The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1988/05/11 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, May 11, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of February 10, March 23 and April 13, 1988 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-3M: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment to the Montgomery Specific Plan for the redesignation of a 2.82 acre parcel located on the west side of Colorado Avenue, extending south from Moss Street - Dumler/Hazard 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-42M Conditional Use Permit: Request for expansion of an existing church and installation of a parking lot and landscaping at 124 Spruce Road - Woodlawn Park Church of God 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-45 Conditional Use Permit: Request for Master CUP for selected commercial uses in the I-L-P zone at 687-693 Palomar Street - Mazal Realty Investments 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-41 Conditional Use Permit: Request to construct 22-bed congregate care facility for the elderly at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and 'G' Street - Melva Torres - AGENDA -2- May 11, 1988 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-88-M-M: Consideration to rezone a 4 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita from C36 Heavy Commercial to I-L Limited Industrial - Hedenkamp Associates (b) PCC-88-43M Conditional Use Permit: Request to allow selected commercial uses within the I-L zone on a 4 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita - Hedenkamp Associates 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCS-88-7: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 88-7, located at the southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended - Ladera Villas Development (b) P-88-6: Consideration of precise plan for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 88-7 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-5: Consideration of proposed amendments to Title 5 and 19 of the Municipal Code pertaining to dance floor permits DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting on May 18, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms #2 and 3 ~._. _ ___.._______ ___..____...___."__._.___. m___'_'___'_ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-88-3M, Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 2.82 acre ~arcel of land, located on the west side of Colorado venue, extending south from Moss Street, from Low/Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwellin~ units per gross acre) to Research and Limited Industrial, on the plan diagram. A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is developing the subject site for light industrial uses, and has four industrial buildings under construction. This is being done in accordance with the adopted County M54 Heavy Industrial zoning classification of the site, and the City's design guidelines. The development process was started several months prior to adoption of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which designates the applicant's property Low/Medium Residential (3-6 dwelling units per gross acre). The applicant is now requesting a plan amendment to resolve the conflict between the existing industrial use of his property and its residential designation on the Montgomery Specific Plan Diagram. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the Negative Declaration prepared on August 7, 1987, constitutes adequate prior review of the proposed project. 3. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered GPA-88-3M at its public hearing of April 6, 1988. The Committee approved GPA-88-3M by a 6-1 vote and recommended that it be adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council (minutes attached). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that adoption of GPA-88-3M will have no significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-5M. 2. Approve GPA-88-3M and recommend its adoption to the City Council. C. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Subject Property The subject property consists of a parcel of land, which is located between two residential areas, one east and the other west of said parcel. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 2. Existing General Plan/Montgomery Specific Plan designations (please see Exhibit A). North Research & Limited Industrial South Medium Density Residential East Low/Medium Density Residential West High Density Residential 3. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use (please see Exhibit B). North M54 Wood-Fabrication Mill South M54 Fertilizer Warehouse East RS? Single-Family Residential West I-P/MHP Mobile Home Park/Retail Distribution Center D. ANALYSIS 1. The proposed amendment is primarily an "after-the-fact proposal," and involves a fait accompli land use. While the site in question was formerly designated "Medium Density Residential" under the Chula Vista General Plan, and was subsequently designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" under the Montgomery Specific Plan, it was brought into the City on December 31, 1985, with the retention of its M54 (Heavy Industrial) zoning. Pursuant to this zoning, the applicant has graded the site for industrial purposes, and has procured urban-design approval and building permits for four industrial buildings, which will probably be constructed prior to the conclusions of the public hearings on the subject Specific Plan Amendment. 2. The proposed amendment, therefore, is partially "housekeeping" in nature, since it would bring the Montgomery Specific Plan into a state of consonancy with the site's current zoning and existing land-use development. However, it is also substantive. It would sanction the developer's subdivision of the site into four parcels of land, and thereby provide an opportunity for the conveyance of the applicant's four buildings on separate sites to individual purchasers. The requirement for specific-plan/subdivision consistency is provided in Section 664735 of the State Subdivision Map Act, which reads: "No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the general plan ... or any specific plan." 3. A1 though the Planning Department continues to support the residential development of the 2.82-acre site in question, and believes that the industrial use of this acreage could adversely affect the residents City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1985 Page 3 within the Harborside Subdivision on the easterly side of Colorado Avenue, it does not believe that the denial of the proposed amendment would serve a productive purpose, or even reduce the protracted residential/industrial land use friction which could occur in the area. Actually, the proposed plan amendment, which would remove the Department's "hold" on the applicant's proposed subdivision, could be beneficial, at the present time. The approval of the subdivision would necessitate the applicant's procurement of front-yard variances for three of the buildings on the 2.82-acre site, and the granting of these variances could include requirements which at least partially protect residential interests in the Harborside No. 1 Area. These interests should also be partially protected by the quality urban design of the applicant's industrial buildings. CONCLUSION The subject site is being developed for light industrial use, with four, new industrial buildings under construction, and cannot be feasibly converted to residential use. Therefore, the denial of the proposed amendment would serve no substantial purpose. The excellent urban design of the front elevations of the site's buildings, and the conditions which might be applied to the front-yard variances required for the said buildings after subdivision could reduce the adverse effect of the involved site's impact upon the residents of the Harborside No. 1 Subdivision. WPC 4876P ~ LOW,MED. OE,S,TY RCS. GPA'88--3M HIGH DENEITY RES° CHANGE FROM LOW/MEDIUM ~ HIGH DENSITY RES.(C.V.) ~ DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO oo 2oo RESEARCH AND LIMITED ~ MERC, & OFF. COMMERCIAL ~ o 400 INDUSTRIAL ~ RETAIL COMMERCIAL ~--~ RESEARCH A LIMITED IND. EXHIBIT A City of Chul& VlstI-Plannlng Dept.-3124188 M52 M54 PROPERTY C36 :l-P) 2.82 ACRES .... · ~-- STREET (I) (MHP) ........... NAPL HARBORSIDF (C-C) , (I-L-P) EXISTING ZONING GPA-EIS-3M CHANGE FROM LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ~ RESEARCH AND LIMITED 0 400 INDUSTRIAL EXHIBIT City of Chula Vlst&-Plannlng 0®pt.-3!74/8~ EXTRACT OF MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1988 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS GPA-88-3M: Proposal to amend the Montgomery Specific Plan by the redesignation of a certain 2.82 acre parcel of land, located on the wesL side of Colorado Avenue, extendin9 south from Moss Street, from Low/Medium Density Residentia! (3.6 dwelling units per gross acre} to Research and Limited Industrial, on the plan diagram. Dan Pass, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit "B" attached). He discussed the planning history of the subject site. The Committee questioned whether the current development was proceeding legally. Staff advised that it was. The Committee discussed the improvement of the site, including street improvements and landscaping. Staff advised the Committee that, in addition to the currently required improvements, the Committee may impose other conditions when the project comes before it for approval of the variance requisite to subdividing the site in question. Bob Dumler, the applicant, stated he would not have acquired the property if he had known it was planned for a residential use. He further stated that the cost factors involved would preclude the use of his buildings for heavy industrial uses or the use of toxics, and he agreed to restrict such uses from his site through the use of CC&Rs or other appropriate means. James Hartman stated he does not oppose the project, but he strongly opposes any land use which may introduce toxics into the project site. Staff advised that the use of toxic materials is highly regulated to protect the public from adverse impacts and that regulations to control toxic materials will soon become more stringent. Maria Hernandez stated she shares Mr. Hartman's concerns regarding toxic materials because of the nearby residences and an elementary school. Jose A. Luna discussed his concerns about the hazards to public safety posed by the Wilbur-Ellis Company fertilizer warehouse located at Naples Street and Colorado Avenue. Rebecca Luna supported Mr. Luna's statements. Helen Bramble stated she is opposed to research type uses that may involve laboratory experiments using animals. Yolanda Balderas stated she is concerned about environmental issues. Gladys McMullen submitted a petition opposing the proposed plan amendment, which contained 28 signatures. She stated it was her understanding that the project under construction would house businesses which may use toxics. The Committee noted the relatively small size of the units under construction, and advised Ms. McMullen that the size of these units would tend to limit their use to small research and limited industrial operations, with there being little likelihood of toxics being used or generated on site. MSUC (Fox/Patton) to find that adoption of GPA-88-3M will have not significant environmental impact and adopt the Negative Declaration issued under IS-88-5M. MS (Fox/Berlanga) to approve GPA-88-3M and recommend its adoption to the City Planning Commission and City Council. Vote: 6-1 (Palmer opposed). WPC 5108P ADDENDUM TO IS-88-5M FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-88-5M A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, th~ ERC ma~ recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. Previous Project The previous project evaluated in IS-88-5M on August 7, 1987, involved demolition of existing structures at 695 Moss Street and construction of four buildings ranging from 9,044 to 14,300 square feet each for light industrial uses. Total builOing construction for the project would be 44,936 square feet. Approximately 19% of the project site is proposed for landscaping. Parking lots on,site would provide 150 spaces for the buildings. Proposed Project In conjunction with the previous project, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into four parcels in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment and rezone of the property to limited industrial uses. There are no physical changes proposed to the previous project. B. ANALYSIS Drainage Since there are no physical changes in the proposal for light industrial building construction, there is no potential for significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in IS-88-5M. As a standard development requirement, the applicant will be required to provide building pads elevated above the lO0-year floodplain, and construction of a channel to contain this portion of the Telegraph Canyon Creek is underway. Therefore, no further mitigation is required. C. CONCLUSION Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that the project revisions to the proposed limited industrial project will result in the same or less impacts as the previous project proposal and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and · N~gative Declaration IS-88-5M prior to taking action on the project. DOUGLAS D. REID ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 4942P · -' negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Moss Industrial Park V PROJECT LOCATION: 695 Moss Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Coombs Mesquita Inc. 6595 Riverdale Street San Diego, CA CASE NO: IS 88-5M DATE: August 7, 1987, A. Project Setting The project site is a level elongated rectangular site 910 feet wide with a depth of 135 feet. A vacant warehouse building currently exists on site. Surrounding uses include Moss Street. and industrial warehouse uses to the north, Colorado Street and single family tract homes to the east, industrial uses to the south, and the trolley line to the west. B. Project Description The proposed project involves demolition of existing structures and construction of four buildings ranging from 9,044 to 14,300 square feet each for light industrial uses. Total square foot for the proposed buildings is 44,936 square feet. Approximately 19% of the site is proposed for landscaping. Parking lots plotted at the rear of the buildings adjacent to the trolley line would provide 150 spaces for the project. The building would be oriented so that they face .Colorado Street and nearby single family residences and would act as a buffer between the homes and parking areas on the west side of the 1Qt. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed project complies with the M-54 General Industrial zone designated for the property. However, the existing General Plan designation for this area specifies Medium Residential uses for the site. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to place a low density residential designation over the area. Since the proposed project complies with existing zoning on site, development may occur as long as no permits need to be obtained which require compliance with the general plan. city of chula vista planning department CI3YOF environmental review section..CHULAVISl'A; D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Drainage The project site lies within the 100 year flood plain for the Telegraph Canyon Creek. The course of the Creek runs from east to west through the Montgomery area, and empties into the San Diego Bay. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently involved in construction of a channel for the creek in conjunction with the Engineering Department for the City of Chula Vista. Once this project is completed, the floodplain designation will be removed from the project area. The project vicinity is urban in nature and has been developed extensively. There is no biological habitat associated with floodplains evident on site or within the area. Construction on the lot requires that building pads be raised at least one foot above the level of the floodplain, in this case an elevation of + 35 feet. This is a standard development requirement outlined in ~ula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 18.54. Therefore, drainage on the site as a result of the project would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. E. Mitigation necessary to avoiO significant effects 1. Drainage Since standard development codes require that building pads be elevated above the 100 year floodplain, and construction of a channel to contain this portion of the Telegraph Canyon Creek is underway, no further mitigation is required at this time. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact l) Since channelization of the Telegraph Canyon Creek is taking pace within the project vicinity, which would remove the site from the 100 year floodplain, construction of the four light industrial buildings will not have an adverse effect upon inundation in the area and will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Since potential effects from drainage are not significant as a result of construction of four light industrial buildings, the project will not adversely impact short- or long-term environmental goals. 3) Construction of four buildings for light industrial uses will not result in any significant adverse environmental effects which are cumulative in nature. 4) The construction of light industrial buildings at this location contains no significant adverse environmental effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents .. l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan 1987 Part II 4) National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, August 1983 Federal Emergency Management Agency The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of chula vista planning department ¢I'~Y OF ~ environmental review section ( HUI.A VIS-I'A ? (~ FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /~ Fee ~', INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Moss Industrial Park V 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 695 Moss St. Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 618-200-41 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 light industrial buildin~ls proposed on abandoned site of delapitated paper plant 4. Name of Applicant Architects Coombs. Mesquita, Inc. Address 6595 Riverdale St. Phone (619) 584-8448 City San Diego State CA Zip 92120 5. [!ame of Preparer/Agent Same Address Phone City State Zip Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision X Design Review Committee __Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning --Tentative Subd. Map I Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit __Design Review Board Specific Plan --Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit xSite Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ~X Location Map X Arch. Elevations __Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study X Site Plan -- Photos of Site & __ Biological Study " Parcel Map Setting __Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans I Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report I Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12182) 2 B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage 122,850 S.F.or acreage 2.82 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 Iiulti family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range b. 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 light industrial b. Floor area 44,936 Height of structure(s) 16'-8" c. Type of construction used in the structure concrete block walls, wood frame roof d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets See site plan 'e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 150 ~ f. Estimated number of employees per shift unknown , Numbe~ of shifts - - Total - - g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate unknown - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate unknown i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings no~e j. Hours of operation unknown k. Type of exterior lighting low pressure sodium - wa~ pacs 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. N/A 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated yes (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 1,O00 c.y. b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?.itO00 c.¥. c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 122,850 S.F. d. What will be the - ~,laximum depth of Cut finish qradin~ only 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 lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) orobable H.V.A.C. and electrical tools. Depends on who bbys or leases the buH~ing. 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) None 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Yes - but numbers unknown. 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, ~Hll be generated by the project? light industrial use 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: ne~.~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. curb, gutter & sidewalk, fire hydrants and street lights D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIUG 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) no Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? no (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? no b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? nm - 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, curb, qutter & adjacent streets 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? possible - but unknown - 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? no b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project, none 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? unknown - none evident 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. abandoned paper plant & rail loading area. b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. , North industrial South industrial East single family resident West M.T.D.B - rail lines 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, ho~'~ many and ~,~hat type?) no Please provide any other information uhich could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION I, A~ ~ / ,'F~/ or O~.mer/C~wner in escrow* I, Fernando G. Mesquitm~ AIA [President) Architects Coombs. Mesouitm lnr or Consultant or Agent* ' ' ' HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this appl'ication for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: 6, July 1987 *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT South Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use (~esignation on site: North Z~.~;q~d South West " ' ' ' ' ' ri, ch ~j,4~, ~q - 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? /UF-~ 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? ,/k..),,~ ' 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 Rrovide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 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 /Y~ 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby featu~-es due~to~bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) ~£~c~ I~ ~]~C-~ t~ ~[~_~_~ 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: Director o~ P)anning or Representative Date Case No. I% (58-5~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? Y~. Il- I~ L~-It~lK/ ~-k~-~:- , b. Wilt the project be subject to any ex~sting ~looding hazaros? ym~. c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facil ities? )k~h)~T.