . Tuesdays between~ 8:40 and 10:20 approximately 12 children attend skating lessons at the Chula Vista Roller Rink leaving fewer children at the center Wednesdays between 11:00 and 12:00 approximately 8 children attend a gymnastics class leaving fewer children at the center. Thursdays between 9:40 and 11:20 approximately 20 children attend the story hour at the Chula Vista Public Library leaving fewer children at the center. *Please see attached sign in sheets C~VI~AEARLY LFJ~RNI~C~R (619) 42~-8311 273BeechAve. Laura Chula Vista, CA 9~10 DiFL~ctor Susan Bonnet Asst. Directcr SCHEDULE FOR TW0 YEAR OLD PROGRAM AT 277 BEECH. AVE. 6:30 Open. Indoor quiet activities 8:00 Group A outdoors for supervised play. Groups B.and C indoors for arts and crafts.~ 8:30 Group B outdoors for supervised play. Groups A and C indoors for arts and crafts. 9:00 Group C outdoors for supervised pl~. Groups A and B indoors. 9:30 Ail indoors for circle time. Snack time. 10:00 Group C outdoors. Groups A md B indoors for lesson time. 10:20 Group B outdoors. Groups A and C indoors for lesson time. 10:40 Group A outdoors. Groups B and C indoors for lesson time. 11:00 Indoors. Story time. 1~30 Lunch time.. 12:00-3:00 Nap time. 3:00 ~nack time 3:15 Lesson time 4:00 Outdoor Play 5:00 Indoor.. Wash Up. Story time. Quiet Activities 6:00 Close *Group sizes are between 6 and 8 children CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Thomas W. Del~ney 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. Marie Pella Hiqhtower 755 1st Ave. Chula Vista~ CA 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) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartn'~'~rshi- ~oint .... ~ ......... :-~-' ......... . ~,, ,; *:,luur~, association, J social c~uo, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicatej this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, diis~er~tSYo~ ]d'Co~eei I political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." ~ (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) WPC 0701P ~ . A-I]O Print or type name of/applicant% H h City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-O - Consideration to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Gommunity zone - EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND 1. The request is to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the northerly boundary of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 of the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone (EastLake Business Center District BC-2). 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-86, 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-88~86. 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-88-86. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone (EastLake Business Center District B-2) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The proposal area is a level, triangular piece of property which measures 926 ft. in length and 104 ft. in width at its widest point. The property abuts the northerly boundary of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 within the EastLake Business Park, and would be used to expand the depth of those lots. All four lots are expected to be consolidated in order to accommodate a single light-industrial user. The prezoning would place the property in the P-C zone subject to the BC-2 (Business Center Manufacturing Service District) regulations of the EastLake I SPA Plan. The property is presently zoned S-87 (County Limited Control Use zone). The areas to the north, south and west are presently vacant. The property directly to the east is being developed with a self-storage facility. The lots which would absorb the additional acreage, as well as the areas to the east and west, are designated BC-2 (Business Center Manufacturing Service District) on the EastLake ! SPA Plan. This district is intended as an area for light industrial and limited service commercial uses. The area to the north (Salt Creek Ranch) is presently zoned S-87, but is proposed for residential development at 6-11 du/ac on the General Plan Update. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS The proposed prezoning and subsequent annexation of the property, and its incorporation into Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 of the EastLake Business Center, will result in larger, rectangular industrial lots more receptive to development, and is consistent with the existing and proposed pattern of land use in the area. We therefore recommend approval of the request. WPC 5334P/O837P LAND USE DISTRICTS NC= I. II ,~-.i~ 'TO ~U~l~ negative declaration PROJECT NAME: EastLake Business Park Prezoning and Annexation PROJECT LOCATION: North of the intersection of Boswell Road and Miller Drive PROJECT APPLICANT: EastLake Development Co. 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 92013 CASE NO: IS-88-86 DATE: July l, 1988 A. Project Settin~ The portion of the project site to be annexed is in a disturbed condition due to past agriculture uses, off-road vehicles and partial grading of the property. There are no rare or endangered plant species or other significant vegetation on the property. Nor are there any significant cultural resources. There is a potential for expansive soils being present. There are no structures on the site. Land to the north is currently vacant and consists of agriculture fields on rolling hills. Immediately south of the proposed project are the graded pads for lots 13, 14, 15, and 44. Beyond these lots are graded pads for the EastLake Business Center. East of the project site is vacant agricultural land; lot 12 is currently being constructed for warehouse use. West of the project site is vacant and agricultural land. EastLake I residential development is farther west. B. Project Description The proposed project involves the annexation of 1.11 acres from the County of San Diego into the City of Chula Vista, prezoning of the proposed property from Estate I1 dwelling unit per 2-4 acres) to Limited Industrial, a property boundary adjustment, and a street vacation. The prezoning of the property is consistent with the EastLake Policy Plan contained within the Chula Vista General Plan. No land use impacts are expected to occur in association with this project. The EastLake Development Company does not plan to develop the property, but will sell it to a development company at a later time. Precise information on the use of the proposed lot is therefore not available (such as parking stalls, employment, etc.). Impacts related to the use of the property cannot be assessed at this time but the use will be required to conform to the EastLake Policy Plan. No significant impacts related to the annexation, prezoning, property boundary adjustment or street vacation are expected to occur. The project would involve the grading of about 59,000 cubic yards of earth over a total of 2.27 acres. The four lots would be consolidated with the 1.11 acres to be annexed to the City and Miller Drive north of Boswell Road would be vacated. city of chula vista planning department CItY OF environmental review section CHUL~ VISTA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The subject project is on the border between the medium density residential to the north and the Business Park designation of the EastLake Planned Community. The proposed represents a logical boundary between the two General Plan/Zoning boundaries. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Based on the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact a. The project site is void of any natural or cultural resources that could be impacted by the project. The site and vicinity also do not involve any hazard that could adversely effect the project. b. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City including land use and therefore will not achieve any short-term to the disadvantage of long term goals. c. The project represents a minor addition to a large scale planned community and will not result in any cumulatively significant impacts. d. The project will not result in the emission of any materials that could adversely effect human beings. The project is under the control of the EastLake Performance Standards Development Regulations. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Juli6 Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Jeanne Munoz Westec Services 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-1709 city of chula vista planning department (:I'IYO~: erlvironmental review lactiorl. CHULAVl A -3- 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code EastLake I Sectional Area Plan EastLake I Planned Community EastLake I District Regulations EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan EIR-84-1, EastLake I SPA 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. ENVlRO~(~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5340P city of chula vista planning department CIl~Ot: environmental review section CHUL VISTA .......... '; ....... '~' SPA PLAN --=-- -~'T_~.--r--~ , EASTLAKE VIllAGE CENTER & '~ EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER EMPLOYMENT :'"'="" ~ ~ ,~'~ ~ .OS-13 VItaE CENTE~ ~ ~ B~ ~ -. OPEN SPACE/PARKS ~ ~ RESIDENTIAL K~ , ~ ' ~ I I i ~~' ~", E45TL4(E i EXHIBIT A P~NNED COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1-12 MILLER DRIVE SCALE .' I"= /00 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANYI FUR UFFICE USE Case No. Fee ~'~/3, INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd ~-~ City of Chula Vista Accepted by_.~ Application Form Project No A. BACKGROUND l. PROJECT TITLE Eastlake Business Park prezone and annexation 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) North of the intersection of Boswell Road and Miller Drive within the Eastlake BLl~in~me Center. Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No. Parcel Ma~ 11509 Parcels 13~ 14. 15 and 44. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prezone and annexation of 1.11 acres, to expand depth of ~ existinq industrial lots. (lo~s 13, 14, 15 and 44) into one large lot. (See Figure 2/ 4. Name of Applicant Eastlake Development Com~an~ Address 900 Lane Avenue Suite 100 Phone 421-0127 City Chula Vista State CA ~ip 92013 5. Name of Preparer/Agent WESTEC Services, Inc. Address 5510 Morehouse Drive Phone 458-9044 City San Diego State CA Zip 92121-1709 Relation to Applicant Environmental 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 Tentative Subd. Map x Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance x Other Boundary Adjustment b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). x Location Map Arch. Elevations ~ Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape ~Ians Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan I Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or x Soils Report Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage × _ or acreage l.ll acres If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. N/A 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family_ Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of s~ructures and heights c. Number of Units: I bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms _ 4 bedrooms Total units -- d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication} f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor area{s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type{s) of land use Industrial b. Floor area N/A Height of structure(s) N/A C. Type of construction used in the structure N/A d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets N/A e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift N/A , Number of shifts N/A Total N/A - g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate N/A ~ 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate N/A '- TyPe/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings N/A J. Hours of operation~N/A k. Type of exterior lighting_ 4. If project is ot~her 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 i. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. N/A 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated~Yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated?_sg,ooo eub±c ~ards h. HOw many cubic yards of fill will be placed? None c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded~ z.zz + l.l? adjacent acres. Total 2.27 . d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 5o Average depth of cut 35 -- (appro_xima~ely) Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill N/A 3. 0escribe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc ). Fotential ener_~_li__~n~ices associated with a ~a~use industria-~--dev~j a~ devices, lom_~.~_~t~ir_conditioning 4. /~dicate the amount of natural open Space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or aCres) i__~one 5. If the project will result in a the nature and tyne of ~- ny employment Opnort..~.~ .... -- hou ~ unese Jobs ~ ~ --~s oesc ~~velo~ment a~ ~ ] ' .~ne industrial u~ .',~ . rloe ~z ~evelopment ...... mPi~ment would b~ ~ ~: wzzl oe of a Ware- ..... : associated · 6. ~ill 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? unknown __ 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 fo)lowing: new Streets; Street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A 50 foot and an 30 foot fill slope will b the north boundary of ~ ~_ De eraded offsite mdia¢ nt O.DES__CRIPIION 0F ENVIRONMENTAL S__ETTI__N~ 1. Geo___l oqz Has a geology study been Conducted om the property? Yes. As-Graded Re oft {If yes, please attach}by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, February 17, 1987. Has a Soils Report on the project site been made~ .e oft (If yes, please attach}by San Diego Geotechnical 1987. ' 2. Hydrolog~y Consultants, February 17, Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? Yes ~ (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any Surface evidence of a shallow ground Water tab)e? No b. Ar? there any watercourses or · · ~tj%%e%%dto the Site? Yegg.rf% 7 efmpr°veme"ts onor Exzsting s~p~Z%jj~e~azn p~~ graded between lots 13 and 14. to the property drain intoJa - 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. A brow ditch will carry water down the graded slopes to an existing ~raln pipe which runs undergrouna along ~ne proposed parcel 3. Noise boundary to Boswell Road. 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? The project site is in disturbed agriculture and dirt roads b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. No trees exist on the project site. 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 existinn on the project site. NO structures exist on the project sit~. The project si~e is currently vacant. -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Land to the North is currentIV vacant and consists of agriculture fields on rollin~ hills. Immediately South of South the orooosed oroiect are the ~r~ded nad~ for lor~ ]], 14, 15 and 44. Beyond these lots are graded pads for the Eastlske East Business Center. East of the proiect site is vacant agri- cultural land; lot 12 is currently being constructed for West warehouse use. West of the proiect site is vacant and agricultural land. Eastlake 1 residential development i:~ farther west. 