~A~---T e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities?-l~k~ ~ ~,,_CA~O~k~'~b,\ g. Are they ~equate to ~rve~he project?U~%C~ 2. Transportation~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~' a. Wh~t roads provide primary access to the project?~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project compl eti on? Before After A.D.T. ~.C Ook'.l..'i~'~ ~x~Adl_~k~L-~ ~ -~-~ L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequa~te to serve the project?__ If not, explain briefly. Om~_~ l-~k-C>x~J, e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets?~/~. If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. __ 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? I ~-T ~ Liquefaction? /k~),T)~_~'~ Landslide or slippage? ~~. b. Is an engioeering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a. Are theKe any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~oT ~C~ ~ ~~P~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~. 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~.~, 6. Noise Are there an~ traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution co ~o x ll8.~ : Hydrocarbons ~ZZD X 18.3 = NOx (NO2) ~0 X 20.0 : Id 400 Particulates ?~ x 1.5 = Sulfur ?~ X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid q~(~t / ~¥ Liquid ~ What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site?~ ~ ~ ~" q~t~ ~ 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 D~.~, ~//~_ £~r~':''~/ A', ~'/X~'. //'~ ~ ~'~.~1 . ' - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTNENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station an~ what is the Fire Department's qstimated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment or personnel? ~Z~ ~ :'" V [ire Marshal Dat¥ / - 14 - EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. )5 ~'~1 I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? - A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a. Does the project site contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? A ~ignificant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? - 15 - YES POTENTIAL b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? ~' b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water in any water body? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources which can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change, in topography or ground surface relief features? -16- YES POTENTIAL 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? Emissions which could degrade the ambient air quality? .., Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference with the maintenance, of standard air quality? The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public wa~er supplies? _ 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? j b. Could the project directly or .indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? - 17 - YES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation Scenic Highways Conservation Housing Noise Park and Recreation Open Space Safety Seismic Safety Public Facilities - 18 - YES POTENTIAL b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? The substantial demand for additional housing or affect existing housing? 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection Police Protection Schools Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public Facilities Including Roads - 19 - YES POTENTIAL 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas Communications systems Water Sewer or septic tanks Solid waste & disposal 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result ~n: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-reneuable natural resources? - 20 - YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency ~ plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? ~ 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? lA short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatiyely brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when vie~ved in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 22 - K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: __~It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. __ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. Envi P6~nment~ Review Coordinator Dat ~ WPC 0169P 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. R~E, Hazard Jr.. Inc. Robert M. Dumler, Inc. Union Bank (construction loan) List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. R.E. Hazard Jr., Inc. Robert M. Dumler, Inc. Union Bank (construction loan) 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No X If yes, please indicate person(s) !Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, tr~st, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city,/smunicipa~ity, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combin~t~'~o/~ acting a~a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) $ign~tcre of applicant/date WPC 0701P Robert M. Dumler ^-ll0 ?tint or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May Il, 1988 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-42M; request to expand and remodel an existing church located at 124 Spruce Road - Woodlawn Park Church of God A. BACKGROUND The applicant, Woodlawn Park Church of God has church facilities on a .64 acre rectangular lot located at 124 Spruce Road within Woodlawn Park in Montgomery. The existing 1,600 square foot church has been present for several decades; the congregation wishes to remodel the existing church building and incorporate it into the design of a larger church building to be constructed adjacent to it. A major use permit is required to expand the church, which lies within an RS-6 single family residential zone. An Initial Study, IS-88-70M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on April 22, 1988. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of May 4, 1988, voted 6-0 with one member absent to recommend approval of the major use permit request, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-?OM. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-88-42M, to remodel and expand an existing church a 124 Spruce Road subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to application for building permits, the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. b. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect in accordance with the city Landscape Manual with application of a formal design review application. c. Occupation of the nursery room shall be limited to the total number of children permitted by the Uniform Fire Code as determined by the City Fire Marshal. d. Land uses permitted are limited to religious assembly and incidental social activities. Provision of daycare or educational services for monetary renumeration shall not be conducted on site without approval of a modification to the major use permit. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 e. Occupancy of the facilities shall not exceed 240 persons at any one tome. The following are not conditions of approval but are development regulations required through the Municipal Code: 1. A construction permit will be required for any work performed in the street right-of-way. 2. Public improvements may include but not be limited to: monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway access to the parking area and paving. 3. An approved public improvement plan is required for work along the frontage of the property. 4. A grading plan and grading permit will be required if exemptions in Ordinance 1795 are not met. 5. Sewer and traffic signal fees will be assessed when the building permit issued. 6. Additional right-of-way is required to provide 28 feet of right-of-way from centerline of Spruce Road to the property line, in accordance with residential street standards. The exact location of the centerline of Spruce Road shall be determined by the City Engineer. 7. Uniform fire codes require provision of panic hardware and illuminated exit signs for required exit doors, and 2AIOBC rated fire extinguishers. The proposed nursery is 105 square feet, which allows a maximum of 3 children at any one time for care purposes. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-S-6 Single family dwellings South R-S-6 Woodlawn Park Community Center East R-S-6 Single family dwellings West R-$-6 $~ngle family dwelling/horse corral £xistin~ site characteristics The project site is a level rectangular shaped parcel of approximately .65 acres located on the north side of Spruce Road in Woodlawn Park. The lot presently contains the church fellowship hall and a structure used as a cafeteria within the rear yard. Landscaping consists of an existing lawn area within the front portion of the church, with an unpaved parking area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 3 Surrounding uses include a single family dwelling and horse corrals to the west, single family dwellings to the north and east, and the Woodlawn Park Community Center to the south. Proposed use The proposed project involves the demolition of the structure at the rear of the existing church and expansion and remodeling of the existing church to create a 5,000 square foot church and fellowship hall. Two rectangular buildings, the existing church converted to a fellowship hall and the new church will be connected with a continuous roof and breezeway with an overall height of 30 feet. Plans call for the lot to be landscaped and a 60 space paved parking lot to be provided. Similar establishments In addition to the church at 124 Spruce Road, two other churches are located within a 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project. D. ANALYSIS The church located at 124 Spruce Road has been present at that site since 1945, and was established prior to implementation of zoning by the County within the Woodlawn Park Community. Consequently, no major use permit has ever been filed for the church and no design standards for religious assembly have been applied to the site until now. The zoning ordinance in effect for Montgomery gives very little guidance with respect to development standards for churches, siting only the requirement for a major use permit and the application of parking standards. Current City standards require at least 1 acre of property for church facilities, and establish landscape buffers or zoning walls in conjunction with setbacks of at least 20 feet on all sides. In addition, City requirements specify that churches be located on a residential collector or thoroughfare. These standards would, however, only apply to the establishment of new churches with the exception of the application of landscaping, zoning fences, or walls, and possibly setbacks. Staff has reviewed the proposal submitted by the applicant and recommends approval of the major use permit based upon the conditions listed within the report. The addition and remodeling of the existin§ facility in staff's opinion represents the "best fit" which can be made to current design standards given the circumstances of the church's longstanding presence on the site. The existing and proposed building are setback at least 20 feet from each property line, al though some uncertainty exists with respect to the distance of the buildings from the street since the centerline for Spruce Road has not been determined as yet by the City Engineer. Parking is provided in compliance with the County standard of one space for every four persons based upon the total occupancy of the largest assembly room. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 4 The conditions of approval reflect standard requirements for design review and landscaping, and limitations for occupancy based upon fire code regulations and available parking. In addition, staff is suggesting that uses be limited to religious assembly and incidental social activities, since the site plan does not show adequate play areas or classroom space for daycare centers or parochial education, which often accompany religious use types. The addition of daycare activities or schools would require approval of a modification to the major use permit. In summary, expansion and remodeling of the existing church building serves to apply current site design standards to a longstanding nonconforming use, and as such the application for major use permit may be approved. 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. The proposed expansion and remodeling serves to upgrade a long standing religious institution which has been a fixture within the Woodlawn Park community for 43 years. 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. With application of current site design standards, the proposed church expansion will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. With provision of adequate parking facilities, the use as proposed complies with the regulations and conditions which apply to the religious assembly use. 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 granting of this major use permit is consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan, which designates the site as a church. WPC 5113P TEAL ST. LOTUS LOTUS I I I I I I I I lVVOOpL~WN LC~I6'~. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Woodlawn Park Church of God in Christ PROJECT LOCATION: 124 Spruce Street CASE NO: IS-88-70M DATE: April 22, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is a level rectangular shaped parcel of approximately .65 acres located on the north side of Spruce Road in Woodlawn Park. The lot presently contains an existing 1,600 square foot church fellowship hall and a structure used as a cafeteria within the rear yard. Landscaping consists of an existing lawn area within the front portion of the church, with an unpaved parking area. Surrounding uses include a single family dwelling and horse corrals to the west, single family dwellings to the north and east, and the Woodlawn Park Community Center to the south. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of demolition of the structure at the rear of the existing church and expansion and remodeling of the existing church to comprise of 5,000 square foot church and fellowship hall. Two rectangular buildings, the existing church converted to a fellowship hall and the new church would be connected with a continuous roof and breezeway. The overall height of the structure is 30 feet. The lot would be landscaped and a paved parking lot installed containing 60 parking spaces. Standard development regulations required through the City Engineering Department include street improvements and additional dedication along Spruce Road within the boundaries of the parcel which would include but not be limited to: 1. Undergrounding of utilities. 2. Monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lights. 3. Driveway access to the parking area. 4. Paving. 5. Additional dedication to provide 28 feet of right-of-way from centerline to property line. School fees are required for this project. city of chula vista planning department CI'~'OF environmental review section CHU[A VISTA -2- C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Wi th approval of a major use permit, the proposed church expansion complies with the RS-6 residential zone as well as the church site designation identified for this parcel by the Montgomery Specific Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Roads The project vicinity of Woodlawn Park is characterized by unimproved roadways of substandard width. Spruce Road which abuts the existing church exists as a paved 40 foot right-of-way lacking curb, gutter, sidewalks, or street lights. Residential street standards for the City require 56 feet of improved right-of-way. However, since standard development regulations require improvement of property frontage to current City standards, as listed previously in the proposed project description, potential impacts to existing road infrastructure are mitigated to a level below significance through provision of those improvements. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Since street improvements are required as a standard development regulation to be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, no further mitigation is required at this time. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed expansion of the existing church perpetuates the longstanding religious assembly use at that location while fulfilling current standards for parking and landscaping. Therefore, the project will not degrade, the quality of the environment. 2. In providing street improvements within the boundaries of the project site, the proposed church expansion achieves long-term environmental goals for providing adequate traffic circulation through the area. 3. The proposed chuch expansion contains no adverse environmental impacts which are cumulative in nature. 4. By bringing ~he project site up to the current standards for safe traffic circulation and provision of adequate on-site parking, the proposed church expansion will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. city of chula vista planning department CI~YO~ environmental review sectlon. (::HUL~ -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 Applicant's Agent: Goins and Associates 1177 Greenfield Drive E1 Cajon, Ca 92021 2. Documents a. Chapter 19.70, Title 19 {Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code b. Montgomery Specific Plan, 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. ENVlRONM~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5097P city of chula vista planning department (:::I]YO~ environmental review sectlon. CHULAVISTA ~'¥"~ ? fOR OFFICE USE case .o. Z% [,[[IAI S~UDY ,~ece~pt Oate Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by~ Application Form Project No.~ A. BACKGROUND 1. ' PROJECT TITLE WOO~LAWN ?Ama( OtUaOt 0¥ GCO IN OBIS? 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 124 SPRUCE ROAD . Assessors. Book, Page &Parce] No. 624-032-12 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDITION OF A t~--'W MAIN SANC~PUARY, CONVERT EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING I~O A FELLOWSHIP )~LL 4. Name of Applicant SA~ AS ABC~,E Address 124 SPRUCE R~AD '' Phone City CHU~A VISTA State c~, Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent GOINS & ASSOCIATES Address 1177 C~RE~NFIELD DRIVE Phone 588-5100 City EL CAJON State C~A Zip 92021 Relation to Applicant HIRED 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Enviro~ntal Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision xx 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 xx Cond. Use Permit xx Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance ' Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map xx Arch. Elevations .... Eng. Geology Report --- Grading Plan xx Landscape Plans Hydrological Study xx Site Plan xx Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map S:tting 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 ' - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT ]. Land Area: sq. footage 35,678 .- or acreage .81 AC if land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. U~T~RMINED ~iLL h~ D~OICATED TO SP~t~ 2. Complete this section if project Is residential. a. Type development: Single fami!y Two family Multt family ~ . Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights .-. c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom ~- ' 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units -, d. Gross density (DU/total acres) e. Net density (DU/tota] acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sa)e or rental price range h~' Square 'footage of floor area(s) t. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces t~ be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project .is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(si ~' c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets ' e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided .... f, Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior, lighting 4.' 'If'proje6t (s other than residential, commercial or industrial' complete this section. a. Type of project c~t~c~ FACILITIES .......... b. Type of facilities provided sa)~c~u~¥, FE~.bCWSHIm ~ c. Square feet of enclosed structures 4,668 d. Height of structure(s) - maximum 25 feet e. Ultimate occupancy load of project 222 f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided "54 g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces 16,689 sg. ft. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. '". ' N/A ...... 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) .~ a. Excluding trenches to be backfi)led, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How .... ' -' -' iil d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Naximum depth of fill Average depth of fill : 3. Describe all ener~ consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~;AC, LI(~TING, EXISTING FAC1LITIE$~ USING ELECTRIC/TY Al~ NATU~L -- GAS 4. Indicate the am°u~ of n~tu~al open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 13,681 sq.ft. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A 6. ;/ill highly f]ammab]e or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or Stored within the project site? N/A 7. How many estimated autOmObile trips, per day, ~li]] be generated by the project? NOT ~a~V~OUSL¥ CALCUnATED 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 ]imited to the following: neu streets; street widening; extension of gas, e)ectric, and sewer lines; cut and fil] slopes; and pedestrian and blcyc)e faci]tttes. AL~ UTILITIES APE AVAILA~! ~: TO THE BUILDI~;G, SEE ENCLOSED FIRE FLOW TEST FO}{ HYDRA~ ~%~ ;~QUI~{E~S D. D£SCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL S[TIING ]. ' Geo]o$~ Has a ~eo]ogy study been conducted on the property? :;o . (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? ~o (If yes, please attach) 2. ~ydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please expla(n in detai].) a.Is there any surface evidence of a sha]]ow ground water table? ~o b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? ~o - 5 - C. Does runoff fron the projuLt Sltc' drain dir,-ct]y into or toward a domestic water su.pply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? ~<o e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location, x~,:;~ 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise gen~rated,fFom the proposed project site or from points of access which may iF~Fact the surrounding or adjacent land u.ses? ~;,~ 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical, resources loca,ted 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 curruntly existing on the project site. ~::,::.]:z;:G CiR:RCN i~i5il.h]NG ~}{I~. IS CO~ 'fi~A~ OLD~ - 6 - b. Describe all structures and 1,md uses currently existing on adjacent property. East 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current u~:~p)oyment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and ~hat type?) Please provide any other information which cou)d expedite the evaluation of ~e proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION Owne r/owner--~ n escrow' --~-6~-s~t~ or Agent* HERESY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statec:ents and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. / '/ *If acting for a Corporation, includt, capacity and company na~e. Case No. /6 ~--70/~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site:North ~0~9 South ~ -~ East West ~ Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~_c3~J /~/rJ([( r~''~ ~'~'~-~i ~y North South East West ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated fo~.