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? {If so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation oF the proposed project. Please see attached page. The proposed project involves the annexation of 1.11 acres from the County of San Diego into the City of Chula Vista, prezoning of the proposed property from Estate (1 dwelling unit per 2-4 acres) to Limited Industrial, and a property boundary adjustment. The prezoning of the property is consistent with the EastLake Policy Plan contained within the Chula Vista General Plan. No land use impacts are expected to occur in association with this project. The EastLake Development Company does not plan to develop the property, but will sell it to a development company at a later time. Precise information on the use of the proposed lot is therefore not available (such as parking stalls, employment, etc.). Impacts related to the use of the property cannot be assessed at this time but the use will be required to conform to the EastLake Policy Plan. No impacts related to the annexation, prezoning or property boundary adjustment are expected to occur. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent~ HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts 8, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If act~ for a corporation, include capacity and company name. CITY OF CHULA VISTA D ' IBC~OSURE STATEMENT AP P~ANT' S STAT=~ ........ ~n:~/ ur UISCLOSURE OF CER I~.[F.~WILL REQUIRE DISCRETION R¥ ~r .... EAZN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS N ~'' ' ...... -- - ~L.E.~.~MISSION AND ALL OTHER OFF=r~T--~]Y" UN THE PART OF THE Crmv0 · ~L Duu~. ~-- ~uu~u~L, PLANNING The foiIOwing information must be disclosed: I. List the names of ail persons having a financial interest in the application. _~astsa~e De~eZOmme~t Comm~5~ List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. __The Baldwin ComDanV 2. If any personZidentified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnershi · the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in ~ - P, ~st or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. ~,,~ uorpora~ion David B. Kuhn, Jr. J.G. Boswell -- 3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a trust, list the names of any person ser ' non-profit organization or a organization or as truo~ ........ wng as director of the non-profit ~:: ur mene?lclary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 Worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Co~nittees and COuncil within the past twelve months? Yes_ No ,,. If yes, p~ease indicate person{s) Per--son is defined a " , -- s: Any individual, fir , so~ club, fraternal or-ani =. m Copartnership, ioint v · 'J zaclon, co ' ~ ~,,~u.:, assoclac1 th3~ and any other County -~,~ . rporat]on, estate, tr,m~ po/~tica~ subdivi~inn ~ ~, u~uy an~ COunty, city ~.'~.~ ~ ---.,, ur any other groun or c~-~- Z? ~,,~pa~y, d~strict or other FNOTm ...... ~ / t / Fr ~ '-- ~' ~c~ac~ addltiona' pages as necessary.) ~~ __ S ign~c~r~ ~aP~aate _ ~PC 070)p A-l lO ~q~ Aden '1 ...... :" SPA PLAN ....... ;;" os-9 ~ii ,os-a- EASTLAKE VILLAGE C~NTER & '" - EASTLAKE BU..INESS CFNTER J 0S-15 EMPLOYMENT -- J VILLAGe- C[NTER ITM] I '"" · .,.. OPEN SPAC~:/PARK$ ._..' ~ · - ~ RESIDENTIAL - -- ~ ..~,:~:~ EXHIBIT A PLANNED COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA -8- Case No. I~-~-~ C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: (Z~. North ~ ~ ~. South ~ _ ~ East ~ West ¥ ~' ~ ,. Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~, ~ 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~ ~ ~ P~ North .~ ~ South ~ ~ - i9~ East ~ ~ West ~. ~ ~ ,, Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as S~o~n in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. SChools ~- If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity {per year) Natural Gas {per year) Water {per day) 6. Remarks: irect:or of~anning orK~e~esentative Date -lO- Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any]flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? /. f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~0~ "~.~.r~/~ ~~ 2. Transportation b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~ mm:~f:~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? ~ Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~'cS If not, explain briefly. (" /:~c~ ?/7 ~ ,q ,:> / /;~:.?T r~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedicatio~ widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? 1 ~U~.~ A¥~_..~-c~/~o Liquefaction?, · ( ~ ~ ¢ ~ Landslide or slippage? ~ ~Y/~-~ · b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. So~ls a. gte there agy and~pated adverse so~l conditions on the project b. If yes, what are thes~ a~erse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~"~,; .dF-/~ -~-c~ ,-d~,~ · ~ 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? /Z /, natural slope of the site? /~:~ b. What is the maximum 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to jg~tify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? -12- Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution CO 1~ X 118.3 Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 = NOx (NO2) ~ X 20.0 : Particulates r, X 1.5 Sul fur ~ X .78 = 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid Isewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid iquid l~hat is the locatio~ and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? /~ ~ .S~/~,~ ,/o~,~ ~ ~?~ Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~/'~ ~'~b~m . 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/ne,cessary mitigation measures Cit~ En~eer ~e~ntative Date -13- Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? ~ ~ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the pr. oposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? x[~m~ A~ G4~ d- - L/' City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-O - Consideration to prezone 1.11 acres adjoinin9 the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone - EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND 1. The request is to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the northerly boundary of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 of the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone (EastLake Business Center District BC-2). 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-86, 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-88-86. 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-88- 86. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to prezone 1.11 acres adjoining the EastLake Business Center to P-C Planned Community zone (EastLake Business Center District B-2) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. C. DISCUSSION The proposal area is a level, triangular piece of property which measures 926 ft. in length and 104 ft. in width at its widest point. The property abuts the northerly boundary of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 within the EastLake Business Park, and would be used to expand the depth of those lots. All four lots are expected to be consolidated in order to accommodate a single light-industrial user. The prezoning would place the property in the P-C zone subject to the BC-2 (Business Center Manufacturing Service District) regulations of the EastLake I SPA Plan. The property is presently zoned S-87 (County Limited Control Use zone). The areas to the north, south and west are presently vacant. The property directly to the east is being developed with a self-storage facility. The lots which would absorb the additional acreage, as well as the areas to the east and west, are designated BC-2 (Business Center Manufacturing Service District) on the EastLake I SPA Plan. This district is intended as an area for light industrial and limited service commercial uses. The area to the north (Salt Creek Ranch) is presently zoned S-87, but is proposed for residential development at 6-11 du/ac on the General Plan Update. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of July 13, 1988 Page 2 D. ANALYSIS The proposed prezoning and subsequent annexation of the property, and its incorporation into Lots 13, 14, 15 and 44 of the EastLake Business Center, will result in larger, rectangular industrial lots more receptive to development, and is consistent with the existing and proposed pattern of land use in the area. We therefore recommend approval of the request. WPC 5334P/O837P LAND USE DISTRICTS ,NE. I. II ,A,~ 1'¢ I:='1...~,~11,4 p..p \ r RESIDEN'rlAL - ~ us~ ~s~c~s , ,.~.~.3 II k...-- VILLAGE CENTI~ - ,.~ SPECIAL PUR~ - BUSINESS CENTER -um us~ ~ST~'S · negative declaration PROJECT NAME: EastLake Business Park Prezoning and Annexation PROJECT LOCATION: North of the intersection of Boswell Road and Miller Drive PROJECT APPLICANT: EastLake Development Co. 900 Lane Avenue, Suite lO0 Chula Vista, CA 92013 CASE NO: IS-88-86 DATE: July l, 1988 A. Project Setting The portion of the project site to be annexed is in a disturbed condition due to past agriculture uses, off-road vehicles and partial grading of the property. 'There are no rare or endangered plant species or other significant vegetation on the property. Nor are there any significant cultural resources. There is a potential for expansive soils being present. There are no structures on the site. Land to the north is currently vacant and consists of agriculture fields on rolling hills. Immediately south of the proposed project are the graded pads for lots 13, 14, 15, and 44. Beyond these lots are graded pads for the EastLake Business Center. East of the project site is vacant agricultural land; lot 12 is currently being constructed for warehouse use. West of the project site is vacant and agricultural land. EastLake I residential development is farther west. B. Project Description The proposed project involves the annexation of 1.11 acres from the County of San Diego into the City of Chula Vista, prezoning of the proposed property from Estate {1 dwelling unit per 2-4 acres) to Limited Industrial, a property boundary adjustment, and a street vacation. The prezoning of the property is consistent with the EastLake Policy Plan contained within the Chula Vista General Plan. No land use impacts are expected to occur in association with this project. The EastLake Development Company does not plan to develop the property, but will sell it to a development company at a later time. Precise information on the use of the proposed lot is therefore not available {such as parking stalls, employment, etc.). Impacts related to the use of the property cannot be assessed at this time but the use will be required to conform to the EastLake Policy Plan. No significant impacts related to the annexation, prezoning, property boundary adjustment or street vacation are expected to occur. The project would involve the grading of about 59,000 cubic yards of earth over a total of 2.27 acres. The four lots would be consolidated with the 1.11 acres to be annexed to the City and Miller Drive north of Boswell Road would be vacated. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section CHUtA VISTA -2- C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans The subject project is on the border between the medium density residential to the north and the Business Park designation of the EastLake Planned Community. The proposed represents a logical boundary between the two General Plan/Zoning boundaries. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Based on the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact a. The project site is void of any natural or cultural resources that could be impacted by the project. The site and vicinity also do not involve any hazard that could adversely effect the project. b. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City including land use and therefore will not achieve any short-term to the disadvantage of long term goals. c. The project represents a minor addition to a large scale planned community and will not result in any cumulatively significant impacts. d. The project will not result in the emission of any materials that could adversely effect human beings. The project is under the control of the EastLake Performance Standards Development Regulations. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julia Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Jeanne Munoz Westec Services 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-1709 city of chula vista planning department ¢IIYOF environmental review section CHULAVI A -3- 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code EastLake I Sectional Area Plan EastLake I Planned Community EastLake I District Regulations EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan EIR-84-1, EastLake I SPA 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. ENVlRO~ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5340P city of chula vista planning department environmental review lectlon CHULAVISTA .... ' SPA PLAN --- EASTLAKE V, ~ 4GE CENTER & EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER EMPLOYMENT .......... -- ~/~ ~"-.. ~.s '~' .0S-13 VI~GE CENTER ~ )PEN SPACE/PARKS ~ ~ RESIDENTIAL _ K~ ~ ~m) ~, ~' o.~ ~ ~ ~,. I-,, i , I'~'~ '~ ~=0 i ~ L ¢~ 1-12 MILLER DRIVE ~?~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT ~A~'S STATEMENT OF D~SCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNER SHIP INTERE I~J.L~.~?UIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE ao~ ~ .... ~,~{_ON ALL APPLICATIONS [~u,'.~u~ A~U ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. P~. UF /n~ Lily COUNCIL. PLANNING - The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. ~astZa2e DeveZomment ComDa~v List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. _ The Baldwin Company 2. If any person-identified pursuant to (]) 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. David B. Kuhn, Jr. J.G. Boswell 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, Co~ittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ¥ If yes, please indicate person(s) ~s defined as' "An~ ~dividu~] ~ ......... ~ · ~ -..u~, T~rm. co art ' · · I~ ~ub, fraterna~ organization, cor,orati.~ ne~s.h,p,.jomt venture, association, 7 I cn3~..an~ any other County, city ~,~ .~._,_ o.%_es~ace,, trust, receiver, syndicate LpoTitical subdivision, or any other ~U-~"OU~'~L=F]:f? .'~ ~]c]pality, district ~r othe~ ~-~-~~ ~ing as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additiosal pages as necessary.) ~ ~ Sign~f~%~ Pl~cant/date WPC 070IP A-ilO ~nt Aden PrOtype name of applicant July 8, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission /.~ FROM: George Krempl Director of Planning SUBJECT: Open Space Policies - General Plan Update At the April 26, 1988 City Council Conference, the draft Open Space Policies were referred to the Planning Commission for comment. On May 18, 1988, the Planning Commission held a workshop to hear from representatives of development companies (Buie Corporation, UNOCAL and Baldwin) and members of the public. The Commission requested staff to prepare draft guidelines to permit a limited amount of encroachment into areas designated as open space on the General Plan map. On June 8, 1988, the staff presented four policy guidelines to the Commission permitting some minor encroachment into open space areas. After considerable discussion, and additional presentations by representatives of the Buie Corporation and UNOCAL, the Commission requested staff to prepare more specific hillside development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve a policy of no encroachment into open space areas designated on the General Plan map; however, allow a density transfer credit of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres from Open Space lands to other residential development areas. 2. Approve the attached "Hillside Design and Development Guidelines" for inclusion in the General Plan (see attachment 1). 