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 P~k? and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage ~Qqu~rements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ,A~ I~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary 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 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: DireCtor et ~lann~ng o~ Representative Date Case NO. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? . b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~ d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? Om/~ .~~ ~o ~ ~. e. Are they adequate to serve the project?, f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~m/~ xd~mc~ ~fm~ e~ ~d~ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ,, , 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? ~o t~C~?t~--/~'~,,- ~)~/~6/d Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project~ If not, expl~ain~brief, ly.._¥~¢3 ~_~/~/)~-~. ,f~l~--- I e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, w~dening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? .~$ If so, specify th~ general nature o~ the necessary actio~s.~ - 11 - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~'/1,~.~ Liquefaction? ~ ~.~£'/" Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~0 · 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the p~oject site? (/~~ ~al/.~ ~ ~of~ ~o~ ' I b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c, Is a soils report necessary? I 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 enou;l~ to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution co '~! × 118.3 Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) v X 20.0 = ! Particulates X 1.5 : / Sulfur ~ X .78 : ~- 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ma /&/~Z~rUq~id · ~f// ~.~.Y / ~hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent ~r~ ~' 7 ~he~ 8dequs(e (o serve (he p~oposod p~o~ec~? Are g. Public F~c~]~os/Resources ]mpsc~ [5 (he p~o~oc( could exceed (he (h~eshold o~ hsv~ng 8n~ possible s~gn~f~csn( ~mp~c( on (ho environment, please ~den(~5~ ~he public fsc~l~(~es/~esou~ces 8nd/or hsz~ds 8nd describe (he 8dverse ~mpsc(. ([nclude 8n~ po(en(~8] ~o 8((~n 8nd/o~ exceed ~he c8p8c~(~ of 8n~ public s(~ee(, sowe~, culvert, e(c. serving (he p~o~oc~ 8~e8.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures Cit~ En~neer ~r'R~entatige Date Case No. /$ _~o~_~?~?~ H. FIRE DEPARTMENT . 1, What is the distance to the nearest. . fire~ation. , and what is the ~ire Department's estimated reaction time? ~~ 2, Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase.in equipment " or personnel? .~lx) · .. ~' ~ Fire Marshal Da CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address ]c~,~f~ ~. - ~>~v, Plan File No.__ Checker__~ Date Z~/~/~>ff Type Constr. Occupancy ~ No. Stories f Bldg. Area ~ ~ The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB-29 Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CEiNTE: R 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011 ~' (6[9) 691.5553 APR 2 2 1988 April 20, 1988 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Chula Vista Planning Department Public Service Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-88-67M IS-88-70M The above projects will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. School fees will be imposed at the time of building permit request. Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly ~I \ I j ~I ~I ~ \/ \1 ~ ~ \11 \11 i 1 ~ ) -' § I I I I I I 11111111111 .... ~ ~~. ~I I I I I I III1II IIII ~ ~ ..... U Q) ~ ~o L o~ ~ ~ IV C1I'µ Q L. r- fO :;, Q) ('0. ~ ~~ ~ ~OQ) u r- fO~ c U Q,/L.,µfO o,µu..... ~ va fO >,Q.I.....O'I 0 ·...VlL IIIL-U..... . .s=..- r- C. 11.1 L...... ... .......... =' >, 0 OJ 0 c:: ....0.. 'µVI~Q)e L.v fO~O.s=. ~ ~~ ..... u......... 041 L.., c.u~ ~.- Q,I U c: s... ....('-0 GJ"QJ .... 0 ........ <'0 s....... ....,... 0 u..... VI .... U So. Q) L. ttJ U 0'1 Q) +' L -EQ) _1041 .-- VIOL. _41 c:.s=. CQ,/ ~Q)""Q)"'" ......... IOL..- L......O................ we:: C~_VlC VI~V 010 Q)VI c......... .....41 _Cr-~Q) 41.... Q).....u >_ Q,/ttJ VIe VI~ CU"CtI:J" E~ ..c::VI..... -c.s=.Q.I +-' .,....... L- .....u...... 00 ........01 lØQ"IJ- 0"0 X.J:: VlQ) 0'-.... III "Ou ..c::o L::I c...... Q)+, c.c:' O~L-Q) J CQ).- ca...... ::I ...... 0..... >, OL Q.I.s=._ .....L.a.... u Q)O~.....~ U ,.... "CI s.. U U E 0.'" 1O:::J.c ): VI U 11::..... . ... Q) Q) ... >, :::J..... Q) +-' C ... s.. ... Q) .... VI ..... 0 c: UL-.s=.VlC -c..c:"O -100 _0..... .c::l L.Q,/ 0 Q)Q.I+-,Q.l1O O):c: ::I Q) ::I......., Q,/u_ 'µVlr- >,11I ..... VI s.. CTlO..... L. Q) III.......... III >..... II:! 11I::1", ....... ... Q) _c: U..........IO 41010 Q)VI 1O.s=.> Q) Q) L.e" VI 10 ..- -C"'LG.lO CC1/L s... C. L....cn.c~ s..."'C1- IOQ,/ >, Q) >'''''' "Oae. _La c uc: 4110 Q)E 10 L. .......... +Ie: VI"'" 10 _oL _41_ .-4110 r-L. ...-41 J:c U 41_ uQ)+-' C ... "0 10....0 10....."0 t'ØCJI"- rou+, Ur- c.co Q) ......... IV c..c:Q.I UCQ) VI..... ..,...._ VIe::! VlIOU IV 00'1..... ~Q) IOU '2Q)"~g~ ~"'~.... g,go;;; g,CIIo; g~~ g,....:g, t:0I QJ::ix-:t: oo~ V)i:.. LL~....> ao~ W aLu ou~ ou~ OLe QJC....~ >01 C~ U ~~ 0 L~C U L~_ L_ L U La_ ~_ ~_ULC ~V)~_U L "~E: C.CfO L c.....r;n 0....._ 0._ c. 03: ~''''W.'''QJ ....e.... QJ _0 ~ _'0 ~ QJO QJ~ rdL ...._ LO OOUC............~CQJ...._ ~~rd QJQJ QJ C 0 QJoo..... QJ~u Wuo QJ~rd c._ CLWC~_LW__~ ~ e~~~ ~""QJ .... ~ 0 ~....- ~_ ~O_ _ ~-UOOOfOC.~QJ~ ~_fO""_ ~- QJ ~QJW ........s... ~....u ~_~ QJo ~uV)u~z~oV)~~ '0 U C .... ~ a:: ~ ItS QJ 0 >,_ ~ C ~ ~ _WfO_~OO -ew _....~ _fO.... ....~C __W ~ ~~ .n......- .....·...L.... U .... Q./c.~ ___.... QJ W ~ O__ru·..._ -c/O fO _LL _L_ 0 .... _WO .... ....~ UfOO~~3: 3fOL L 301'0 30~ CfOQJ 3LQ, ~ _.... o ~ - ~ ~ o - c - . . ~. . . . fO. m 1'0 ~ U fO ~ U ~ ~ ~ o - N ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~I _~I ~ -' .. ~ I I I I I I I I I I .... ~ ~ ~I I I I I I I I I I / ~ u ~ o E ..-..~ -~ fO ~C W ~ C CfO __ >,u C 0 WU ru >, +-' L .. W E_ L +-' L _ - ~ .... - +-,roo Q./_ _ C W :>t +-' o;;;~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ fO fO 0 E~L.... -3: fO LC 0'" Q) _ >,'0 .... 0 '" L >, QJ - W CC W L.... C +-'QJt'oo CC ~ L.... .. ~ rdfO U .... >. 0 QJ~.... fO CQJ _.n .... .... .... C fO~__ _ ~fOQJ E_.... fO 0 L -.... fO c__ ~ ........ 00 fO E 0 Q, 0 C _fOfO QJ 1'0 __ ....L~ LQJ C "U -c >-, QJ 0 U L "0. _'-" OL fOL CO", C........ LO C>,c..... QJ U o - L 0_ C co.... ~~ _....~ u....u ~C o - 01 -_ 0 QJ_ ........ QJ +-' L __ ....~ :: 0 ~ ~~ ~ :;:;QJ"~ ~~ ::';L :2~g G... +-'fO ~ C _0'" ruL~ >~ ~~w ~C."" WC UC .... 0 -c 0 QJ~ L~+-, Q./a:: ....a.... ....E LfOroo Q)O Q) -- ·...L.s:::.>, QJ.......... L_ QJ fO .....?-t _1.1'-" ~- L.... ~ >-........ +-'fOQ) LL3: QJ L ~___ ~...... .... 0 fO ...-s... QJ'-" QJ +-'Q)fO_QJ ~fO +-'.... U fO .s:::.__ fOQ./Q) ~ev +-'.....u _....C +-'....> .......... 1.1 E ..... +-'fO c.+-, +-,_ UfO_ ...._0 UCQJ .... W W ~ LC _~ _Erd 01 QJ3:..- 0_ Q)~_ .... ~ 1.1 Ow ~~ fOWE ~QJ ~ n +-'c+-'~_ U>, 0 +-' .... .... _+-,_ 0..... O>,~ U fO O....QJ QJ.n L C ~roo C~ WL +-' fO LfOC, QJQJ.... L .... ......,L 0. 1'0 3:>, OE U_ CLUe-- cL c.~ ......,......... Q.fO_ OfO U +-' _fO Crd fOO >, o+-, L on 0 LQJ QJ _roo ....-.... QJ .... C..... _.... QJCO LfOL QJcc c.c.s:::. _w C__ ruw L~ </IW___ +-' >,..co o.+-'O.s:::..... +-' -~ 01'0 n+-' WL .nL 1'0 /0>, +-' ...... >, C. +-'...... >, Wrd CO -~ Lrd ~ru ~~Q,c .....+-' _ +-'...... Q,Q,w +-'c ......c -c OlE </10'" W+-' L"U UI......~O 0_ __ '01.1.... ..cU__ "'t:__QJ ....e ..... _UI UI uv) evc UIC_ ___ fO _w_ +-'1.1_ _~_ o ~ UI -~ 1'0 ....fO QJ_fOOI >1'0 ~ ~~rd fOn ~""n /0 UIL 0 L [ ~L C+-' ~o~w ~ 0 o~~ ....co owe g - ~ u .. 0 ~ ~ 0 - ~ .... E U ~ .." ~ u "''' "'I _ ~ E u ~ ~ '" ~ L +-' .... . . /0 o. . < /0 n 3 Z fO n . . . ~ ~ ~ -~ ---.-. _._,---~- - .-.. "-"" -~'''---''--'''-'~-' "" ,,~ "... .Q '" "" >.- '" ~ ~~ ~ ~ "" ~ " -" ... ~c ftlQ,o.. "E'" E"u ~" ca.'" o E 0 .....- .. ... ~ "''' en O\,D 11I.I LU ..... ..c 0:: ............. ::J ........ V) E..... ~ < ];0 w ~ I :::E O"'C C co .... :z VI"'·... N 0 C ..... ...... 0...."' I I- ..... U L. < \l)Q.Q CJ ''''' .., 0. ...... >00 .... ,,~ ~ ~~ :::e: +-111I.I° a:: u...c c: o 11I.I.... 0 .~ ~ V) 00.... Z L-.... U o c..C::J .... .... L. V> '" ... ..... c"O VI > 'r- Q.O C W ;!:.... 0 c:: orau I- ~å ~ u 0 c..c c w ~ .. en () 6 GJ 3~ :5 c:: ..cCIII.I O~ ~ I--~ .. ~ u " ~ " o ." ....... .-. L. oU . . 21 ~I \, ~I \1-' \1 \1 '\I -' « ~ I I I I. I I I .... o , Q. ~I I 1 1 r I I I , u -" ~ 11I.I Vln::JC C 'U +-I..c IC::)C VI\.. IV ra.... LUIII.I cra"'ColII.I .... 0 ,..L "' /....- 0_> OIll.l_U.t:1II.I U ~....oo .... ~"' ..c..c_ us>......c 11I.I ~ 00 ~ UII!.I Q.O.... VI~""'VI Q.O _c.... _.- c"".... u Q.O> "OJ,.. OQ.O ........ ..~III.I"'O_ ......... Q _c C~ ~",n::J ::J ....~cQ.Ocu ra........c: ....."'0_ 11I.I U ""....",11I.I III.IC O..c~. ou ra_c_ra III.ID_"'CuC 11I.I11I.I fI::::I U"CI en", ,.. Q,I..- .... ........ 0..... Co ..c > 10 Q Q.I",'" .... V> .. III.I~-- L..... 0."'0>11I.I L. rac III.IE- U_..C~~ .... n::JL._ ,.... Eu we. ....11:::I> .....or- ·....f'Of'>oVl"C)·..... ........CVIOQ,lOVlU ....Q,"CI Q. "Q.lU e 1II.I:::I..cQJ .".... ....>0,11.... Q, .s;:II:I"'C ..........QI c> ..~~n::J III.Ig 5~"'C"'" ~~~ ~~~....~~~ ~S~~>Q.~~ ~¡t Q...- c c_ ......... Q CCE ....""ocQ.Q.... VlEe c...~.. c ..c ..c'U.ora "'+-' ..........:::IC U Q()C o·....cnCI.I·........:::J .....:::JOVlQ.l<llOQ. 0_..... .....:::JVI "' 0'1:10", C .....EO O"Q Et....... uuu.......c:"'L. '-/V..... ....Q..... ~~ ~uu ~ oc~ _$~~ ~ u~oo~ ~.~~ LU~O µu ~µ _ U 00_ ~~~o C~ oµ~~ ~ >µ oc_ -~ µ ~~ ~> ~~~L~O~ e~_......~......~~ cc -u~ ~> c~c_...... ~_c ~µc·~__~ -~~~_ocµ ~~~ c__c ~ ~µ~c _ >~ ~>~ >~~ ~~ µ~ o µ~ ~ Eu ~ c ~c ~oec>~o ~ ~~~...... ~~c -~~> u~ ~~~_ ~ >~~ >µc~__µ >~w_~µ~ >~_ ~~~~ cu ~,~u~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~-c ~~~~~u~~ ~~~ ~ ~~o~ f~ ~e~~ ~ ~~µ ~E~~~j·~ ~~s~~~u~ ~~~ > 01'1:II _.cr- ~O'\ O"Q,~ ...... ~~...... ....~>~~ ~ee~~......~~ µ~c - )( ~ - ~ c ~ L ~ _...... 0 U 0 U ~ C L.._ 1.,1.... ~ e c ~ ~ ~ 1.,1 ~ 1'1:II ~ ~~~c~ t~ ~~~o ~ .~~~ ~~~g~~~ ~-~~B~5e ~~~ ~ ~~ _w ~~ ~ ~~-~ ~ e~~ e~Eµ5~~ e~ g~~oo eUJ::_ 0_'0 ....1:: ~ _cO\~ ...... oµ~ o~~u L O'_t'-.....~~...... o_c>, ~ ......~µcc ~ E >oc~ ~ ....~ ~µ~c......~ ~~ ~~oo -o- w _ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ u·... ~ c ~ _ ~ ~ '0.... 0 ~ Q ~_ ~ ~ ~........ ~ ~ o~_u _L U ~~UQ .c~> ~~~E c ~~~~...._~~ .c~øu ~ ~ ~~~w ~o ~ ~ø~ ~ µ~._ µ>I::_~'O~ ...._~....u~µ.... .... ~~ o 0 ØL~I'I:II~ ~ ~~ O"~ ~o LO >L ~ uu .cu~ ~ g ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ :~-~~'C= :~~~~~~~ :~~~ ...... ~ ~_I'I:IIO 0_ .... .... 0 o.c.c OU~~UQ_ Oc_~~_~...... o.c_c o 0 <.c_I..~ Q..o.c µ.s:::1"I:I µ oµµ Q~O""OQ,~ c....~wO....~Q C~~._ µ '0_...._ 1"1:I ~ - ~ -~~~ u ~ -- 0 ~~OE I:: ..... . ~ O~L~ 1'1:II. . ~ 3: ~ .0 ~ U ~ 0\1.,1 :::E ~ ~ U "0 - N ~ N N N ~ ---- ~-~ --- CITY ~F CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLIC.ANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH:WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as ~Li. rector of the non-profit organization or a~s trustee or beneficiary or trust~ of ~h~tr~ 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business ~ransacted w~th any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Cou6cil within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartn~ship, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~Si~nature~e~ A-110 Pr~n~ or ~pe nsm~ o~ppl~c~n~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-45; request for Master CUP for selected commercial uses in the I-L-P zone at 687/693 Palomar Street - Mazal Realty Investments A. BACKGROUND The request is for approval of a Master CUP which would allow certain specified commercial uses on 4.5 acres within the Palomar Commerce Center at 687/693 Palomar Street in the I-L-P zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-72, 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-88-72. 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-88-72. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-45, for a Master CUP for selected commercial uses in the I-L-P zone at 687/693 Palomar Street subject to the following conditions: a. Land uses permitted under the Master CUP shall be limited to the following: 1. Furniture Stores 2. Large Sporting Good Outlets 3. Volume Bookstores 4. Boat Sales and Marine Supply Stores 5. Retail Clothing Warehouses 6. Major Appliance Centers 7. Home Decorating Centers/Home Improvement Centers 8. Food Bazaars - such as Farmer's Market 9. Cycleries - featuring wholesale and retail bike sales 10. Yardage Stores 11. Wilderness Outfitting Centers 12. Retail Import Centers 13. Large Art Supply Centers 14. Wholesale Office Supplies City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 15. Retail Catalog Sales Centers 16. Photocopying Services/Instant Printing 17. Carpet Store 18. Wholesale/Retail Paint Store 19. Large Toy Center 20. Restaurant, Delicatessen and Similar Establishments 21. Retail Distribution Center b. Prior to leasing of tenant spaces and application for business license, proposed uses under the Master CUP shall obtain approval of an administrative floor and site plan, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. c. The uses allowed under the Master CUP shall only be located so that their principal entrance is from the south or west facing portions of the largest building (693 Palomar Street). d. Proposed land uses under the Master CUP which involve alteration of the exterior of the building or new construction shall be required to obtain prior approval from the City's Design Review Committee. e. All signs must comply with a comprehensive sign program approved by the City's Design Review Committee. f. Open storage of materials or equipment, sale of goods or work performed outside of an enclosed building is expressly prohibited. g. Uses approved under the Master CUP are approved without time limits unless otherwise specifically indicated by the Director of Planning through the administrative site plan process. h. Violation of any of the conditions of approval for the CUP and/or site plan shall cause the permit for that specific use to be reviewed for additional conditions or revocation. i. A Traffic Signal Fee of $4,380 shall be paid prior to the final approval of the Master CUP. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North - I-L-P - Vacant South - C-C-P & S-94 Vacant & trolley station East - I-L-P & C-C-P - Palomar Commerce Center & Trolley Square (Limited Industrial) (Retail Commercial) West - C-C-P Vacant & trolley R/W City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 3 Site characteristics The site in question is the westerly 4.5 acres of the Palomar Commerce Center, which extends between Palomar and Oxford Streets to the north and west of the Trolley Square retail center. The northerly and largest portion of the site is zoned I-L-P, and the southerly portion is zoned C-C-P. The property is developed with 54,625 sq. ft. of floor area in two buildings and 235 off-street parking spaces. Primary access to the site is provided by Palomar Street, with secondary access off Oxford Street. Proposal The proposal is to establish a Master CUP which would predetermine that certain specified commercial uses which are presently allowed by CUP in the I-L zone would be appropriate for the site, subject only to a later determination by the Planning Director that a particular use is consistent with one of the specified use types. The Master CUP would thereby allow the site to accommodate these uses without the necessity of processing a separate CUP for each individual request. The requested uses to be covered by the Master CUP do not include all of the conditional uses listed in the I-L zone. With two exceptions (discussed below), the request includes only those conditional uses referred to in the I-L zone as retail sales involving bulky items, retail distribution centers, manufacturers outlets and supporting uses. Any request for a use not on the approved master list would continue to require a separate CUP. For the purpose of this request, the applicant assumes an eventual ratio of 1/4 retail commercial and 3/4 light industrial uses for the site. D. ANALYSIS To some degree the site has been designed to accommodate either light industrial or commercial uses. The buildings are located closer to Oxford Street on the I-L-P zoned portion of the property~ but the principal entrances to the largest building, as well as the primary access and the vast majority of parking are oriented to the Palomar Street commercial frontage. Also, the parking ratio is one space for every 230 sq. ft. of floor area, which is only slightly less than the retail ratio of 1 per 200, and far greater than the light industrial ratio of 1 per 1,O00. Because of these factors, we believe the site is a good candidate for a Master CUP. The property can comfortably accommodate the list of recommended uses -- at least in those storefronts most convenient to the bulk of the parking -- and the Master permit will greatly facilitate processing, which will benefit both the applicant and the City. The recommended uses have been developed by staff in cooperation with the applicant to include only those uses believed to be consistent with the generic categories specified in the I-L zone. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 4 Two uses which are not recommended by staff, but which the applicant is requesting the Commission to consider are (1) Banks and Savings and Loans, and (2) Commercial/Industrial Financial Institutions (escrow, financial, insurance and real estate offices). These uses have not been recommended because they are not consistent with the generic categories noted above, and because neither banks or offices are provided for in the ordinance. The authority to allow such uses by CUP would require a zoning text amendment. A condition has been recommended which would limit the retail commercial uses to those locations with principle entrances most convenient to the majority of the parking spaces -- those portions of the largest building facing to the south and west. This would exclude such uses from the smaller building and from those storefronts oriented exclusively to the north and east on the larger building. The condition will not hinder the applicant in achieving the assumed mix of 1/4 commercial and 3/4 light industrial, and will reserve the areas with limited parking for light industrial uses which have a lower parking demand. A retail use could apply for one of these locations, but it would require a separate CUP. According to the Engineering Department, approval of the proposal would be expected to generate an additional 438 vehicle trips not considered when the development was recently approved. The increase in traffic is not expected to overburden surrounding streets, but the additional trips should be offset with an additional Traffic Signal Fee for present and future traffic improvements in the area. At ten dollars ($10) per trip, the additional fee will be $4,380. The applicant is agreeable to this assessment, and a condition has been recommended which would require payment prior to final approval of the Master CUP. 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. The addition to the site of a limited number of commercial uses provided for under the conditional use provisions of the I-L zone will expand the products and services available in an area already characterized by a mixture of commercial and light industrial uses. 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. The site has been designed in a manner which will accommodate commercial uses in certain locations with no adverse impacts on traffic, parking, or the operations of light industrial uses. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 5 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. Compliance with all applicable conditions, Codes and regulations shall be required prior to approval of the Master CUP and/or individual applications under the Master CUP. 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 of Research and Limited Industrial as implemented by the I-L zone contemplates the establishment of certain types of retail commercial uses in light industrial districts. The uses authorized under the Master CUP are consistent with these use types. WPC 5119P/2652P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Pal omar Commerce Center PROJECT LOCATION: 687-693 Palomar Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Mazal Realty Investments CASE NO: IS-88-72 DATE: April 29, 1988 A. Project Setting The project setting is a newly constructed limited industrial complex consisting of two buildings totaling 54,625 sq. ft. on 4.79 acres, located on the south side of Oxford north of Palomar, between Broadway and Industrial'. A parking lot with 235 spaces serves the project. Primary access to the project is from Palomar, with secondary driveway access from Oxford Street. The project is bounded on the north by a vacant lot, to the east by a limited industrial complex and retail center, to the south by vacant lands and an MTDB trolley station, and to the west by trolley tracks. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of application by the developer for a master conditional use permit to allow selected commercial uses within the project area. Typical commercial uses which would be allowed include large scale retail distribution centers such as furniture stores and manufacturers outlets. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans With approval of a master conditional use permit, the proposed project complies with the I-L-P limited industrial zone, as well as the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation specified by the Chula Vista General Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Traffic The project alters one phase in an overall commercial/industrial project totaling 167,554 sq. ft. of floor space in eight separate buildings. Anticipated traffic generated from this phase of the total project was city of chula vista planning department (~1~' OF environmental review section (~HUL~ estimated to be 437 ADT; the project change of uses would generate 875 ADT, an increase of 438 trips. The Engineering Department has reviewed the increase and has determined that other than payments of additional traffic signal fees, traffic mitigation measures committed to by the developer in IS 81-21 are adequate to accommodate requested commercial uses. The increase in traffic will therefore not result in significant adverse environmental impacts due to increases in traffic. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Traffic Since the proposed commercial uses would not create significant adverse environmental effects due to traffic increases, no further mitigation is required at this time. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. Since anticipated traffic increase from the change in uses from limited industrial to certain commercial uses are determined to be minor in nature, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2. Anticipated traffic effects are not significant in nature, the proposed change to conditional commercial uses will not have an adverse impact upon either short- or long-term environmental goals. 