3. Approve a modification of the General Plan map for Bonita Meadows by adding Residential - Low (0-3 du/ac.) to the southern ~ortion of the property (see attachments 2, 3 and 4). ANALYSIS: 1. No Encroachment Into Open Space Areas As previously recommended on June 8, staff continues to maintain its recommendation of no encroachment into open space areas designated on the General Plan map. The land designated Open Space will be allowed a density transfer credit of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres for use in a residential development area. Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Page 2 In the event that a property owner owned a parcel of land all of which was steep slope, in an area located within an Open Space area, that property owner would be permitted to construct single-family residences in accordance with City ordinances and the above density criteria of i dwelling unit per 10 acres. 2. Hillside Design and Development Guidelines and Hillside Implementin§ Ordinance The staff has prepared a draft of Hillside Design and Development Guidelines in accordance with the Commission's request (see attachment 1). These guidelines could appropriately be included in the text of the General Plan as an expression of the City's policy for future use on properties designated for urban development containing slopes in excess of fifteen (15%). Staff has also researched a number of Hillside Development Ordinances. An example of a fairly definitive ordinance is the City of San Diego's Hillside Review Overlay Zone. If the City of Chula Vista incorporates the Hillside Design and Development Guidelines into the General Plan, then it will be necessary to prepare an implementation ordinance at some later date for use in residential development areas containing slopes in excess of fifteen (15%). The City of San Diego Hillside Review Overlay Zone could be used as a model for the City of Chula Vista implementing ordinance (see attachment 5.) 3. Buie Concept Plan Staff has met with representatives of the Buie Corporation and UNOCAL on several occasions since the June 8 workshop with the Planning Commission. These meetings have resulted in a new Concept Plan for development of a small portion of the Bonita Meadows site (approximately 26 additional acres) which respects the natural landform, utilizes contour grading, protects the natural drainage pattern, uses single loaded streets, provides shallow lots to minimize fill, maximizes views and incorporates a natural landscape plan to integrate the developed area with the surrounding vegetation. Staff is impressed with the proposal by the Buie Corporation. We believe that the Concept Plan will work well with the site and deserves further consideration within the normal development process. However, we still believe that the Open Space Policies of the General Plan should not be altered to accommodate the Buie proposal. To do so, would open up all the Open Space lands designated on the General Plan map to encroachment. Such encroachments would diminish the quality of Open Space lands and replace much of the natural open space with urban development. Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Page 3 If the Commission concurs that the Buie Corporation's Amended Concept Plan preserves the natural features of the site while utilizing very sensitive development techniques, then such efforts should be recognized. This area of the Buie Corporation property should be designated for Residential - Low (0-3 du/ac.) on the General Plan map to enable Buie to proceed with prepara- tion of their development plans. CONCLUSION: The staff feels that encroachment into open space areas should not be allowed because the planning area contains thousands of acres more suitable for development without building on steep hillsides, canyons and ridge tops. Once a policy of encroachment is adopted, a property owner will take advantage of such opportunity. Over time, even the best open space development ordinances and design process will not guarantee quality development on lands burdened by serious physical constraints. Such lands should be protected from develop- ment for their open space value. Attachment I DRAFT Hillside Design and Development Guidelines Chula Vista General Plan Update P&D Technologies, Inc. 3uly 6, 1988 Table of Contents Page i .0 Policy Statement i 2.0 Hillside Development Guidelines i 2.1 Site Design i 2.2 Roadways 1 2.3 Grading and Drainage 2 2.4 Engineering 2 2.3 Landscaping 3 2.6 Aesthetics 3 DRAFT Hillside Design and Development Guidelines Chula Vista General Plan Update hO Policy Statement Chula Vista's mesas and generally flat rolling topography offer the most rational conditions for intensive urban development, while hillsides, canyons and valleys serve as an invaluable connecting resource between intensive development of the mesas and the many natural features of the city. It is the intent of the general plan to focus urban development on the city's mesa land and respect, preserve and maintain the natural, topographic features. Significant, highly visible hillsides in particular are a fairly rare topographic feature in the general plan area. In order to assure that the limited developments that are permitted in the hillside areas of Chula Vista are visually compatible with the hillside and do not create public safety and maintenance problems, guidelines have been prepared that identify the general design and construction approach that will be used. 2.0 Hillside Development Guidelines 2.1 Site and Building Design 2.1.1 Development should be clustered and configured to em- phasize the existing topography and minimize the impact. 2.1.2 Structures should be designed to fit into the hillside rather than altering the hillside to fit the structure. 2.1.3 Lot sizes should vary in size, elevation and orientation in response to the existing slope and to encourage an irregu- lar pattern of building placement, height and setbacks. 2.1.4 Down-slope lots should consider use of front yard garages as well as reduced setbacks. 2.1.5 Impervious surfaces should be designed and sited to support the natural drainage system. 2.2 Roadways 2.2.1 Streets should relate to the existing contours and gently "spiral" up slopes and not be characterized by "hairpin turns" or "switchbacks". 2.2.2 Streets should be wide enough to safely handle projected traffic and emergency vehicles. However, a width below -1- conventional standard may be considered to reduce cut- ting and hillside scarring. 2.2.3 Hillside streets may be reduced in width if the streets are single-loaded. 2.3 Grading and Drainage 2.3.1 The grading and excavation proposed in connection with the development should be designed so as to not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring or any other geological instability or fire hazard. 2.3.2 Landform grading should be the dominant grading method used for a development proiect. Landform grading is defined as a contour grading method which creates artificial slopes with curves and varying slope ratios designed to simulate the appearance of surrounding natural terrain. The principle of landform grading incorporates the created ravine and ridge shapes with protective drainage control systems and integrated landscaping design. In contrast to landform grading conventional grading is defined as the standard 2-to-1 slope and other uniform slope faces. Conventional grading should be used only in situations where landform grading can be expressly demonstrated to be impractical or the location of the slope is in a very low visibility situation. The situation in which landform grading may not produce the maximum size building pad is not seen as making landform grading impractical. 2.3.3 Grading should be confined substantially to the building pad and not extend to the entire lot. 2.3.4 Large cut or fill slopes should be avoided particularly in more visible areas. 2.3.5 Retaining structures should be used as an alternative to banks of cut and fill, especially where such structures can eliminate long sliver cuts or fills. 2.4 Engineering 2.4.1 The structural characteristics of the soil should be utilized as a determinant of the type of construction. A geological reconnaissance report should be a standard data resource to identify any soil stability issues. -2- 2.#.2 Areas for development should not include hazard areas such as ancient landslides, unstable soils or fault zones. 2.5 Landscaping 2.5.1 Disturbed slopes should be replanted with native vegetation and maintained for a period until the vegetation is well established and can be self-sufficient. 2.5.2 Replanted vegetation should be compatible with sur- rounding trees, shrubs and groundcover so the demar- cation line between new and undisturbed vegetation is not evident. 2.6 Aesthetics 2.6.1 The overall development should retain the visual quality of the hillside site. The aesthetic quality of the development should be generally higher than the surrounding residential neighborhood commensurate with the significance of the high visibility hillside site. 2.6.2 The development should be sited on the least visually sensitive portion of the site to preserve natural landforms and preserve important natural views to the site. 2.6.3 A variation in the architectural theme and/or massing should be used to create variety. 2.6.4 The scale and character of the buildings should be consistent with the scale and character of terrain and surrounding neighborhood. 2.6.5 Skyline ridges should be preserved with roads and struc- tures located below these ridges. 2.6.6 Significant hillsides should be preserved in their natural state. Such hillsides are defined as areas that because of their uniqueness or location deserve special attention should be given priority for preservation. These significant hillside areas include: o Unique finger canyons; o Native trees or mature manmade groves of unique visual characteristics or environments; o Rock outcroppings; ~3- o Ridgelines and dominant topographic features that are highly visible from adjacent public areas or neighborhoods; o Areas that are part of, or adjacent to, an open space linkage system. EXISTING DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Development Area- 0 to 3 Du./Ac. Open Space ATTACHMENT 2 Bonita O PROPOSED AMENDED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ~ De~opment Area- 0 to 3 Du./Ac. ATTACHMENT 3 AMENDED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN TOPOGRAPHY ~ Development Area- 0 to 3 Du./Ac. ~ Open Space ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 5