3. With prior commitment to traffic mitigation measures identified for the total commercial/industrial project in IS 81-21, minor traffic increases as'sociated with the proposed change in uses will not create adverse environmental effects which are cumulative. 4. The proposed change to certain commercial uses within the I-L-P Limited Industrial zone will not create environmental effects that are harmful to humans. 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 Applicant's Agent: Lucius M. Quinney ~ 363 Fifth Avenue, Suite 203 San Diego, CA 92101 city of chula vista planning department Ci~IYOF environmental review lectlon.(]HULAVISTA 2. Documents 1. Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code 2. General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3. Initial Study IS 81-21, Palomar Village, City of Chula Vista December 23, 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. ~I~RO~~RDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC O175P/5122P -3- city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review lectlon. EHUb~Vl~TA FUR OFFICE USE Case No. Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted Application Form Project No. ~fh A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Master CUP in the I-L-P Zone- Palomar Commerce Center 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 687/693 Palomar Street, Chula Vista, CA 92011 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 618-280-35 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION A conditional use permit is bQinQ requested for certain commercial uses in the I-L zone, in recently-completed structures. 4. Name of Applicant. Mazal Realty Investments Address 9619 Chesapeake Priv¢ Phone(619) 292-5185 City San Diego State gA Zip 92123 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Lucius M~ quinney Address 363 Fifth Avenue) Suite 203 Phone (619) 233-1759 City San Dieqo State ~A Zip 92101 Relation to Applicant C~ns~l~ 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan -- Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency x Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). x Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study x 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) "- FACT SHEET - CONOITIONAl USE PERMIT Type of Project: OResiden~fa1 GJCommerCfa1 OIndustrfa1 OOther (explain) Project location: 687/693 Palomar Street Project Area: 54,625 (Buildings) sq.ft. 4.479 acres RESIDENTIAL: Number Density 1 BR 2 BR 3+BR Apartments N/A units duos/acre Si ng1 e Family Attached . units du's/acre Other units du's/acre Parking: Total on-site: Total on-street: Total: Ratio: per unit. Garages: Carports Open Open Space: sq.ft./unit. Patios: sq. ft. Balconies: sq.ft. Storage Areas: cu.ft./unit Total Buil ding coverage % NON-RESIDENTIAL: Hours of Operation: R·nn a .m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through SIInrlay a .m. to p.m. th rough Number of Shifts: 1 Emp1 oyees/Shi ft 100 Total Employees lnn (New) Gross Floor Area: 54.625 sq. ft. Existing: ~4 ñ?~ sq.ft. Proposed: n sq. ft. Parking Spaces: ?~~ spaces Ratio: 1 /230 /sq.ft. or Employee Seating Capacity N/A Number of Students/Children N/A If appl icable When applicable Building Coverage See note % landscaping Spp nntp % of the site Note: This is a recently completed project built in accordance with Chula Vista site development standards. Site plan is attached. /40TE: FAIlIJ?( TO U",( A P[P.~IT . r.lilure to u\e 01 conditional use permit within one (1) year after the effective d.te tl'1er"of ~."Jl1 I~ðke 'illid p~rnit null Jnd void. However. the P1.Jnntng Comnltsston or lontnl) Administrator may grant an tJtt'r:<;ton (ff tl:'e if rcqueHcd by the applicant. provided no changes have occurred that would oJffl!ct the orfgjr.JI ftn,Hn'), ..hich jl.stíff~d the Jpprovd1. The pcrmt t is considered to have been used I' the app) tCJnt has COl'!'plL'ttd the P"OJItc:t or spent subHanthl II'.)M'Y towud construction of the project. but" 110I\),.11 $tops for thr.. (J) ~nths after starting and one (1) year has passed. safd permit becomes null and void. TRAf,sr¡~ OF P¡RMIT TO FUTURE C"IIERI . Unit\< thf eondt tlon, of approyal Spfetty that the permit cannot bf transferred. :hr permtt app1tes to the property and ts transfrraÞle t6 future owners. provtded the permtt his not beco~e nul1 and ~o1d. The new owner may request an extension if the permit ts stil1 valid. ....... ..------..- -- ~.__..._. ~---~~_.,----- Quinney & Associates Land Use Consultants $§3 Fifth Avenue Suite 203 San Diego, CA 92101 6191233.1759 April 7, 1988 Mr. George Krempl Planning Director City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: CONDITIONAL USES IN THE I-L-P ZONE, PALOMAR STREET WEST OF BROADWAY: ADDITION OF "COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS" TO THE LIST OF USES CONTAINED IN STAFF'S LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1988 Dear George: We have received and reviewed your staff's letter of March 31 listing those uses which would be acceptable to staff under the master Conditional Use Permit which we are requesting. We have noted that a number of uses which we originally requested, have been deleted in this letter. We concur with those deletions and will be able to have sufficient flexibility with the remaining uses, with one exception, and we ask that it be included on the list. That use is described in your staff's 1986 memorandum as "Commercial/Industrial Financial Institutions". In our interpretation of the meaning of this category of use, such tenants as escrow, financial, insurance and real estate offices would fit in with banks and savings and loans, and would be complementary to the commercial/industrial mix establishments in the area which frequently use such financial services. There is adequate parking for such uses, as we have noted in the "findings" attached to the CUP application. We request that you give these uses another look, and that you will agree with our conclusion that these will not detract from, but add to, the viability of this commerce center. Thank-you for your consideration of our request. ~uly y~ Principal ~/ pc: Mazal Realty Investments . . ~~~ - I I ... r-~ ~ ~~~-: ~~~- CllY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED March 31, 1988 APR 1 I~Þb HIIlellllld. Chlftlellll & .... Quinney & Associates 363 Fifth Avenue S te 203 San Di ego, CA 92101 CONDITIONAL USES IN I-L-P ZONE - PALOMAR STREET WEST OF BROADWAY - 687 ANO 693 PALOMAR STREET Lou, we have reviewed your letter of March 16, 1988 regarding the issue of filing a Master Conditional Use Permit for properties located at 687, 693 Palomar Street as well as the list of conditional uses to be covered under the Master Use Permit. As a result of our review, we offer the following: A. The Master Conditional Use Permit should be filed as a public hearing through the Planning Commission with the final decision subject to City Council approval. B. The list of uses that we would see appropriate filed under the Master Use Permit are as follows: 1. Boat sales and marine supply stores 2. Wholesale office supplies 3. Photcopying service 4. Instant printing 5. Banks or savings-and-loan 6. Carpet store 7. Cycleries - featuring wholesale and retail bike sales 8. Food Bazaar - such as a "Farmers' Market" 9. Furniture stores 10. Home decorating center and improvement center 11. Wholesale/retail paint store 12. Large art supply centers 13. Large sporting goods outlets 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691·5101 ---------------------- -_._-~....._-_.._-,.- Quinney &Associates 3/31/88 14. Large toy center 15. Major appliance center 16. Restaurant, delicatessen and similar uses 17. Retail "Catalog Sales" centers 18. Retail clothing warehouse 19. Retail distribution center 20. Retail import center 21. Wilderness Outfitting center 22. Volume bookstores 23. Yardage stores. We concur with you that should this Master Use Permit be adopted, no time limit would be attached to the specific uses which would run for the life of the building unless there were specific changes to the Zoning Ordinance including said uses within the I-L Zone. If you have specific questions, please contact me at 691-5101. Principal Planner KGL:rms NOTE: PLEASE READ APPLICANT'S LETTER, DATED APRIL 7. 1988, REQUESTING ADDITION OF "COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS". CITY OF CHULA VISTA - The project is expected to generate some additional traffic; however access to both Palomar Street (primary) and Oxford Street (secondary) is excellent. The applicant is assuming a floor lease mix of 1/4 retail commercial, 3/4 light industrial. For traffic generation purposes, the buildings would be classified as "Industrial/Business Park-Commercial included", generating 16 trips per 1,000 SF (Source: SANDAG) . This means there would be 875 trips generated (54,650 x 16 1,000) . This compares to 275 trips (54,650 x 5 1,000) (Source: Chula Vista Council Policy No. 478-01 as amended). The increase in vehicle trips, therefore is 600 trips. Proposed 687/693 Palomar Street (54,650 SF) Trip Rate (Trips/l,OOO SF) Daily Trips Industrial/Business Park - 16 875 Commercial Included Existing Trip Rate (Trips/l,OOO SF) Daily Trips General Light Industrial 5 275 +600 Increase Trips 3. That the proposed uses will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Municipal Code for such uses. Once the master CUP has been approved, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to instruct prospective tenants to obtain a Zoning Permit from the City of Chula Vista. This action will enable staff to determine whether or not each tenant's use is consistent with the master CUP. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The current zoning of the site, I-L-P is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan designation of "Research & Limited Industrial." The property is not in the Montgomery Specific Plan; however, the uses proposed are consistent with and complementary to, the mixture of retail commercial and light industrial uses located at the Palomar/Broadway sector. Paae 2 of 2 -.-- Palomar Con~nerce Center Conditional Use Permit Findings 1. That the proposed uses at the particular location are desirable to provide a service which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The addition of a limited number of commercial uses to the two buildings at Palomar Commerce Center will expand the services available in an area already characterized by a mixture of commercial and light industrial establishments. Employment opportunities will be maintained and possibly improved, on the premise that retail commercial employment is more intensive than is the type of small scale light industrial users in this particular area. Lastly, retail sales tax revenues to the City of Chula Vista would increase in proportion to the amount of space leased to retail tenants. 2. That such uses will not, under the circumstances of this 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. The two buildings which are the subject of this permit are brand new.. They have been built in accordance with a master plan for some 14.5 acres. The plan addresses all critical development issues: access, parking, and siting of buildings. In fact, all but 1.2 acres of the plan have been developed, partially with retail {"Trolley Square") and partially with light industrial, featuring small business tenants to the north of the retail center. The principal of the two subject buildings, at 693 Palomar, with 44,125 SF, ha's been specifically designed to accommodate either light industrial or retail commercial tenants. This was done by the owners to anticipate changing - but uncertain - market demands in this location. The second structure containing 10,500 SF may also be used for retail commercial uses. Parking for the two buildings totals 235 spaces for a parking ratio of 1 space for each 230 SF, slightly less than normally required for retail uses {1/200 SF), but far more spaces than the City would require for light industrial uses {1/1,000 SF}. Page i of 2 . e \.... \ \ \. .... ~........... \ ...- p \" .......... .', ,--' ,......... '!"e.c-p \ \ ~\ .., - -. \ . .B £1'" , \ ! \ \ ---"': \ ... ! ..)...... f"'-...r-··r......· .~. .-;,..¡ ,.. I ...........-. : ..t:.l_j1J...-..' ...... On ...--.-..."."" .m._.._·..···.. :::::::"..... ........:.. .:::............ ....".............. ........... ....... I .......':. ..' __ n'" '" ...... : : ............ ......._... _......_. "nn , .., .._..... \1 j ~ -- ... . I ,: I ..- ...... , ... ' , . ~..u_...... . ~ n····.t-U¡ i I - , . - .- - -6 NORTH NO SCALE LOCATION MAP for Palomar Commerce Center C.U.P. (BASE: CHULA VISTA ZONING MAP +8) -,,,..._.,- - -......-....------..--.- -" -8- Case No./S ~'72 CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West ~?_ ~C- ~ Does the proje~ conform to the current zoning? \~ -~ ~ 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~es~m~z~ ~=;~)~ North ~ South - ' -- East · ' West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent. to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? /[~ (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) r '" - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capaci ty From Project El ementa ry Jr. High NA- Hocµe.uW-, ~ c..hoo\ +ee.s Sr. High Q. r eo. t""~\J~"'e.d. . 4. Aestheti cs 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.) ?roi~:~ ~~+'" ~"~w. -o~ ù~,.-~ öi0"9t.f..vl.O'.... l.e c...s.1!! f ~J II to ~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) I. 311. /)00 Kw hI Y eA.r Natural Gas (per year) r _ ' Hater (per day) 3, fbC(/ &/~..y 6. Remarks: ~~~ ¥? 9. /r;ag D1 r or 0 anm ng or epre tat1 ve Date ' - - --.~~.,.-.., - - --- . ~._~_..._~----, -. '--'--'- -lO- Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?l~)~) 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 existin~ off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.i~,. 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A. D.T. ~.'g; ~ ~0 ?-~: L.O,S. ~.~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. - - 11 - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? . ~ Li quefacti on? atf Landslide or slippage? w.4-t 0 I. "" J. ....IJ.-t po"': b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? 1-1(,) 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project si te? IJ"'krJo..'I~ b.. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? 1'\.1\. c. Is a soils report necessary? ~~S 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? :) b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? FI..AT "'- t;l. 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? NO - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If %here 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 ~q~ X 118.3 : ~.~1~ Hydrocarbons ~1 ~ X 18.3 = )&~OI~ NOx (NO2) Sql' X 20.0 = 17~00 Particulates S3~ X 1.5 = ~ I~ Sul fur ~ X .78 = ~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ¥Og I~/0~,~ Liquid ~l~q~:) G/1~),~ What is the location and s~ze of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? /~ $~r~. Q~..~_-([~.~.~ ~ ~. &~)W~o~ 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 - . :. 13 - Case No. Ff'- 7'- .. H. FIRE DEPARn1ENT . l. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? / ¡,;, l 1<. - ~ ""'''Lhl 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility withou~ an increase.in equipment or personnel? 1',,( n 3. . Remarks . , nJMarshSr vI/;' J J'F Date I / " . ".", '. " : ..' ,'. .. " . ...;'" ~.' ~..., I . .... . _. .. - '. ... . - . , .-. April 29, 1988 File #: ZB-138 TO: Stephen S. Griffin, Associate Planner FROM: ~oger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Certain Commercial Uses at 687/693 Palomar Street. The Public Works Department has reviewed the subject proposal. We propose the inclusion of the following condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit. An additional Traffic Signal Fee will be due because of the increase in trips generated. TRIPS charged on original building permit 437 TRIPS generated under new use 875 Increase in Trips generated 438 At Ten Dollars ($10) per trip the additional fee will be $4,380. We believe this should be paid prior to issuing the Conditional Use Permit. HSB: lj r/yc (L~FORMS%CUP) NAY 5 988 CONDITIONED -' ... ,~, negative \. declaration _L Palomar Village I PROJECT NAME: I PROJECT LOCATION: East of Industrial Blvd., between Oxford St. and Palomar St. PROJECT APPLICANT: Palomar Commercial Properties 6110 Friars Rd., Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 I CASE NO. IS-81-21 DATE: December 23, 1980 A. Project Setting The project site consists of 16.2 acres of property located east of Industrial Blvd. between Oxford St. and Palomar St. The present· use of the property is truck crop farming. The property is void of any natural or man made resources and there are no geological hazards present in the immediate vicinity. Expansive soils may be located on the project site. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to subdivide 16.2 acres of property into two lots (3.8 acres and 12.4 acres), prezone and annex the property to the City of Chula Vista and detach the area from the Montgomery Fire Protection District. Development of the property would consist of a 3.8 parcel with 38,320 sq. ft of retail floor space and the 12.4 acre parcel with 129,280 sq. ft. of industrial floor space and 12,500 sq. ft. of office floor space. Related offstreet parking spaces, street improvements and landscaping are also proposed. C. Compatibility with zonina and plans The proposed project will be required to meet the zoning ordinance standards and comply with the General Plan. The zoning ordinance was recently amended to provide for the retail distribution of merchandise which requires extensive floor area in the I and I-L zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project provides a mix of commercial and industrial uses. The inclusion of these uses will assure substantial compatibility with the retail use designation of the General Plan. D. Identification of environmental effects l. Traffic Circulation Preliminary traffic estimates indicate that the project will generate approximately 5500 one-way auto trips per day city 01 chula vista planning department @0 environmental review secllon which has the potential to'reduce the service level of the two lane portion of Palomar St. (west of the project site) from a level of service (LOS) C to (LOS) E which indicates a potentially significant traffic impact. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects The following are Engineering Dept. requirements necessary to mitigate adverse traffic circulation impacts: 1. Oxford Ave. should be constructed to accommodate two moving lanes of traffic between this project and Broadway. 2. Palomar Street must be widened to provide for four lanes and a turn lane between Broadway and I-5. This will require some offsite improvements ~ the replacement or relocation of~ the existing railroad crossing on the north side of Palomar east of Industrial Blvd. and other minor widening. Staff will recommend to the City Council that the wideninq of Palomar Street between Industrial Blvd. and I-5 be included as a CIP project for FY81-82. 3. The engineer should be encouraged to line up a major driveway to the development from Palomar St. opposite the signalized entrace to the MTDB Trolley Station on the south side of the street. The number of driveways should on Palomar St. (4) should be reduced to 3 to minimize conflict points along this heavily used arterial street. F. Findings of insignificant effect 1. There are no significant natural or man-made resources within the project area which could be adversely effected by project implementation. 2. The proposed prezoning, annexation, detachment and development is in conformance with the General Plan and will not achieve short term to thedisadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. All potential impacts can be mitigated and none are anticipated to interact and cause any cumulative effect on the environment. ~ 4. The project will not create any source of significant noise nor will any hazards to human beings result. ·- J - , .., (3) . \ G. Consultation City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, A9soc. Plnr. Duane Bazzel, Asst. Plnr. Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng. Roger Daoust. Sr. Eng. Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Bldg. Insp. Applicants agent - Mark Franklin Documents Log #79-18-42, Dawat Development, Ind. (County Neg:. Dec.) The Initio.l Study ~pplic2tion o.nd evo.luo.tion forms documenting the findings of no significo.nt impùct .:Ire on file and o.vailo.ble for public review at the Chula visto. Plo.nninc;. Dept., 276 4th ,\venue, Chula Vista, C,\ 92010. COOmn:iATOR city of chula vista planning department @,¿ environmental review section EN 6 il ~ J, ~ ~I ~ ~- \I\I~~~Y~\))) ;/ ê I I I 1 I I 111111111/1 ~ ~~. ~I I I I I I I IIIII 1111/ ~ ~ .... Ü II .... C: 0", 0....... "" II...... G.I L.t'w":J'" ,... ......... ~ CO... U ,... 4:::1 C ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~L~ U~ . ~~ -o.&lL._ ~ "'_:::1 ~O... Oc ...~ "'''''~'''&'''u ..~O ~ ~ "':J _ U...... 0 G.I ... 11'I Q.U~ J:_ CU u C'" ....,... &1"41 ... 0 _... .. ...·...·.._0 U...."" "'Vlr.. 4IL.. "u 01... ...... -e... -..... __ 11'I0... _... C~ CQ. ~~-t.I'" ....... ..L_ "''''0'''''''''''''' 4/C ~C:=~~ ~~U ...~~ ~~ ~~ ~C ~~ ......~~~ S~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~G.I o L.... "" '1) U .c 0 L.:::I Q..- ....., C.c o ): L tJ .J C GI_ Co.... ::I .... 0... ~ 0'" ....c.... -LO.... U "'O~...): U _'1:1I1.. vue 0.......::. .c]llll u .::.... ... 41 G.I ''')0" :J.... Q, ... C ... L ... ... .... "" .... 0 C UL.c""C ~~~ -"0 _0... .c:J LG.I 0 .........11.. Oke :::I II :::I"'"" "'u_ "'''''t'w >0,11'I _ II'! "'0'10.... ...... tn.....- VI >_. "':::I. _... ...... _c UIt...... 41011I:II &I"".. '1:14=> ... 41 LC: '" .. _ '1:1I ..... ... 0 ell L ... 0. ...... 01 J:::a ... 'g L. .. ~ >. ... >-.... -';'00. ....LQ C '-'I: _ 41.. ... .. ... ....... "'c ""... .. _0'" -&1...- _II. _L _ ~c U G.I... u...... C ... '1:1I ._0 .""'1:1I "~L .U'" u_ e:~o ... ........ ~ C~~ uc... ""... ""-_ II'IC:::I ""..u II 00'1.... «&I..u ..., ·"u ....t.. ou_ 0...·_ 0..... 0"".. ... ........... u VI.. O&l_:J ..., cu "" 0.:::1.. 0. ::I o..c_ Co c. VOl l1...x.. ~.. 1.1.. LL~~> oo~ ~ O~U OU~ OU~ O~E ~c ~~ >~ c~ u c.~ ·...8 :;.~:;¡ ~ ~:;:'¡;' ~;:;_ ~_u ~o_ õ'. =>;;'~~'::~"V>~E~ J..~o~~ ~-I ~ .12 .J~ ~~~ u;~ ~2 I~~~;=~~~=~ ~ E~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0 ~~- ~_ ~O_ ..... ~-UOOO~a~~~ ~-~~....~..... ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~u ~-~ ~o ~U~UXZ~c~~~ ~~;~~~ .....æ~ ~ _z~ .....%~ ~~ë _~~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - u .., G.I Q,~ _,... ~ ~ G.I ~ o~_~........ ....C~ ~ _LL _L_ 0 ~ -&10 ~ ~J::. u.o~~~ 3.~ L ~O. ~O~ C.Q.I 3LQ, ~ _~ o " - .. " 0. - C - . .::1 I . I I "'. m 4 Au. ~ ~ ~ ~. . . . C> - N - - - . il ~I ~I \1 \1 \1 ~I \, \, \, \1 II I ,I 1 II I I I "I I ~I / I / I I I I I / I .. u .. !~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ g t;~ ':ï ~ ÞL ...,.... &_ L ... L .- .... ~ ~ ...,... G.I_ .... C G.I ~... _0 ¡ j.~ >- . ~... A U ..., ZL ~ OC s.~. &I ::I . 0 E~L _ ....» . LC CT ~ .... Q.I ~~ &I L ~ 0 ~ Z 1.1,... ~ ~ :;.... L.... . z: .. U - >, 0 G.I.w", . Cell .... ~ ~ .... .... t::¡ . ~::: 0. ~ :! ~ 0 ! _ ~ ~i 0 ~ 0 C ...... &t . "'L,... L~ ~L C ~ . cÞ ~ °L~ L c~R .......~ 0b 00 ........ & ~= ~ go_ ~~ _~~ ~~~ ~~ "'t- ~ 0 -8 ~~ ~ =eII"~ ~~ ~';L :2~g t... ~~ ~ g ~ õCT &/,... ~55 t~ ~g~ ~~.., ~~,... .~.~ ~ ';; :; .;~ 5~ ~~.¡; L_ ~ L i II"" to :;;~~ A+-' ~ 0 . .....L ..,.., &t +-'G.I.....GI ~. ... - u . ~- .~&I J::.G.I ......u ""~c ...._> ""'... VB....... ~... +-,_ V._ ""'....0 VCGI ~ &I G.I .c L C ""::1 ..... Ø'I &/ »_ 0 _ 1.1 C71..... +-' ~ U 0&1 »a . e ~G.I ~ ~ +-'C+-'~_ ~~ f ~ ~,... c.... G.lL =+-'~ o~ E:g ~I.IZ f""'~ ~L. a. to »>, oi V_ CLov,.. CL Q,.Q ~......., a...... o~ u ........ c. ~o ~ O+-' L o~ 0 L~ 1.1 ....,... ..,~... ~ ... c..... _.., I.Ico L..L ~CC o.c: ~ ~41 C..... ~41 ~~ ..,~...._... ~ ~o 0....0 ~.... ... -~ o. A+-' ~L. ~L. .. ..>, +-' +-' >, a... +-' ~ 1.1. CO -~ L... -. ~~4Ic .....+-' _ ...... ~4IG.I ...C +-'..c "0 ~E '^CT I.I+-' L~ '''+-'(7)0 0......... ~u.... Su- ~.....~ ~ +-'~ ~ ~.., ~~ ~~ ~~ I.I~~~ >~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~~Ã . ~L 0 L t ~L C... ~O..c&t ~ 0 O~::I ..,co o~E :J -- U ..co..... t.J0 -.... ....IiUL..co" uG.la ¡-::Iii UL..IG 0' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. - .... . . . 0 I . ~. A ~ Z 4 A . . . ~ ~ ~ . ---...,.-- --, >"._'--'_.~.----'----' - ".. ...c: ..... "" ... .. " >.~ .. " ~~ I '" ..... ".. ."... "''' 10 ~.. Ut -.. co.·..., o B 0 '-_ L ... 0. .. .. "" 17I,ð., ~ 'z_;ì ::) ........ VI a ,_... < L~O , !!' O~:š ~ ! ~IO~ - 0'" 10 ,I .... _ U... -< ....eLf" e,,:) _..., Q. - > 0 0 .... .." - L ø..... '" ... 0 ! ~-5g ..... - VI 00'" Z ....., U o A.C:J - -b ~ f-a '" ~ _.,c u a:: 8 -" .... .... 0 . ... td .fe-5. ~ ~ 0·... c o CLtu.... 0 f ~~~ ~ .. . ~ . .. ....... ... " 10 '. , . ~I ~ ~ \ ~_. \ \1 \ ;i ~ I I I I. I I I f( , ~I I I I r I I I , -¡: ~ ~...~ I~~æ ....... . 00.... LV., c.~o., ... 0 "'L . L.... 0'_> o~....us:., u ......00 ... 0\. .J::.A::.... ue> +oJ&: ., ~ \ 00)00, uti (LI'" 11I:1"'""", _c... ....._ .,c:~ ~~ ~~. ~~ S~~(L¡~~ _~~~-...~_ t ... ""'....... .,e os:,... 0 U .--c·...oo .,,o....'Cuc. ...~ IO:::::IU'O 0110 L G.I_ ... ...-... o....c. .c:>. G.I"'..... """"'L .,~....- L_ c.~>., L IOC (L¡6- U-LCl'~ ... IOL_ -¡; .~~ ¡Co .,-;2: -:;0:; ':;~~.:::''C'_~ ~:¡;~IO....e~~ ~~" L~~. lUg zi'C"" ...~~c ~~~...~~; :I-~~>c.~~ .,~~ cu.... c c_ -...... cc ~""'Oc.,.,....... c c.......,... ~ s: .1:.'0.. .... .......::)c v.,... O·...C7I:¥.......:::::I ...~OIl'lQ,¡'^OO' 0....... ...:::::1..... . 0.0. c ...eo c.'C ,!!!!L..... UUU"'S:IOL 1.._ ...~~~ ~B ",,5uu ~ g§.~ .,.,~OD~(L¡ ~...~~~c.c.~ ;~~ o~~... 'i~ ~.....~~ ~ ..~ð ~~~.~~2~ !~~~~~~B ~~~ g -- -;:: ~ Q, Q, ~ ~ .. g, c: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ iË ~ CLI 0 CLI ...~ CLI ~ .... ~.;! G.t t: g' ~~~> V~ CLlCLICLI_ ~ >CLlQ, >~C:Q,__~ >~~_~~~ >D_ ....~CLlG.I eu ~_u~ .. ~ .. 0 ~_c: ..CLI....CLlU~CLI ..~G.t G.t ~g~CLI ~~ ~E~.. ~ ~!~ ~E~~=i·~ ~~-~~~v~ ~""D > ~.. ..s::._ CLlC7I O'~::I ... ........... ~G.I>~CLI _ ~&~~.......\".. ..,...C Õ ~~=~g t~ ~ =~ 0 ~_o ~~~c\,,~~ ~=8G.1gCLI~g ~~ð > DOC·~ CLI! ~c: ~ ~o~ ~.... OG.le~ _ -\"UG.l~\" _..~ ~ ~~ .~.... ~ ~ ~~._~ r e~~ e~E....5~G.I E~ ~G.l500 evs::.~. o-~ _c ~ -c:C7IG.t - ~~~ Q~CLlu \" ~_~_'- ~_ o_c~ .... ~....~cc .. ~ >oc~ ~ ._'- ..........c~::I "G.I ..s::.oo _0_ t ~ o~~~8 ~\" u t~·~~ c !~~ !G.I~~'-o~ :ª~!....~........ :.i....~ .... .... ~~CLI.... DO::l ........::1 ~ ....::1'_ ~>c·-",,~G.t ....-..~u)........ .... ....CLI Q. 0 ~ '- ~ .. ~ '"0 ~ CLIO' 0''' ~ 0 \" 0 :.. \" CLI V U s::. u ~ ~ g 'r~'¡~~ ~~ ~ !~~.~ ~ ~CLlCLI t~~~Ô~= ~~~='~g~: ~.~~~ ~ ~ ~~=~~ :~ ~ ........s::.= ~ g55 g~~~~~'i g~~5~~~~ 8i~: .... "0_...._ '" ~= ~-;~~i ~ - '-. . \" 0 G.I \" !; ... . . ~ ~ . A U U\"C7IU E.. D U ~ . '. - N M N N ~ \ ~ .__.. ~_,___"~ .-.-.-,_.__0" _ 'O'_'~'_'__'_ CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. )lave 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) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any o~her county, city and county, city, muniypality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as ~ unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) ~ '~- 'L-~~O\ ' ' Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P do~fi ~)~A · T A-110 Print or type ngme of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-41; request to construct 22-bed congregate care facility for the elderly at the southeast corner o~ Fourth Avenue and "G" Street Melva E. Torres A. BACKGROUND The request is to construct a 22-bed residential care facility for the elderly on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "G" Street in the R-3 zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-69, of potential environment impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-69. 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-88-69. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the request, PCC-88-41, to construct a 22-bed congregate care facility at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "G" Street subject to the following conditions: a. The facility shall maintain a license in good standing and comply with all the regulations of the State of California for residential facilities for the elderly. b. The facility shall house no more than two residents per bedroom, or a total of 22 residents, whichever is less. c. The proposal shall comply with the plan approved or conditionally approved by the City Design Review Committee, which may include a reduction in the square footage of the building and number of bedrooms in order to achieve an acceptable project design. The Committee's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission and on to the City Council if necessary. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 d. Evidence that this conditional use permit has been recorded with the County Recorders Office shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Said recording shall represent notice to present and future owners of the property that any proposal to reuse or convert the building or site from a State-licensed residential facility for the elderly will require parking in conformance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-3 Single and Multiple family South R-3 Multiple family East R-3 Multiple family West R-3 Multiple family Existing site characteristics The site is vacant and level, with 60 ft. of frontage on "G" Street and 150 ft. of frontage on Fourth Avenue. Apartments adjoin the site to the south and east. A single family dwelling and apartments are located to the north across "G" Street, and apartments are also located to the west across Fourth Avenue. Proposed use The project consists of a 2-story, 7,000 sq. ft. building and nine off-street parking spaces. The building extends practically the full length of the site, with setbacks of 15 ft. off Fourth and "G," and setbacks of 5 ft. and 18 ft. to the east and south respectively. The first floor contains two resident bedrooms, common dining and kitchen facilities, a common patio and administrative offices. The second floor contains nine additional resident bedrooms and extends over the parking area, which is located on the southerly portion of the site with access off Fourth Avenue. The facility would accommodate up to two residents for each of the ll bedrooms, or 22 residents total, and a staff of 3-4 employees. The facility would be licensed by the State, and provide congregate living for retired, ambulatory residents 62 years of age or older. The bedrooms do not have kitchens -- the facility will provide meals, housekeeping, some assistance with personal needs and care, and transportation. A schedule of organized activities it also proposed (please see the attached schedule provided by the applicantl. D. ANALYSIS The property appears generally well located for congregate care use. The site is convenient to most community facilities and services, including medical facilities, public transportation, the library, Memorial Park, and City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 3 the downtown shopping district. The Norman Park Senior Center at "F" Street and Del Mar Avenue is also relatively convenient to the site. Although the closest grocery store is approximately 3/4 mile from the property, in this case all meals are provided by the facility. The project also appears to present little potential for conflict with adjacent uses. The surrounding area consists almost entirely of multiple family use with the exception of one single family dwelling to the north. The height of the building is consistent with the 2-story apartments adjoining the site on the east and south. The bulk of the building is greater because of the increased coverage achieved with tuck-under parking, but the coverage does not exceed the 50 percent standard for the R-3 zone. The population density for the site will be greater for congregate care than it would be if the property were developed with five multiple family units as allowed under the R-3 zone (22 residents plus 3-4 staff for congregate care, versus an estimated 12 residents for standard multiple family). But seniors projects, and particularly congregate care, typically generate substantially less noise, traffic and general activity impacts than a traditional multiple family project. Thus the potential for disruption due to the greater population density is expected to be minimal. The plan shows nine off-street parking spaces to serve the 22 residents and 3-4 employees. The applicant estimates that only about five residents will own cars -- leaving four spaces for employees and the occasional guest. The Municipal Code does not set parking standards for congregate care facilities. Various senior housing projects have been developed with a parking ratio of .50 to 1.O0 space per unit. Eleven multiple family studio units--as opposed to bedrooms--would require 17 spaces, and the standard for rooming and lodging houses is one space per bedroom; however, such facilities typically generate substantially less demand for parking than any other type of residential project. One example of a residential care facility located 1/2 mile from the subject site is the Chula Vista Inn at 171 Fourth Avenue which has 34 parking spaces to serve 160 beds and 18 employees (a ratio of 0.2 spaces per bed), and according to the manager this ratio is more than adequate, with usually 5-6 spaces unoccupied at any one time. The present request involves a parking ratio of 0.4 spaces per bed (9 spaces for 22 beds), or twice that of the Chula Vista Inn. Although there is certainly room for error in comparing larger and smaller projects, based on the resident profile, the fact that the facility will provide transportation, and the favorable comparison with the Chula Vista Inn, we are comfortable with the nine parking spaces provided. Two concerns of staff are the lack of common facilities and amenities, and the aesthetics of the building. Common areas are limited to a common patio of 230 sq. ft., and a dining/dayroom of approximately 450 sq. ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 4 The remainder of the site is taken up in landscaped but unusable setbacks and the parking area. Similarly, the building generally extends to the setback lines at all points, presenting a largely unrelieved, rectangular exterior with little visual variety or interest. Both problems stem from the limitations of the site when coupled with the nature of the use. The site is only 9,000 sq. ft. in area and subject to an exterior sideyard setback of 15 ft. along its entire Fourth Avenue frontage. This represents 1,500 sq. ft. of additional setback in comparison to the same size site located interior to the block. Typically this would simply mean that the applicant would have to work within the limitations of the site and yet achieve a level of common amenities and aesthetics commensurate with projects on more generous sites. In terms of congregate care, however, a 22-bed facility appears to be marginally economic at best, and thus the trade-off for more common amenities and superior design would likely result in no facility at all. Although common areas are limited, each bedroom is provided with a private patio or balcony of at least 70 sq. ft. and in some cases as much as lO0 sq. ft. or more. We believe these private areas coupled with the convenience of nearby park and public areas compensates for a somewhat reduced level of on-site common amenities, particularly in light of the desire to accommodate this type of use to meet the needs of an aging society. The question of aesthetics can perhaps best be addressed by the Design Review Committee, which has review and approval authority over this and all other R-3 zoned properties in the City. There are certain measures which could be taken to enhance the design without substantially modifying the existing building envelope. A condition of approval has been recommended which would formally notify the Committee, however, that the Commission's approval of the conditional use permit does not prohibit a subsequent reduction in the square footage or number of bedrooms if that is deemed necessary by the Committee in order to achieve an acceptable design. The question of reuse of the building is also a concern because of what we see as the marginal economics of a small congregate care facility. Should the facility fail, there likely would be pressure to convert the building to some other use. However, parking as proposed would be deemed inadequate to accommodate even a rooming and boarding house. Therefore, we have included a condition that would at least document and notice the fact that any reuse of the building will likely require additional parking. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions noted under Section B and based on the following findings. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 5 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. The congregate care facility will provide housing for the benefit of the elderly in a protected environment which meets practically all of their basic needs. The site is centrally located with respect to community facilities and services which will supplement on-site services and activities. 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. The proposal meets all of the basic standards of the R-3 zone with the exception of parking and expected population density. In terms of urban activity, however, projects for seniors and the elderly generate less noise, traffic and demand for parking, and therefore the project is not expected to have a detrimental impact on adjacent residents. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposal shall be required to meet all applicable conditions, Codes and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 encourages the provision of additional housing for the elderly in appropriate locations convenient to community facilities and services. WPC 5111P/2652P 22-BED CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY ISEC.F,o. urthAvenue ~.~and G Street_ negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Fourth Avenue Care Facility PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of Fourth and "G" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Melva E. Torris 5703 Yearling Court Bonita, California CASE NO: IS-88-69 DATE: April 28, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site consists of a 9000 square foot graded vacant lot located within the urbanized area of central Chula Vista. There are no significant biological nor cultural resources present. B. Project Description The project consists of the construction of an eleven (ll) unit, 9360 square foot two-story building for the care of individuals 62 years of age or older and the mentally unstable. A total of nine (9) parking spaces will be provided. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The property is zoned R-3 "Apartment Residential" and is designated "High Density Residential" within the General Plan. A conditional use permit will be required of the project in order for it to comply with R-3 zoning. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Noise Due to its location along a street with considerable automotive traffic, an acoustics report was required of the project site. An acoustics report was prepared in August of 1986 on a proposed apartment complex of similar construction that was to be built at the site. That report indicated that in order for the project to comply with the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Section 2-3501 concerning interior noise level limits, mechanical ventilation would be required in all units. In addition, balconies/patios facing Fourth Avenue or "G" Street would require glass or plexiglass (movable if desired) across the complete front face, 6' above the floor in compliance with Chula Vista noise requirements for outdoor areas. It was also noted that party walls would have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50. city of chula vista planning department CITY OF environmental review section CHUI~ VISTA 2. Soil The soils report conducted on the site indicated the soil to be moderately expansive. This is typical of the area and has not caused significant problems in surrounding apartment developments. 3. Improvements Undergrounding of existing overhead electrical lines at "G" Street will be required. 4. Parking Nine {9) parking spaces will be provided on the project to serve a maximum estimated population of 26. In addition, no parking will be allowed in front of the project on Fourth Avenue due to a left-turn lane. The parking situation in the area is already difficult due to numerous surrounding older multi-family complexes. The building of this project with nine {9) spaces would most likely exacerbate this problem. An increase in the number of on-site parking spaces may be necessary in order to increase the feasibility of the project as it relates to the existing neighborhood. '~ ' E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The proposed ll-unit building complex for the aged mentally unstable will not result in the degradation of the quality or diversity of the environment. 2. The project' is designed to provide much needed housing and will not result in long-term adverse environmental impacts. 3. The ll-unit project will not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts. 4. The project will not result in significant traffic or noise impacts that will adversely affect human beings. 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 Applicant's Agent: Austin E. Lucious city of chula vitae plenning department Ci'IYOF environmental review leotton.CHULAVISTA 2. Documents a. Chula Vista General Plan b. Chapter 19.70 of Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code c. Limited Site Investigation proposed residential building site, southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and "G" Street City of Chula Vista, May 13, 1986, Soil Testers Inc. d. Acoustical Analysis, Fourth Avenue & "G" Street for Austin E. Lucious, August 12, 1986, San Diego Acoustics, Inc. 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. ~ ~ COORDINATOR . ENVIRO~NNT~L p~VI~W~ ' ~. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5096P city of chul~, vllt,, planning dep,,rtment cr~'o~: - envlronmentel review ilctlon. CHULA VISTA ~ ~ FUR OFFICE Case No. /.~ Fee ~ ~.~. INITIAL STUDY Receipt 'No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form ~Project No.. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE c~ 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) T~E qro~T1-1 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PR~ECT DESCRIPTION ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~- Address ~0~ Y~LI~ CT Phone ~- City ~~ State ~ .. Zip 5.~ Name of Preparer/Agent ~ ~ ~1~ ' Address ~ ~ ~1~ ~' Phone City ~AN ~ State ~ Zip Relation to Applicant ~1~1~' 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan --Grading Permit. Design Review Board -- Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map - Redevelopment Agency ~Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). ~ Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report - Grading Plan __Landscape Plans __Nydrological Study ~ Site Plan __Photos of Site & __ Biological Study -- Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tenta'tive Subd. Map ~ Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other -- Approvals Required EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage <~OS~Tor acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. ~ Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family ~ Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom ~l 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units d. Gross density IDU/total acres) '~I~) Llh~' t~ e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication),~)l~ f. Estimated project population ~ g. Estimated sale or rental price range h. Square footage of floor areals) ~l~o~ i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. .Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of e~ployees per s~ift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers Iper day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting ~ project other than residential, commercial or industrial If is complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated ~.~ (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? C. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut ~-q 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 c.onditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~.~ ~.L-~£.q'I~CIC H~%lhqc-- 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) /~<~ ~:F~t ~-[, 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. C~/( , ~qokl~ ~F~,~j 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? ~ 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? )c:~ ~/A>4 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? l~0 (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? ~I ~) 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. ~-q~)..~ ~_~ 3. Noise a~--Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or- adjacent land uses? 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 'F~ ~ ~i-l~ 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? ~-~0 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. ~Xh~ I b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ~LJ~-'[) ~:::~\)L_~ ~qo~-~ -T')J~ ~ South ~ ~) East ~ ~) West n ~ ~ ~ ~ 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site?. (If so, how many?) ~,qO~ b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? {If so, how many and what type?) ~-J~F~I~ Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ~-~.~<~3-- ~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.- i Case No. I~-~-~c~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use ~esignation on site: ~'~J~ ~:~m'~ North ~ l, ~-- South t~ ~( East ii II West y~ ~, Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent. to an area so designated? /)~! Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? o/Q~t~tect or (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pr enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~,~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~ ~! Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 3. Schools ~ ~v/'~ If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Jr. Hi gh 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: Dir Date~ / ng or~Re~presentati ve - 10 - Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?, d. What is the location a~ des?ipt~on of ex~ting drainage facilities? .~O/t/~! ~tY~. ~(~,.~ ~S e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site_ drainage facilities? Om/~ ~/.q. ~ _~ ~_ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. ~ransportation a. Wha% roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project {per day)? ~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After . (e'e,-A,.i d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. -/~f ~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets?, ~'~$ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. ,, -ll Case No. 3. Gaol ogy a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~m.K~J~t. Liquefaction? ~ ~_~./,~, Landslide or slippage? ~o~' b.Is an engineering geo]o~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~ ~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil c~ditions on the proje,ct site? m~~] ~o ~o~[~ ~o~ If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? b. c. Is a soils report necessary? ~ · ~F,~r ~ 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 r~quired of the applicant? ~otS~ ~/~ ~ -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 ~l X 18.3 : ~0~ NOx (NO2) ~ X 20.0 : ~0 Particulates ~ X 1.5 : Sul fur ~ X .78 = ~ ~ 8. ~aste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? I~hat is the location an~s~ze'of exJstJng sewer lines on or adjacent to the s~te? ~ /O~r/~/o~ ~~¢~ x~ ~ 5~ 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.) ~ I ~ ' · · . Remarks/necessary ~itigation measures - 13 - Case No. IS-88-69 FIRE DEPAR~IENT . l. What is the distance to the nearest fire sgation and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2. Hill the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire protection for..,t~ proposed facili~ without an.increase,in equipment ~NITIAL STUDY CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET CARE FACILITY Address S/E 4th & "G" Plan File No.__ Checker Gove Date 4/6/88 Type Constr. Occupancy. No. Stories 2 Bldg, Area 9,s60 sq, ft. The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: Based on information provided, the following requirements are submitted. 1, Title 19, California Administrative Code, classes this occupancy as 13. 2. Provide a fully automatic' fire sprinkler system. 3. Provide a fully automatic fire alarm system: 4. Provide smoke detectors. 5. All drapes~ curtains, wall hangings and carpeting shall be made from a nonflammable material or shall be treated and maintained in a flame retardant condition. 6. No open flame devic6s shall be allowed. 7. Provide one 2A10BC rated fire extinguisher for every 3,000 sq. ft. or so travel distance does not exceed 75 feet. 8. Construction type may be Type I FR or Type II FR only. FPB-29 APRIL 11. 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORINATOR P.O. BOX 1087 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 9201Z APR 1 ATTENTION: MR. DOUGLAS D. REID DEAR SIR: IN REPLY TO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR PROPOSED 11 UNIT TWO STORY BUILDING, LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH AND STREET, WE STRONLY OPPOSE ANY CONSTUCTION OF THIS KIND AT THIS LOCATION.. WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY EAST, 394 G STREET. PARKING AT THE PRESENT TIME IS AT A PREMIUM, THIS IS AN OLDER ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH LITTLE OFF STREET PARKING. THE EAST END OF G STREET AT THIRD AVENUE, NEW CONSTRUCTION, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTAL, WAS ALLOWED WITH INADEQUATE PARKING~ NOT HELPING THE SITUATION WHATSOEVER. .THE PROSPECT OF 11 UNITS WITH 9 SPACES WILL CERTAINLY CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS. WHERE DO THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS SENIOR CARE CENTER PARK? WHERE WILL VISITORS PARK? MANY SENIORS HAVE AUTOMOBILES HOW CAN THEY RESTRICT THE NON MENTAL INDIVIDUALS ON HAVING AUTOMOBILES. ~ WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PARKING ALLOWED ON THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. 'ANNONA L. FRANKLIN . P.O. BOX 655 .CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92012 ~ ~I \, ~I ~ .~ - ~~\I~~~~~~\~I ~I -' « .... I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I '" w .... 0 ,,".. a. ~I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I ">' ....u .. u~ ~ ~ co o·~ ~ ~ '" "'µ '" ...~ '" "'" ~ ~ ...'" ~ co", U ~ '" " e u "'... µ'" oµu µ uor '" >,<11 ....0'1 0 ~ ~ ~ ~...u . ~~ ..... o.Q.I 1....... .. .........;:, >,0'" Oe "a. ..... ilLS::: (I E ... u "'~ 0 ~ .~ µ" ·i..... u µµ 0'" ... ~ o.u~ "'u e... ....~ '" ... _0 ~ .. '" i ~.... '''''''' 0 u.... ~ µ u... ..... "'u "'''' µ~ -E'" - "'''' ';;'C,.... ~ 0 ... '- '" e~ e.. "C1lJ....Q.J..... µ ...µ 0 µ.... -µ "'e C-C_VlC ~~ U 0'" "'~ e.... µ ..", _C.-:JC,I "'- "µu >- "'''' ~e ~'-' w"C tCI"C E" ..c: en.... ~~ .. µ ........ ... ~ u_ 00 µ~ '" '" '" ~ O~ ,,~ ~'" 0"'_ ~ ~u ~O ..." o.~ "'µ e~ O~t..Q, > e "'~ e o.µ " ..~ Oµ >, 0'" ..~- -"'0 - u '" O~ U -~ ... UUE o.µ '" " ~ '" ~ u e.... .....Q.lQu>, ::I.... (, µ e .. ... .. '" '- ~ ~O e u J,......c: VI c ~~~ -"'0 ~O.. ~" ..... 0 Q,lcv.....<lJtØ O"'e " '" ,,µ ~ .. u_ ..~~ >,~ :.:; ~ ,.... 0'10..... ... '" ~....- ~ >- '" ~"'" -.. '" _ e u.... ..'" "'0'" "'~ "'~> '" '" ... C· ~ '" >,:;:; "C/GL.QlC) e",... ... 0. ... .. '" ~'" ...~ ... .,'" >, '" ~oo. _... 0 e ue "'''' "'E '" ... .. '- ..e ~.. '" _ 0'" ~"'- -"'''' -... ~'" "'e u "'- u"'.. e .. ~ "'_0 "'....~ '" "'... "'u.. U~ e~ 0 '" ....- '" e~ '" ue", ~.. ~....- ~e" ~"'u .... 0"'_ "'.. "'u ...., "I'I:J U E "''''... o u_ 0<11..... o "'.. O~'" -- .. u V>'" o CU_:J o;¡¡ ~ '" ~ 0."", 0. " o.~_ 0. 0. U'" C1I.....X ro ~'" "- s.. ,.. Co 1/1 :> 00'" '" O"'u ou~ o u" O"'E '" e VI 10 > 0'1 c:: C. U 0.'" 0 "'µe u L........... ...- ... U "'0_ ~'- :=O......us-c '\:V)>,.....u ... ......¡:: o.e", ... o.~", 0."_ 0._ 0. 0'" :;I.... QI.... Q.I ..... E..... '" _ 0 ~ -~ " "'0 "'''' "'... ~~ "'0 "CUCIII""III,xCQ.lVl_ ~"'''' "'''' .. e 0 "'~- "'~ u "'UO "'''''' o.~ C 1- Q) c:: :J.... s... (LJ........"O ..... E +-'..c:.... ~~.. ~ ~ 0 ..c:.......... ~- ..c: 0..... "'0 IØ..... U 000 ra c.." QI:::I ..........fI:.......... ..~ '" .."'''' ..~... ..~u ..-.. -,uV)u::r::z:o.cV}v>o.. "0 US:::..... '" '" ~'" "'0 >,- "'e ~.... .....0,.I<'Q.....s::;"C _E'" -..~ -"'.. ~~e .......... Q .. ".... ~..- ..........1- 0;;; U ~ '" o.~ -- .. '" '" II 0........ 1'0......- ..... C to -...... -...- 0 .. _"'0 ~ ~~ (..)100-,=)::):: ,"",'" ... ,"0'" "'O~ 0",.. "''''0. => - .. " .. ~ '; e ,; .&Ö .&Ö Ú .,; '" ,; '-' '" -' 0 :: '" ~ .' ~I \, \, \1 ~ ~I ~I \ ~I I \, -' « \J ;: I I I I I I I I I '" w .... 0 "'.0 a. ~I I I I I I I I I I I .. u '" 0. ... E 0;;; -~. ..e '" .. e e", 0;;; >,u e 0 "'u >, ..... ,; '" - E~ ... ..... :;; - " 11 ..~ "'.... - e", 11 _0 '" "'~ >.~ '" "'.. u '" ~ E "'... .... oe E '" .... '" " " '" '" 0. E "'... ~ '- '" '" ...e or.. .... >,~ ,~ 0 '" ... >,,,, .. e e '" ...~ e µ "'~ ee ~ ....- ,; ~ "'''' u - >, 0 "'~ ~ '" E e", -~ µ µ e "'>,- '- ~"'''' - ~ '" 0 ... ....~ '" e_ '" -'- 00 '" E 0 .. 0. e ...."'''' '" '" µ ...~ ...'" e ~ ~ eÞ '" 0. U ... .0. .... ~ 0'" "'... e 0. '" .. "'0 e>,o. .. '" u 0 '- ... 0'_ e eo~ ~~ .........:::1 u~u >,e 0. .... '" -;;; 0. "'- .~ ~ "'..... -'- "t- .. 0. '" ..'" .... ~V> ..- ....., U:;I .. '; ~ "''' E :;:;(I(, _0 -"'... ~"'c u.. µ'" e _ or "'...~ >« " "'" " o.~ "'e ue ~ 0. ~ 0 ..~ ...".. "'''' "," CT..... ~ E ..."'~ "'0 '" '; .- ... ~>, Q).......... ...- '" '" ->, ..... u VI .....,.... ... ~ >.- µ.. µ"'''' ......'" '" ~ 'U.... ..... ~.. ~ 0 '" -... ..~ '" µ '" '" ....'" " '" .. ,¡ u '" ~~ "''''''' ~'" ..µu .... VI C ........... :>- ~ µ u µ ..'" o.µ ...~ u"'_ III..... 0 U e '" ~ '" '" ~ ... e '- " _ E '" '" "''''- 0'_ "''''- .. '~ u 0'" ",or "''''E ....'" ~ ~ ..eµ .....,..... u >, 0 µ .............. eµ 0. >''' U '" e~", "'~ ... e ~~ e~ "'... .. '" ~ '" 0. "''''µ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0. '" "'þ eE u'_ C1..Ur- e ~ o.~ .....,......" c.<'D.... 0", U .- '" e", "'0 ,., oµ ... O~ 0. ~ '" '" ._~ ~.- .. '" .. c_ .- ~ .. e 0 ...",... ..ee 0. e ~ ....'" e_ "'''' ...~ 11I(1)......... .. >, ~ 0 o.µ 0. ~'- .. ._~ 0.'" ~µ '" ~ ~... '" "'>' µ µ ,., 0. µ µ >, "'''' CO .- " ~ '" ....'" ::I:::I<l>C: -µ '- µµ "''''''' µe µ ~ ~ "'E ~or "'µ ...~ "'...... 010 0.'_ 0;;; "C u.... ~ u_ ~- '" '- µ E '; '- ~ ~ uV> '" e ~e_ - "'- µ u_ - ,,- 0;;; 0. ~ ... '- ... '" µ", Q,I·....tClcn >'" " "....'" "'~ ,,~~ ~ ~ 0. [ "... eµ ..c::O..c:w " 0 0.... " ~ee e"'E " -.... '-' «0. "- we - ~ I-Eus... «or '-''''or -"E u...'" 0 ... '~I ... '" . µ '" .&Ö « '" ~ '" '" '" ~ ~ '" m , -- - "'" "'"" "''"' "" '" "''' >-- ~... ~~ ~ ~ "''' ...'" -:>'"' ~" ",C).. "'E'"' E"'u -'" c:: o..'~ OEO ........ L '"' ~ ~ '" en 0'1.&::1 QJ Lo.J ..... .¡;;;;, ex: ~,....... ;:::I .....__ en E....~ < ;!:: 0 w ... , ~ O~ c: "0 ,.... :z .....",.... N C) C +-' .... 0"'"' . I I- .,... u s... < .....(1IQ, C) ......, c.. ...... >00 .... "'... ...... s... C. $... '" 0 ,",,,, tt U.c c: o C!.I'" 0 -~ ~ V" 0 0 +-' Z s....... 0 o a.c:::s - ~... ~ '" '"' "" ~ > ..... Q.I C I..o.J ~ +-' 0 0:: QI'CIU I- ~~ ~ U 0 a.c: r:: Lo.J ~s...0'I QJ ~ c·.... c o QJU..... 0 ex: .cCQJ a. ~ I--~ ~ ~ u '" ~ '" o ." ......-. -_. 1..", . . . \ \ \ \ ~ ""I ~I \ I I ,- ~ I ~ I I -' '" § I I 1 I. I I I o , Co ~I I I 1 r 1 I I , u -'" ~ QJ .....I'(C C v...~ IC::SC ..... L It! I'CI,.... LUC,I CI'CI'CaQJ ... 0 Ls... to L...... 0_> OQJ'_U~QJ U ~...OO ... ~I'( .c.c.... uE>....c QJ ~ \ 00 >. UQ.I QJ+J .....:;1:........ QJ ....c:... '<-_ c........ u QJ> ~s... OQJ ........ L>,QJ1j..... ~... QJ.....C C~ .,,"'"' ~ ...~CQJCU "',....,....C +-'~_ QJ U ........I'(Q,I C,lC O.c~. OU ",_C_", QJJ:I_VUC QJQ, "' ::I U"O 01", L. QJ..... .... ,......... 0..... 0. J:: > I'D QJ C,I "'..... ,......... "- C,I~._."" s........ OV>QJ s... I'CIC aJE- U_LC~~ ... I'CIL..... ..... EU C,lc" --11;I> ....Or- ....."...........,.,...... .......QJ"'dJo.....u ....G.I'C QJ "4IU E aJ::S.s::Q,I I'(.... ....>VI..... Q) "c1'O"O .....s.......Q.I C> s...~~"' C,lg ~î"o..... ~~~ ~~~....~ë5 ~~~~>O~6 ~~~ QJ..... c c_ ......... QJ CCE ........OCC,lQJ.... VlEe c......-,s... c .s:: .c"O "", fU.... ........::Jc U QJQJC Q....t;1>QJ.......::I ....::10<11/11<1100.. 0........ ....::1..... to OttlO,"" c: +-'EO 0'1:1 Et...I.... uuu....s;:/tIt... t...1O'_ ~~.... S;:~ ~uu /tI OCt... _CD~ 10 UZOC..~ __~ t...U't:lO ....u ~.... _ U 00'_ ~~~o C~ c......~~ t... >.... OC_ _10 .... '1:1_ _ ~> ~~....~~o~ E~_""~_""~ cc -u~ Z> c~c_.... IO_C ........c·___.... -~~__OC~ ~tO~ C-_C ~ ~""tOC >~ ~->W >WD W~ ....~ 0....41 ~ Eu ~ c we WOEc>wo 41 IO~~"" ~~e ....~~> u~ www·... ~ >WW >....CW__.... >'t:I~_t.......~ >D_ ~WWW cu t...·~u~ to ~ to 0 ...._c IOWlOtOWu~W /tI~W W ~gc..w ~~ ~e~tO ~ ~~.... .c::e~~~i- ~~~~~~u~ ~~D > c..1O ....1.::('000 wen CTc..~ .... ........... ...w>...w _ ....EEw~_~tO ....wc - ~..._...c _t... w -_ 0 u 0 U"'C t... u_~ECWWD U~IO ~ W~~C~ ~~ t...~~0 ~ .~~~ ~~wgw~~ ~-~tBw5f .~~~ ~ ~~ ....~ ~w ~ ~~-~ ~ f~~ f~e....~~w e~ gw~oc.. EU..l.::~. 0-'t:I _C 41 -c~w o...~ c..~wu t... c..__._~ __ c..~c~ ~ _~""cc to E >oc_ 't:I _t... ~""tOc""~ tOW tO~oo _0_ .... .- 0 ~ 0 0 w ~ ~ U ..... _ c w _ 41 W . 0.... 0 v W:;: _ w... Q,/........ 41 10 O't:l·...u _". U WWuw ~IO> ~wenE c ..I.::"ODs;:...._~vt ..I.::ZVlU VI ~ ~'t:IW'" DO ~ ~VI~ ~ ...~_ ...>c_vt"OQ) ....-to....uZ........ .... "'Q,/ c.. 0 ~t.......IO.... 't:I "Ow CTV 410 t...o >". Q,/ uu ~u~ ~ g .[~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~.~~ ~ ~WW ~~-~B·c= :~~~~g~~ ~~~~ .... t... /tI_/tIO 0_ .... ... 0 o.c::~ ou_Wuw_ oc_~"......__ o.c::_c o 0 <..c,....t...~ o...c....c ......c1O ... c....... CIOO"'Oo.~ Q.....vt....c......WQ,l C:XQ).... .... "0_"'_ /tI ~ .- ~ _~:X:;: 't:I ~ - 0 ::'~OE C .... . i- 0 ~ ,.. ~ to . 0:: :;J: to D <.:) ut...O\U ::E 10 D U -,:J - N M N N N ._>____,~___ . ._.___ _,,____n', ,__._,,__________ April 3~ 1988 ATTN : City of Chula Vista Planning Dept. Re: short description of planned board and care home for the elderly Activities and Recreation programs : - On Monday, Wednesday~ and Fridays, either before or after lunch, light exercise programs will be provided for the clients. - And on Tuesday and Thursdays, games and rides to the public parks or beaches will be provided for all clients. Clients or Residents typical day : - In the morning, the client will start off by having break- fast at the dinner table. After the meal, he or she will get dress and prepare themseleves for the day. Next, he or she will participate in the activities scheduled for the day. By this time lunch is ready. After having lunch, the client will either take a short nap or watch telvision. During this time, the client is free to do whatever he or she wishes to do. Soon after, it is time for dinner. After dinner, the client will get ready for bedtime. And thus concluding their day. Transportation for Clients : - The ~acility will provide transportation for the clients, if the location of their destination is within a 5 mile radius of the location of the facility. Otherwise, the client must find an alternate source of transportation. - Approximately ~ residents may have cars. - A resident will approximately have a couple of guests once a week. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ~ATE~NT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the p¥operty involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No/N~ If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc-6E-(~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, ~rus~, rec~ive~, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city! municipality, d~str~ct or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)/,,~ /~. ) Signature of applicant~date WPC 0701P ,~'"~ ~LYA A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ 88-M-M - Consideration to rezone a 4-acre property located on the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita Street from a C-37 heavy commercial zone to a I-L limited industrial zone - Hedenkamp and Associates Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-43M Request for a Master CUP for selected commercial uses within the I-L zone on the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita Street A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a site plan to develop two triangular shaped parcels totaling 7.60 acres on either side of Broadway between Anita Street and Main Street. Construction on both parcels totaling approximately 110,208 square feet are proposed to be used for light industrial and commercial uses. Although both parcels are zoned C-37 heavy commercial, the eastern parcel is designated for research and light industrial uses under the Montgomery Specific Plan. In order to avoid potential conflicts created by operation of commercial uses in conflict with the light industrial land use designation, the applicant requests rezone of the eastern parcel to the I-L zone and approval of a master CUP to permit selected commercial uses which would complement light industrial activities. 2. An Initial Study, IS-88-62M of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on April 22, 1988, who concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted. 3. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of May 4, 1988, voted 5-0 with two members absent to recommend approval of the rezone request and master conditional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff for the use permit as amended. The amendment is included as condition L of the recommended conditions for the CUP. In addition, the Committee requested staff to request that the Engineering Department review the existing traffic signal program at Anita Street and Broadway to determine whether installation of left-turn arrows for the turn from Anita Street to Broadway is warranted. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-62M. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone currently in effect over the 4-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Broadway and Anita Street from C-37 heavy commercial to I-L-P limited industrial. 3. Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-88-43M to approve select commercial uses within the subject I-L-P zone subject to the following conditions: A. Land uses permitted to operate under the master CUP shall be limited to those uses listed as follows: 1. Furniture Stores 2. Large Sporting Good Outlets 3. Volume Bookstores 4. Boat Sales and Marine Supply Stores 5. Retail Clothing Warehouses 6. Major Appliance Centers 7. Home Decorating Centers/Home Improvement Centers 8. Food Bazaars - such as Farmer's Market 9. Cycleries - featuring wholesale and retail bike sales lO. Yardage Stores ll. Wilderness Outfitting Centers 12. Retail Import Centers 13. Large Art Supply Centers 14. Wholesale Office Supplies 15. Retail Catalog Sales Centers 16. Photocopying Services/Instant Printing 17. Carpet Store 18. Wholesale/Retail Paint Store 19. Large Toy Center 20. Restaurant, Delicatessen and Similar Establishments 21. Retail Distribution Center B. Prior to leasing of tenant spaces and application for business license proposed uses under the master CUP shall obtain approval of an administrative site plan, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. C. Proposed land uses under the master CUP which involve alteration of the exterior of the building or new construction shall be required to obtain prior approval from the City's Design Review Committee. D. All signs must comply with a comprehensive sign program approved by the City's Design Review Committee. E. Open storage of materials or equipment, sale of goods or work performed outside of an enclosed building is expressly prohibited. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 3 F. All activities on site shall be conducted in compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance contained in Chapter 19.68 of the Municipal Code. Exterior noise limits shall not exceed acceptable limits for the multiple dwelling residential receiving land use category as measured at the property boundary behind all noise buffer walls. G. Parking for all activities on site shall comply with parking standards listed in Section 19.62.050 of the Municipal Code. H. Uses approved under the master CUP are approved without time limits unless otherwise specifically indicated by the Director of Planning through the administrative site plan process. I. Violation of any of the conditions of approval for the CUP and/or site plan shall cause the CUP for that specific use to be reviewed for additional conditions or revocation. J. The developer shall install 10 private fire hydrants on site and fully automated sprinkler systems for both the eastern and western parcels, the type and location subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal. K. Standard development regulations for street improvements and fire protection required prior to issuance of building permits for the project shall include the following: 1. Dedication of right-of-way on Silvas Street will be required to accommodate a centerline to property line distance of 36 feet (approximately an ll' dedication.) 2. Installation of full improvements will be required along all frontage on Broadway, Anita Street and Silvas Street. These improvements will include, but will not be limited to: curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, driveway approaches, A.C. paving and median reconstruction on Broadway, drainage facilities as required. Improvement plans are to be submitted for approval by the City for this work. 3. Centerline to curb distances will be 26 feet on Anita Street and Silvas Street and 41 feet on Broadway. The curb to property line distance on each street will be 10 feet. 4. Grading plans and grading permits will be required if exemptions in Ordinance 1797 are not met. 5. Approved improvement plans and construction permits will be required for any work performed in the City's right-of-way. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 4 6. Sewer and traffic signal fees will be assessed when the building permits are issued. 7. All driveway approaches will conform to City standards including the following: a. 36' maximum curb opening per driveway; b. 22' minimum distance between curb openings; c. A maximum of 60 percent frontage for curb openings. L. Proposed noise walls and fences shall have landscaping with pant materials which discourage the potential for graffiti, subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin§ and land use. North RU-31 Multi-family residential South M-52 Limited Industrial Mobilehome park East RU-24 Mobilehome park West C-37 Used auto sales, industrial warehouse Existing site characteristics. The project site consists of two triangular shaped parcels totaling 7.6 acres located on either side of the 1600 block of Broadway between Anita Street and Main Street. The easterly 4 acres are the only portion of the project seeking rezoning and use permit action. The eastern parcel is a level lot presently containing a large metal warehouse fronting Anita Street and a tire shop in the south corner of the triangular shaped lot with frontage onto Broadway. Adjacent land uses include apartments to the north, a mobile home park to the east and south, and Broadway and the western parcel to the west. General plan. The project site is designated for Research and Limited Industrial land uses under the Montgomery Specific Plan approved by the City Council in January. Rezone of the project site to the I-L-P limited industrial zone would serve to bring the parcel into conformance with that plan. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 5 Proposed Use. The proposed project consists of demolition of existing structures and construction of commercial/industrial buildings totaling 110,208 square feet. The western parcel commercial buildings would cover approximately 52,626 square feet. The eastern parcel would contain two buildings totaling 57,582 square feet. The main building would be a light industrial center with selected furniture/distribution type commercial uses. The second building of undetermined tenancy would total no more than 3,360 square feet. The site would be served by 226 parking spaces. Loading and unloading activities would occur along the eastern side of the building. D. ANALYSIS The request by the applicant to rezone the eastern parcel to limited industrial uses came about through a series of consultations with staff, in order to respond to the developer's desire to construct a commercial/ industrial center prior to completion of the implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan and rezoning therewith. Rather than wait for implementation and rezonin§ to occur, the applicant wishes to take the rezone action to avoid burdening the eastern portion of the property with non-conforming uses or development standards once zone changes take place. Rezoning to an I-L limited industrial zone is consistent with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation outlined by Part Two of the specific plan. Staff is recommending, however, that the P precise plan designator be added to the zone to insure that the design review requirement is retained that is currently in force for the rest of Montgomery. The request for a master CUP for selected commercial uses does not include all conditional uses listed within the I-L zone, but only those conditional uses categorized under retail distribution centers and manufacturers outlets or supporting uses. Any requests for land uses outside this list would have to make separate application through the CUP process. The conditions of approval for the Master CUP focus primarily upon providing a framework for conducting the activities contained within the list in a manner which does not conflict with mobilehome parks located adjacent to the eastern parcel and condominiums located on the north side of Anita Street. Clarification of the parking standards to be employed, noise control regulations, prohibitions against open storage and the requirement for design review for additions or alterations would protect adjacent residents from undue impacts stemming from the more intensive industrial and quasi commercial activities taking place. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 6 The proposed requirement for administrative site plan review provides additional opportunities for staff to review individual uses based upon the specific characteristics of the use which are not now available. In summary, staff is recommending that the rezone request be approved with the P precise plan designator, along with the Master CUP for selected commercial uses, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The request would serve to bring the eastern parcel into conformance with the limited industrial land use designation directed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, and provide the developer with the opportunity for establishing some complementary commercial activities while providing some protection from these more intensive land uses to adjacent residents. E. FINDINGS FOR REZONE WITH "P" PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT The "P" Precise Plan Modifying District may be applied to areas within when the following is evident: The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is located is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristic, access, configuration, traffic circulation or some social or historic situation requiring special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. The subject property is located in the middle of the Montgomery Community which operates under zoning regulations which require design review approval for all new commercial and industrial projects, the development should reflect that same requirement. The property or area to which the P modifying district is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise be incompatible. The eastern parcel is adjacent to the mobilehome parks on the eastern and southern property boundary and the precise plan designation would serve to buffer potential land use conflicts. F. FINDINGS FOR MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. That the proposed use at the particular 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. The proposed commercial uses provide a complementary transition from commercial to limited industrial areas while providing protection to adjacent residents from potentially conflicting land uses through noise, parking and design review controls. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 7 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. The proposed commercial uses shall adhere to noise control measures, prohibitions against open storage, and parking requirements, providing a protective impact buffer between commercial/industrial activities and adjacent residents. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this code for such use. With approval of the master conditional use permit, the proposed commercial/industrial project complies with the regulations contained within Title 19 of the Municipal Code. 4. That the granting of this conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The granting of this master conditional use permit to allow selected commercial uses within the proposed limited industrial zone conforms to the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation in effect over the property by the Montgomery Specific Plan. WPC 5114P negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Anita/Broadway Commercial Center PROJECT LOCATION: 535 Anita Street and 1600 Broadway IAssessors Parcel number 622-111-49, 50 PROJECT APPLICANT: National Properties and Syndications, Inc. CASE NO: IS 88-62M DATE: April 22, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site consists of two triangular shaped parcels totaling 7.6 acres located on either side of the 1600 block of Broadway between Anita Street and Main Street. The eastern parcel is a level lot of 4 acres which presently contains a large metal warehouse fronting Anita Street and a tire shop in the south corner of the triangular shaped lot with frontage onto Broadway. Adjacent land uses include apartments to the north, a mobile home park to the east and south, and Broadway and the western parcel to the west. The western parcel is a level lot of 3.6 acres which presently contains an auto sales/dismantling facility on the north corner with frontage onto Anita Street and Broadway and two industrial buildings located on the south portion of the property. Adjacent land uses include commercial buildings to the north, Broadway and the eastern parcel to the east, apartments and a commercial center to the south, and industrial uses to the west. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of demolition of existing structures and construction of commercial/industrial buildings totaling 110,208 square feet. The western parcel commercial buildings would cover approximately 52,626 square feet. Two buildings are proposed: one a commercial center catering to individual retail tenants, and the other would be a fast food restaurant. The parcel would be serviced by 215 parking spaces. Loading would occur at the entrance from Silvas Street at metal roll up doors built into the west side of the building. The eastern parcel would contain two buildings totaling 57,582 square feet. The main building would be a light industrial center with selected furniture/distribution type commercial uses~ The second building of undetermined tenancy would total no more than 3,360 square feet. The site would be served by 226 parking spaces. Loading and unloading activities would occur along the eastern side of the building. city of chula vista planning department CIW~'"~"o environmental review section CHLJL~ VI A -2- Standard development regulations for street improvements and fire protection required prior to issuance of building permits would include the following: 1. Dedication of eleven feet of additional right-of-way along Silvas Street to provide half width of 36 feet and shall be improved from centerline to property line according to industrial street standards. 2. Anita Street shall be improved from centerline to property line according to industrial street standards. 3. Broadway shall be improved within the boundaries of the proposed project (both sides) to major street standards. 4. Improvements to the above named streets shall include but not be limited to: A.C. pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights. 5. All buildings shall be equipped with a fully automatic sprinkler system. 6. Ten on site private fire hydrants shall be provided, the type and location subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed project is compatible with the C-37 heavy commercial zone currently in effect over the site, and would be compatible with the I-L zone proposed by the applicant with approval of a master CUP for the eastern parcel. The proposed project, with approval of those discretionary permits, would be consistent with the Research and Limited Industrial and Mercantile and Office Commercial land use designations outlined for this area by the Montgomery Specific Plan. D. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Noise Both the eastern and western parcel would be located adjacent to existing residential developments; traffic and other commercial and industrial activities have the potential for creating unacceptable noise impacts ,to adjacent residences. Placement of the main building on the eastern parcel would place loading doors for commercial and industrial uses as well as employee parking within 50 feet of mobile homes within a neighborhood mobilehome park. The primary building on the western parcel would place loading~doors and employee parking adjacent to an existing apartment building. However, the site plan for the project proposes to locate a 6 foot masonry wall along the length of the eastern parcel's east property boundary as means of buffering mobilehomes from ambient noise city of chula vista planning department O~OF environmental review sectlon. CHUL~Vl$]'A -3- impacts. By the same token, a proposed six foot concrete fence along the western parcel's south property boundary provides the same protection to adjacent apartments. Finally both parcels are subject to regulations outlined in the Montgomery zoning ordinance and within title 19 of the Municipal Code, governing maximum acceptable noise levels and the hours within which that noise must be confined. The construction of noise buffers and adherence to standard noise control regulations serve to reduce the potential for noise impacts to adjacent residences to a level below significance. 2. Traffic The Engineering Department has determined that the proposed project will generate approximately 7,592 one-way auto trips per day. That increase in traffic over present levels within that road segment will not, however, result in any loss in present levels of service for Broadway or Anita Street. In addition, standard development regulations requiring the traffic improvements listed in the project description serve to eliminate the potential for creation of significant and adverse traffic, impacts to existing streets. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects 1. Noise With construction of the proposed walls to buffer noise and adherence to standard'zoning regulations, no further mitigation is required at this time. 2. Traffic With construction of street improvements, no further mitigation is necessary to reduce effects of increased traffic. F. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. With proposed noise buffers and improvements to existing roads, the proposed commercial and industrial development will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The proposed ~ommercial and industrial development with upgrading of street improvements will serve to achieve both short and long term environmental goals. 3. The commercial industrial project contains no adverse cumulative environmental effects, all potential environmental effects are mitigated to a level below significance. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental ravlaw sectlon,CI-IULA¥1STA -4- 4. Construction of buffer walls adjacent to residential uses will provide protection from potential noise impacts which could adverse environmental effects to human beings. 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 Applicant's Agent: Hedenkamp and Associates 1331 India Stree~ San Diego, CA 92101 2. Documents a) Chapter 19.?0 and 19.69, Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code b) Montgomery Specific Plan 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 ~nd 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. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5083P/Ol?5P city of chula vista planning department CI1YOI: · environmental review lecIIon.CHULAVI~A FOR OFF~CE USE -'.~ ' ':~"~ Case No. ' ~ .'. ~.~,~.'~ · STUDY Receipt~N°' ~ 2,¢_~ ~ ~ ~ Date Rec~d City. of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. ~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PR~ECT TITLE ~ /B~oa~% C~c~C~. 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) ~:' S~st ~G Br~a~ ~ ' AssessOrS Book, Page & Parcel No. 622-111-49 ~ 50 3. ~RIEF pR~ECT DESCRIPTION One Sto~ Indus~ial &C~r~ 4. Name of Applicant N~ional ~ ~ Phone 488-8625 Address 1010 ~oise st. Suite 30l _ Z~p ~ 9?IQq C~ty S~Di~o State 5. Name of preparer/Agent H~ ' ' Phone 2~?-3034 Address 1331 India St. Z~p 92101 C~ty S~ Dido State ~' ~ Re]at~o~ to Applicant Cli~ 6. Indicate ail permits or approvals and enclOsures or documents required by the Env~rpnmen'ta] Review CoordinatOr. a. permits o~ appr69a]s required: Genera] Plan Revision w..Des~gn Review committee Public pro~ect ~ Rezon~ng/Pmezon~ng Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexat~on ~Prec~se Plan ' Gmad~ng Permit ' Design Review Board ~ Specific Plan 'Tentative Parcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency X Cond. Use Permit 5~te plan & Arch. Review Othe~ 'Vam~amce · b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Arch. Elevations ~ Eng. Geology Report -H3dro]og~ca] study Location Map ' Grading plan Landscape plans S~te Plan - Photos of S~te & B~o]og~ca] Study · - '.AF~haeo]og~ca] Survey "Parcel Map Setting - Precise plan Tentative Subd. Map No~se Assessment Specific plan - Improvement Plans "Traffic Impact Report ~ Other Agency Permit or So,Is Report ~ Othe~ "Approvals Required B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land A~e~; iq. footage 331.056 or acreage ?.60 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. Street Indication 2. Complete this section if project is resf~ential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures 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 9. Estimated sale or rental price'range h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by bui:ldings 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 i'f project is commercial or industrial. b.. Floor area 11(] 2n~ ~_f ~ Height of structure(s) ~ c. Type of construction used in the structurewood Frame & Stuc~Co Finish d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets Broadway Anita & silvas Street~ e. Number of on-site parking spaces pro~vided 441 f. Estimated number of employees per shift 60 , Number of shifts One Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis'of estimate ~ 1500 h. Estimated range of s~rvice area and basis of estimate ~. Type/exten of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation 7 A.M. to 9P.M. k. Type of exterior lighting Hiah Pressure sodiura 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. N/A a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed ft~uctures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking space.s to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. NO 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO (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 offill 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 lair conditioning, electrical appliance', heating equipment, etc.) ~ ~i~ ~onditionin~ for C~./ IndustrialFacilities W/ ~ormal Elec. Facilities For the S~rae Project. 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) I 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs, ¢cmerc±al / Industr±al 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials' or substances be used or stored within the projedt site? NO 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? + 2000 8. Describe {if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: nev~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. New Driveways; Curbs Gutters, LightJ-ng & Side%talks. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE~TING 1. Geology Has a geology study' been conducted on the property? NO IIf yes, please attach) Has a Soils'Report on the project site been made? {If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? {If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? NO b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? NO c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? 1{O d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities fO be provided and their location. 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? NO 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Yes b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the Site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. One (Toke rea~ved) 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 sit~ NO 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. ~ ~]~la~n~ - I~u~trial & C~nercia~ b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. N6rth conercial & Apartments South Cc~ercial & apar~m~n~ West i~ustri~! 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?t' I 15 to 20 Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. E. CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escro Consultant or Agent* · HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: South ./~/-,~-~ /~_ - 3 '-7 Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~/~ 2. General Plan land use , designation on site: '~$~c~rc~ ~}/~¥'~mC[ · . · . , North ~ L~s,tV~.s,~l/ ~,~ East ~ ~ / ;~,~<~d ~C/d~ ~I ? ' Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram. ~S- - Is the project area designated for conse~ation or open space or adjacent. to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to p~rio~ide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) /(Icj 3. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to b~lk, 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: entati ve Date - 10 - Case No. ~% ~-G% FA G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~Om b. Will the proje, ct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create anylflooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~ ,~(~t~ q-~/~Te~ ~0~-1~-~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~z~,~ [~¢%~ ~~ ~OOT~ oF g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After ~._o c~ ~?__ L.O.S. h d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing street~s?~/¢$. If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll Case No. k~ ~- 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject' to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~ Liquefaction?, ~o-~- K~OL~ - 1-o Landslide or slippage? ×1~ ~c~C~ b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project?~,~ ~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~c~ ~a~o- ~ ~o~c~ ~o~ ~0~-E~3 . b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? ~-~l. 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 enoug~ to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~. --~' -12- Case No. )$ ~- ~Z_l~k 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emi ssion Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution CO ~q~?- X 118.3 = [Sq~ ~ Hydrocarbons 1S~ X 18.3 = ~ %~q'~ NOx (NO2) ~Gq~ X 20.0 : ~ ~q~ Particulates ~ X 1.5 : ~ ~. Sul fur 7~ X .78 : ~q~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~oq ~/,)~w Liquid k~]~O ~ What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent ,, to the site? ~" - Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~6~-~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City' En~neer~Yr~pYesentatlYe CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION 0 ~ PLAN CORRECTION SHEET . ~~ .... Address/~_~,°~JY~J~}~}Plan File No. Checker.:~O~) Date Type Constr, Occupancy, No. Stories Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: I FPB-29 ~I ~I ~ 4 ~ ~I ~ \I~\I)I~ h~I~\I~ -' § I I I I I I 11111111111 .... ~ ~ ~I I I I I I /1111111111 ~ ~ ..... U IV ~ ~o L 0_ ~ ~ IV Q~ IV L~ ~ ~Q ~ - L~ ~ COGl U ~ ~~ c U IVL ~~ O~U +-' va ~ >,Q./......en 0 """VlI- "'LV..... . ..1::..... .....c:l.I1IL·.... +I .........:;:1 >'OQ.l Oc +-'0- .....""..I::aJE I-u "'.cO.J::'r") .....:::::1 ..... u~.... 0111 I- VI ~u~ ~_ G.lUCI- .....<"0 G)"Q) -o....~ to ...·....·....,...O v...... VI ....UL CUI... IOU C71CI,I +-'s.. -SQ.I -"'IV VIOl- _IV CJ:: CQ,l ~Q.I......Q.I........ 10"-..... 1-....0.................. GIS::: C~_VlC VI~U 01'0 IVVI c........... +-'Q.I -c.....::sQ,l IV.... Q.I....u >_ IV'" VIe VI~ QI'CO'CII"g E::) .J::VI...... "aL:Q,I.... ........... "- .....U...... 00 ..........cn "'IVI- o-a x.c VlQ,I o L-.......... 'a U .c 0 1-:::::1 Co.... C1I +.I c.c O~I-Q,I ~ CQ,I,.... cc..... :::::I ...... O+-' >, 01- IV.c_ .....1-0..... U l1Io<,,-...~ U ,.... 'C "- U U e c.+-> to:::::I.s:: :i: 1/1 U c..... ... Q) Q) ... >, :::::I...... QJ +' C +-' s.. .... cu ..... VI ..... 0 c UI-..s::VlC 'C.c-a ""'/00 .....0.... .c::s 1-111 0 Q,lQ,I....Q.lIO O:i:C :::::I IV :::::I......., IVU,.... .......<"- >,VI ......... Lena..... I- IV VI........... VI >.....10 VI:::::IIO......... ... IV ..... C u.... .... to QJ 0", CI.I VI .. to.c::: > Q,I GJ i.. c· VI '" ..... -O/O"-QlO CQ,lL. I- C. L.....cn.J::~ 1-'01- 10111 >, IV >,+-' 'Coc. _1-0 C ue IV to GIS '" L. ......... ....c VI+-' '" ......01- ......41.... _GolfO _"- .....111 ~c U GJ_ UQ,I+-' C +I "t;J "'.....0 ""......"0 ",cns.. tOU.... U...... c.co QJ 0It-...,... IV c..s::Q,I UCQ,I VI.... VI............ VlC:::::! ""IOU IV o en..... ~Q,I IOU ....,.."'u6 CUIGs., ou_ eGo!.... 010..... alii'" +' ............... U V1"" 041_:::::1111 ...., C1J VI 0.::::I1G 0. ::::I o...r:::_ 0. a. va w+-'::I:IG ~IG. Lo... LLo.~> oom W OLV ov~ OV::::l OLe WC ~IG >0 co. V 0.1G 0 L+-'C V L+-'_ L..... L U LO..... ~_ ~~ULC 1G~~.....u L ........~ o.CIG L 0.~C'I c.+-'.- 0..- 0. O~ :::J.....W.....4I +-'e..... 41 _0 ~ .....~:::J 410 WIG IGL ~...- LO ~UC~~~~CW~_ ..r:::1G1G Ww w c 0 41~_ 4I~u 4IUO 4I:::J1G 0._ CL4IC~_L4I__~ +-' E~~_ ..r:::~4I ~ ~ 0 ..r:::+-,_~..... ..r:::0..... _ IG-UOOOlGo.IGQ,I:::J +-'_IG+-'_~...- 41 +-'4IQ,I ~~L ~~U ~.....+-' 410 ~U~U::I:Z~O~~~ ~ U C ~ IG cc: ~ IG Q,I 0 ~..... C'I c ..r:::_ _4IIG.....~~ _EQ,I _+-'..r::: _IG~ ~..r:::c __Q,I +-' :::J_ ~+-'~ __L _ U ~ wo...r::: __+-, Q,I 41 ~ O__IG__ _CIG IG _LL _L..... 0 +-' -wo ~ ~..r::: en UIGO..r:::~~ ~IGL L ~OIG ~o..r::: CIGQ.I ~L~ ~ _~ o " ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ - . .:::J.... 10. m IG Þ U IG ~ V ~ ~ 10 o ~ N ~ ~ ~I ~I \1 \1 ~I \1 'j, ~ J ~I I ~ I I I I I I I I I \, .... ~ ~ ~I I I I I I I I I I ~ u m o E _...+-, .....~ IG +-'c Q,I ~ c C 10 _ ~u C 0 Q,lU 10 ~ ~ L ... Q,I e_ L +-' L ..... ..... ::::I ~ ..... ~~ Q,I.... ..... C W >, +-' ';~ ~ ~ !1~.... ~.~ IG ~~ of.:ï: ::::I ::::I ~ ~ 0 EC'lL _ _~ 10 LC a QJ.... >,'U ..... 0 IG L ~ (U .......... 41 CC (U L~ C ~QJ~ cc 'U L·.... .....r::: 1010 U .... >, 0 CLJ~VI ~ CG.I -þ VI +-' +-' C IO~_ _ 'UIOCLJ e.....VI IGO L . .......... 10 c_ DI _..... 00 ~ E 0 G.I 0 C ....1010 W IG.- +-'L~ LG.I C ~ 'U ~ CLJ 0 U L ..a. ....'" OL IOL C 0 10 e+-' +-' LO C~o. +-' W U o ..... L 0_ C eo..- 'U~ ....+-'::::I U~U >,c o .... C'I .......-..... 0 w- ..... ~ c¡¡ +-' L ......... +-'~ ~ 0 ~ -:;:~ ~ ¡;CLJ"'~ ~:g. ~';L :2gg t+-, +-' 10 :::J C - a 10 L..r::: >-=c ::::1_::::1 G.I ::::I 0...... Q,I c: UC '" 0 ~ 0 CLJ~ L:::J+-' w« Via+-, VIE LIO_ WO G.I..... _ ....L..r:::~ 41+-'·.... L_ W ~ .....;:., ....u'" ~- L VI ::::I >- ~+-' +-'IOW LL~ W L 'U__ þ+-, VI 0 IG _L WVl CLJ +-'Q,lIO_Q,I :::JIO +-' - U IG ..r:::.- IOW41 ..r:::CLJ ~~V _VlC ~_> VI+-' U E +-' +-'10 C+-, +-'..... UIO_ "'....0 UC41 VI CLJ 41 ..r::: L e .....::::1 ..... E 1'1:I en CLI ~ _ 0..... W 0\.- +-' - U ow ~~ ~WE .....w ~ Þ +-'c+-, .~._ U~ 0 +-' ....+-'.... O+-' 0>,::::1 U 10 OVlCLJ w~ L C ..r:::_ en wL +-' IG LlOo. 4IG.I+-' L VI ~L 0. IG 3:>, OE U_ CLU~ cL a.~ ..,...-VI a.~.... 010 U +-'.....~ C~ 100 ~ O+-' L On 0 LQJ G.I -~ VI..... +-' W +-' c...- _VI weo L~L wCe I:I.c..c: _41 e...- lOW L"C \I'IG.I....._ +-' ~..r:::o 1:1.+-'0 ..r:::..... +-' .....~ 01'1:I .o+-' CLlL .0'- "' "'>' +-' +-' ~ a. +-' +-' ~ CLlIO CO _:::J L", -"' :::J:::JWC _+-'..... +-'+-' www +-'C +-' ~ 'U O\E VlCT Ill+-' L"O VI+-'O\O 0.... ..... ~u·.... ..r:::u...- "_(11 +-'E - ._~ VI U~ G.lC VIe..... 1'1:I ...-111_ +-'U..... _::::I..... o :::J '" ....~"' +-'10 W_"'O >'" ::::I ::::1_", "'.0 :::JVI.o "' VI'- 0 L [ ~L C+-' ..c:o..c:w ::::I 0 0_::::1 Vleo OWE g - ~ u < 0 ~ ~ 0 - ~ .... Ii U ... < a ... u", a "'I _" Ii u... m .. ~ L +-' ..- ...... . 10 O. . < '" .0 ::r: z '" ~ ~ ~ ~ -.: _·.····0--'· ____ ._~~__.__.__ _.,..__._ ---_.. ...._, _._-,-~ - '- "" ,,~ ,,~ .Q m "" >.- ~ ~ ~~ , " ~ "" ~ " -~~ ~" fOQJ.. "E~ E "u - " co.·., o E 0 '..or- L. ~ ~ ~" V> m.Q " ~ '- ~ '" ~-~ '" 'S:: ..... V> < 1-): 0 ~ . " 0" " " 0 ~ Z 1/1 10..... N 0 " ~ ¡:: O~ ~ , ..... U L. < ~"" '-' _'f"") 0- .... >00 ,,~ :;: ~ ø. ~ 0 .." '" U~ " 0 ,,~ 0 V> 'f"") ..... OO~ Z ~ ~ U 0 ~"" ::;; '- ~ m ~ - "" ~ > .... Q C ~ ;?;.... 0 '" O~U -~ ... .... _0 U o ~" " ~ ~ ~ m " Ó 0'_ " "U~ 0 '" ~"" 0. "- ........."CJ 0 ~ ... " " ........ ... ~ - . , ~I \, ~ \f- . , ;;;1 ~ \1 )1 -' < .... J 1 1 I. I I I z ~ .... 0 , 0. ~I I 1 1 l I , I 1 U -" " " ~ ~ " " " ~-" I c:: ~ c: ~ ~ ~ ~- ~u" c::ra"Oof1.l ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~ '- 0·... :> 04/·.... u.s::; Q U ~....OO ~ "'~ .&:. .c._ vE> +-'-'= " ~ 00 " U" ,,~ III~""VI (I. .... C .... ~ ,,~~ U " > " ~ o Q) ........ L. >,Q.I'Q.... ~ ... " ~" ,,~ '''10 '" ~ .... en< CI1 C U fO r-"... II:: ~,,- " U 11I.....1'1:I111 "" O.s::; t'>. o U 10_ C·... fO Q)'O.... 'Q U c: . "" <0::11.1'0 m~ ~ ,,~ ~ - ... O~ 0. .&::>'" G.lQ)II:I'" - ~ ~ Q)'O......... ~- c."'C > Q.I ~ ~ " "E- u·... L. c:: :;r..., .... to ....... 0; E U " 0. -~> _ O~ .... to tw III 'Q.... .,; .........Q)O'QQ)OIllU ... "" ." U E Q:::J"¡;: Q.I ~ ... .... :> III·... -" ~" .... .......cv " > '"' c:n.c fO "" -" 0 - ." ~~,;....~ë; Jt--·...~>Q.u·..., ""~ " U 0 ...." .:;....Q ::111I0 Q,lO E ~" ".- " ".- -... " " " E .... III 0 c: Q Q.... 1/1 E C C:... '''''')L. " -" -"" . ~ ~... 10-....::11:; U " "" 0·.... C'lQ,t........:::J ... :::J 0.... Q).." 0 0. 0_... ... ~ ~ ~ 0"11 0", " ... EO a..", e I. 1_ UVU.....cfOL. \... 10·... - ,,~ -"~ -" U U ~ o ,,~ _j;:.o 0'1 ra u)::ac.GI ......... (,.Io L. U"O 0 "'U ~... U a. 0.... QJQ.uo 1::41 c....>,Q) 10- > ... o c·... .~ ~ ... ,,~ ~ > s::..s::;.... L. >. OJ:: E ::1..-_ G.I.......::J " " .... u'" . > C III C·... ~ ra·....c: ... ... c:....".... r- .... ......0 Q)....".... 0 c:.... ,,~~ c:_.... c: " Q.I......,c >" ">,, >"D " ~ ...'" 0 ..." " E U '" " " " Q)oEc>Q.lO " /QUI\....... "~,, .... III '" > u" Q CLI Q).... m > "" >..... c: QI...._... >"0""..... I."" L.. > .D.... III QQ) C,/ " U \......, u '" ~ -" ~ 0 ........ C 10 Q)'IJfOQJU:::JQ.I ~ "" ouo. "" .... 0 c: V> -" "... .s::; E';!~"i·"" .s:;.....-.... "C Q U..... = 11I.0 " - " " ~ " ::J...QIO -" '...::1 e·........ .Q > o.~ .-,,~ " m 0"0." ~ ... ~~ ... f1.I >.... i1I .... E E <11 VI"" L. 10 ~" " 'õ I<+-'.........c ~~ " -~ 0 u 0 U... " ~ ~'¡; u·.... ~ E c: <11 <1ID U ~ ~ <111,1\... 0 ~ " L. i:'~ 0 ,,~ " ,"" <1I.....u <11 0 ~ 0 " " E > .0 0 c:... " E ~ ....., 0 >. .....,.... 0 <11 E ;J .~ _L.UQ....L. .~ IQ ~ " " " -- ... ... " ... <11 IQ.....µ m 0 ... eðt""";;:;:;Q 0" U .J:: 0 Q. o U-" .- ~~ o~-ì:i " " u" u " ~ >,... ~- " "... ~ ~. .- " " ..... C 01 Q) 0... ~ 0..J:: Q) U L. o......r-.... L. ~~ o......c: >. ~ .... VI.... c: c ~ E >oc:..... " .- ~ ""....",c_~ ~" ", J:: ° 0 _ 0_ ~ -;;; o ~ 00 " " L. U ........ " ,,~ " " , Q.... O~ Q) ~..... Q,I ... ".- ... " o "C'" U ~~ U Q./Q,¡UQ.l ~ ~ > J:: Q C'I E " J:: ~DJ::.J.... "" VI J:: ~ "" U ~ ~ ..:.i"C(I).... DO " ~ ~ " ... .... ~.... .... > c:.... VI "C <11 ....... 10'" U ~...... ... ..." 0. 0 VlL.....",... .;; c " "" 0"" "0 ~ 0 >~ Q UU ~ U ~ ~ 0. .... ",.........(1) " Q./ C c> " ~ ~:.c..... t: B'~:= VI·.... Q./...·~c Q,I Q VI V (I).... 0 ~NE"CVI ~~ - J:: ......-.... ~ " "" QJ"C"C",oo__ (I)....-~ ~ ~ 10·....10 0. 0_ ... ... 0 0-"-" ° u..... Q./ U Q,I.... o C·... J:: L............... OJ::.....c 0 0. <.s:::......L.~ 0.0. -" ...-"~ ... 0...... coo 0'" 0 0. ~ C·... VI... 0.... QJQ C ~ Q..,.. ... "C.............. ~ '" := . -~x~ " ~ 0 ~ VI ° E " :; .; .0 ~ o QJ L. ~ ~ .0 .; '" '-' U L. C'lU " ~ U - N M N N N - -_.~.~..._~-_._-_.._.- ------- -.-.-..- -- ....- 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 iCOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No)<~ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting.as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~ //~/ ~__~_ / / Signature o~dpplicant/dat~ A-110 Print or type 'name of dppl~cant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCS-88-7: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 88-7, located at the southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended (b) P-88-6: Consideration of precise plan for Ladera Villas, Chula Vista Tract 88-7 A. BACKGROUND This item involves a tentative subdivision map and precise plan for 46 single family lots and one open space lot located on l0 acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada (southwest corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Ranchero extended). The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed a prior Environmental Impact Report on the property, EIR-81-1, and has prepared an Addendum thereto. The Report and Addendum, EIR-81-1A, find that the project would result in significant land form alteration and aesthetic impact adjacent to a scenic corridor (Telegraph Canyon Road). If the Commission recommends denial of the map and plan as recommended, no action need be taken on EIR-81-1A. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, EIR-81-10 must first be certified, and CEQA Findings later adopted along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council deny PCS-88-7 and P-88-6. C. DISCUSSION The 10-acre site is located on the northerly slopes above Telegraph Canyon Road, at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada. A steep "finger" canyon which drops llO ft. from north to south occupies the westerly 40% of the site. Additional slopes are located to the east and south of a narrow knoll which occupies the north-central portion of the property. The average natural slope of the property is approximately 26%. The property is bounded by single-family dwellings to the west, and vacant lands to the north, east and south. The site is designated on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan for residential development at 6-8 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 80 units for the 10 acres involved. The ERDR Specific Plan designates adjoining areas as follows: west - residential{2-4 du/ac); north - school(elementary): east - Paseo Ranchero and school(junior high); and, south - open space. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 2 The proposal involves the creation of 46 single-family lots and one open space lot. The project is a small-lot subdivision, with the majority, or 31 lots, between 4,000-5,000 sq. ft., 4 lots are between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft., 5 lots between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and 6 lots range from 9,100-18,500 sq. ft. Eight of the lots would front on Paseo Entrada, and a "fish hook" cul-de-sac would serve the remaining 38 lots. The map also indicates the dedication and improvement of the southerly one-half of Paseo Entrada, and the dedication of the westerly one-half of Paseo Ranchero. The project would require extensive land form modification, with total grading of 140,000 cu. yds. and "fills" as deep as 50 ft. on the southerly boundary of the property. The larger lots proposed around the end of the cul-de-sac and along the westerly boundary of the site consist largely of 2:1 slopes and will sit some 40-50 feet below the adjoining lots proposed along Paseo Entrada and the existing dwellings to the west on Paseo Ladera. The smaller lots have been accommodated by the extensive use of retaining walls from 3 ft. up to 6 ft. in height along common lot lines. The open space reservation is also solely for the purpose of accommodating grading. Since the applicant does not plan to develop the project, but intends to sell the subdivided land, the precise plan submittal consists of a set of development standards and a typical house layout, floor plan, and elevation (please see attached). The development standards follow the provisions of the R-1 zone with exceptions for increases in lot coverage (from 40% to 50%) and the FAR (from 45% to 55%), and decreases in lot area (from 5-7,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.), lot width (from 60 ft. to 50 ft.), and side and rear yard setbacks (from 10'/3' to 5'/5' for the sides, and from 20' to 15' for the rear). The typical house plans show example footprints which could comply with the standards. ANALYSIS: Although the proposed density of 46 units is well below the 60-80 units authorized under the ERDR specific plan, the project itself does not relate well to the site or surrounding area. There are also no common amenities or information on the design and details of the ultimate development--both of which have been considered essential in approving small-lot projects in the past. The proposal for a detached product at the density proposed results in small pads with retaining walls and angular 2:1 slopes out to the full extent of the properties boundaries. There is no attempt to contour the development or grading along the open space corridor on the south, or to ease the transition with larger-lot single family dwellings to the west. The use of attached or clustered units, or fewer but larger lots would provide the opportunity for a better interface with these areas. Both the Commission and the Council have expressed concerns about the quality of the living environment and the '~acked-in" appearance of small lot projects. It has been the position of staff that there is a place City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May ll, 1988 Page 3 for such projects when compensating factors such as common facilities and/or usable open space can be incorporated into the development to provide some physical and visual relief from the increased densities, such as in EastLake and Rancho del Rey. This proposal provides no common amenities or usable open space. Another factor supporting small-lot projects has been the City's ability to review and approve the entire development package, including the siting of the dwellings on the lots, the mixture and location of one- and two-story dwellings, architectural elevations, and fencing and landscaping programs. These are significant issues because questions of bulk and scale and coordination become more important as dwellings move closer together. This information is not available for the project at hand. For these reasons, we recommend denial of the request. Should the Commission wish to approve the project, we recommend a continuance to the meeting of May 25, 1988, in order to prepare appropriate conditions of approval. The City has received several letters from residents directly to the west of the site opposing the eventual connection of Paseo Entrada to Paseo Ranchero; the objection being that this connection will allow Paseo Entrada to become a throughway between Paseo Ranchero and Paseo Ladera. We believe Paseo Entrada is an unlikely throughway, and the connection would relieve traffic by disbursing neighborhood traffic in two directions rather than one. In addition, the applicant's proposal calls for the dedication of Paseo Ranchero where it abuts the applicant's ownership. The Planning and Engineering Departments have informed the applicant that Paseo Ranchero needs to be physically extended to Telegraph Canyon Road to provide access to this site and connect with existing public roads in the area. Paseo Ranchero will serve as a major road link in the future; therefore, inclusion of the road in the Facilities Benefit District may be requested. WPC 5124P 4-6 PF ..... 2-2 2-4 6-8 4-6 6-8 [ 4-6; s ~' ~ '. ~ ~ /. .~ ~.. ,.,. / -.-'~, ....~, · .~... ~ ~ o~ ADDENDUM EIR-81-1(A) LADERA VILLAS May 2, 1988 1. Introduction The State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required unless: (a) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located, which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or (c) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. Because development of the subject property has been the subject of a previous environmental review and now a revised project has been prepared, an Initial Study was required {IS-88-60 attached). It was the conclusion of the Initial Study that the project could result in significant environmental impacts and therefore an Environmental Impact Report was necessary. In this case, a previous EIR was prepared and it is the intent of this addendum to evaluate the previous environmental documentation to determine adequacy in evaluating the new revised project. The Initial Study concluded that there were two areas of significant impact. They are landform alteration and the related area of aesthetics. 2. Previous Project Description The project is located about 500 ft. to the north of Telegraph Canyon Road between the Casa del Rey subdivision and the future extension of Paseo Ranchero. Access to the property is proposed to be via Paseo Ladera and Paseo Entrada in the Casa del Rey subdivision. The Chula Vista Public Works Department/Engineering Division is recommending that Paseo Entrada be extended to the east to the future right-of-way of Paseo Ranchero and that appropriate grade revisions be made to effectuate this change. The developer would also be required to participate in a district for the cost of improving Paseo Ranchero. The project proponent proposes to subdivide the property into 27 lots, 26 to be developed with single family detached dwellings and one open space lot along the southern portion of the site. The dwelling units would have 3 and 4 bedrooms with 1800-2000 sq. ft. of floor area. The residential lots would have 8700-18,000_+ sq. ft. of area and the open space lot would have 2.3 acres. The grading of the property will require 52,000 cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. These figures would likely change with implementation of the Engineering Department's recommendation. The borrow site for the fill material has not been identified. If it is within the City's jurisdiction, additional environmental review will be required. The maximum height of the cut slopes will be 24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case of fill slopes. If Paseo Ranchero has not been constructed prior to the development of the project, an 8" sewer will be extended to Telegraph Canyon Road along the future alignment of Paseo Ranchero. 3. Revised Proposal The project is located to the north of Telegraph Canyon Road, south of Paseo Entrada between the Casa del Rey Subdivision and location of Paseo Ranchero. Access to the property is proposed by the subdivision to be westerly along Paseo Entrada. City staff has proposed an alternative route by connecting Paseo Entrada easterly to Paseo Ranchero and southerly to Telegraph Canyon Road. The project proponent proposes to subdivide the property into 46 lots with a minimum lot size of 4000 sq. ft. (50' x 80'). The gross density of the project is proposed to be 4.6 du/ac with a net proposed density of 7.5 du/ac. Details regarding the dwelling units are not available at this time. Grading of the property to implement the project (not including any off-site street improvements) will require a balanced cut and fill of about 140,000 cubic yards. This would create cut and fill slopes in excess of 40' in height. If Paseo Ranchero has not been constructed prior to the development of the project, an 8" sewer will be extended to Telegraph Canyon Road along the future alignment of Paseo Ranchero. -2- 4. Analysis a. Traffic There has been considerable controversy regarding traffic impacts resulting from the automobile/truck trips generated by the project. In CEQA terms, significant traffic impacts are those which would result in a substantial reduction in the level of service provided by the street system. The project will produce about 460 ADT which will not result in any reduction in the level of service of the circulation system. On a cumulative basis regarding other anticipated projects in the vicinity, the streets still maintain an A-B level of service. On a long-range basis, the studies of the circulation system in the portion of the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan show a good level of service (A-B). Therefore, there will not be a significant environmental impact due to traffic impacts. b. Land Form/Aesthetics The revised project will result in greater land form alteration than the previous proposal. Also the grading extends closer to Telegraph Canyon Road in a designated open space area in the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Therefore, the project will result in a significant environmental impact as identified in EIR-81-1. 5. Conclusion The project implementation will result in the same impacts as identified in EIR-81-1. Therefore, IS-88-60/EIR-81-1/Addendum EIR-81-1(A) provide an adequate environmental analysis of the project's impacts. The conclusion is that there will be a significant impact and to approve the project CEQA findings and probably a statement of overriding considerations will be required. Douglas ~ Environmental Review Coordinator WPC 5123P -3- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LADERA VILLAS EIR-81-1 Issued for review by the Chula Vista Environmental Review Committee Certified by the Chula Vista Planning Commission October 22, 1980 Prepared by the City of Chula Vista Planning Department, Environmental Review Section Duane E. Bazzel, Assistant Planner PROJECT PROPONENTS Mr. J. Bordi & Mr. G. Lalande TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction page 1 2.0 Project Description page 1 3.0 Impact Analysis page 7 3.1 Land Form page 7 3.2 Geology/Soils page 7 3.3 Biology page 10 3.4 Archaeology page 12 3.5 Schools page 14 4.0 Insignificant Effects page 17 5.0 Significant Adverse Impacts page 17 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action page 17 7.0 Growth Inducing Impacts page 18 8.0 Consultation page 18 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Locator/Topographic Map page 2 Fig. 2 Topographic Map page 3 Fig. 3 Tentative Subdivision Map page 4 Fig. 4 E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan page 6 Fig. 5 Biological Map page 11 Fig. 6 Archaeological Map page 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 E1 Rancho del Rey Land Use Table page 5 Table 2 School District Conditions page 7 Table 3 School Data page 8 Appendices on file and available for review at the Chula Vista Planning Department. a. Geological Investigation of Landslide Conditions, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, July 25, 1980 b. Biological Reconnaissance, WESTEC Services, Inc. Dec. 11, 1979 co Archaeological Survey~ WESTEC Services, Inc. Dec. 6, 1979 1.0 Introduction It is the purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine what significant environmental impacts would result from implementation of the project, propose mitigation measures to reduce the adversity of the impacts, and consider alternatives to the project as proposed. This EIR was required by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Chula Vista after conducting an Initial Study on the project (IS-80-50) and reviewing the current development plans for the property. The Committee concluded that there could be one or more significant impacts, including land form alteration, and required that the EIR be focused on the issues identified in the Initial Study (IS-80-50). This EIR is an informational report for decision making authorities and the public. It is not an engineering document nor is it a report which recommends approval or denial of the project. 2.0 Project Description The project is located about 500 ft. to the north of Telegraph Canyon Rd. between the Casa del Rey subdivision and the future extension of Paseo Ranchero. Access to the property is proposed to be via Paseo Ladera and Paseo Entrada in the Casa del Rey subdivision. The Chula Vista Public Works Department/Engineering Division is recommending that Paseo Entrada be extended to the east to the future right-of-way of Paseo Ranchero and that appropriate grade revisions be made to effectuate this change. The developer would also be required to participate in a district for the cost of improving Paseo Ranchero. The project proponent proposes to subdivide the property into 27 lots, 26 to be developed with single family detached dwellings and one open space lot along the southern portion of the site. The dwelling units would have 3 and 4 bedrooms with 1800-2000 sq. ft. of floor area. The residential lots would have 8700-18,000~ sq. ft. of area and the open space lot would have 2.3 acres. The grading of the property will require 52,000 cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. These figures would likely change with implementation of the Engineering Department's recommendation. The borrow site for the fill material has not been identified. If it is within the City's jurisdiction, additional environmental review will be required. The maximum height of the cut slopes will be 24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case of fill slopes. If Paseo Ranchero has not been constructed prior to the develop- ment of the project, an 8" sewer will be extended to Telegraph Canyon Rd. along the future alignment of Paseo Ranchero. _ 2. ~,,- J' "" ";}] \'J.1 ' ~~- fff-~ ...........\. ,~. ->- :.::. " , ' '.~ . "M" ,,'0 , .. u\'^" ,,- =- . . ., ¡'-".-, \ ~ .. I '::\ ç't\..... ,¿' ........ = "''''.,.'............._1, .':. - ."'~_ If. ....- ",_ _ _ .-- - . , . ,. , ~ "- ;~"i~ .~::j .' t.. '.~:~'~!' ',- ,-",.' '\~ ...., .:c.-:' ... ,:7;¿~-;:, - ~- ~~ ~ '~"~ ,: ',-. .;.-:. '\._:;'.:>~~~--:~ ~ -r --~ C\"i""I,$ ,.~.~n., "'''''':''~'''''i''~:.''~7~-~'' ,;c>_, :':'C..:J."';":,.'Y'~ ~'\);::;-~~ -=- -::::.....:.-~. .....~"'~-"':-.rr<o,_ --;;",r-..:-=="'" _'--,_ ---:-_ J -......."',=.".......=" ' .~ e-c .S:'""~" " ~-C- ;:.:¿.\jl. ',~,,', '2, - -~~ -. aM". , _ '-. ~.:::- -",,---:- -.~ "". '.. .~, L·" '-" ,,- ~..-'" ~-'..- " ,"""~U'~"~ . \-- , I" ,_"~', . _ '. ~, -, ---.-.,..7-~...:'-'--...:.,.;.~.:.._'+-- ---_-- ~ - "'. .~" ~ . ': - . 2\ -. ''''>=~''~ '. .' , ~"., ~,A '. ,....~:;;-=:,::;"i~~;,-;:;' / . ". \".... ·~'.Þ~~a.Y~ ....:,~;.~,;-_.~: -~'~'~=::"~á-:-~~~~---{~~: . I \:~~:~..~ .~~ ~?:-:~_-.~-=-:-~--: ~~-S;~'~'$'~ ,-v~~-., :~, "" \" \,----.\.....\ c.::::::""..= ' :_..,,~-;:~__ç.:.c""_...,;:__:~-_~~-::;.. _ :- ---: --==-~~-"¡:~~\r '50- \~-;.",..,- ~",' -\ \':.j,-\ "-i __ ..:..~) =-'-:--" -''''~_>-f' ·.».·.··.n·..· " " ~ _. ( ~5;~.-~:--:-~ ~~.:..:--=. ; ~ .:. . '.: -,~-', "', . ;;f¡,4>- ':-~- ~ -. _.L. -~«7 - _ -.¿ _ / -~:.. ·":~M~'____ -"--~' .' J. ..,,, '-";';¡ . .- -. -' '''V' -" ~. . ~.. . . - , . . ~ ~~ - -- - - . -- ;0.. ¿.~. I ::ï::f:.' - '. - ~ - . ,~"~ ' ~..~~~.;.. -~:_:~ -='::-_:.:,,-~~ -:-. ~"À :11~Í-t!'i:':. ,~ . .:.." _ ::.~__:=-_ ',\~, \~ ~Oì '~. '"~~ ...., ·~o """'. j'~'" ," _ -- ,~} ", v _ __ ~ ,~:~~..:~::,~~:.~'~ ,,~~~~.::.~{~. :~~:::"'=-~ '"ð~,: is,.,o ~.~ ____ '....Ja -",' - -- --'-' - _. --:- - .;:::=:-.-- t-:---=:::'--"'-Ì._ - - '~... ~ ')90 . ,·_,7~.~,'~:"o;=:'A·..'~.;n-~\~~F-:::.'/. \r'~¿~J ~~oir.·"'. _:: ; "Il::. .-'7": '':,',,\·.'FY.V(~\;I,'~.·.,<~. ", / ,'- _-=,...<:::1 ~ 'r-? Y ~:-·,,·S"~\pBóJE.C"r:.s¡.,TE.:" ~.__ \'.. ~ ,; =..::. ~c:ò: "='( '.c '. ".,:=~::::.._/ :,/",,' ._ " _:'_~ç"': \'''''//.'>...-'' .' ~ ~.., ~o >"~kð'~/'J1\;-'::":,'''''';::<i;~;~'''' "r/~~r-2:'" ~).:..;" ""'-=...:.::-:: ~ ~ __ - - -=-~~~-::. ~ ~. - '~).-:?\~~,-~ -~ C . _ .~/' cT ~ .. ~ '_ - ç~~ ::-_ - --- "'~..-=:; "". ,.J:.. ~ .~...> 1>.- 7' . _/ -. -._'.' ~-~-- -: ~~~_. _~."'~-. J\,,,,", i./-:~~_~--:~~.- ('¡;",f _ _ ~,' \~.i~ -j~' -__ \ ~,,,,,,~__ - __ ' -......::~ - ~..'. ~-....:.: ".-- - 'J..,,' '_-_, -=:--J '~~Ae,~ ( \.~... - ________ :.'" "J~V '...)';........>--...'----'1. ~·>';'.',._,~J...<"'oc:: .'''''~. ." ... .~.,' "'~..' .'Y;; - - ~.......... ---- ~ -':'--.,' _ --~ i r--. "-. , _ ~ / I",.... .~ r----..~·c.." .~~ '''-';::--=..--,., '~~~o'r ,.- ~' - I·..... 0 '>,' " ~,' ~ .,\ ~"C ~ .(. I . .... ~ " (. . . ~, . >.:- ^_ ,,' .......?' J<.~ /".. r-. " ~' .' . ~'( .. ~: -"0'.'" I..' __ ". I "'J ,I I .~, --- _ G.:=.. .,.. ":c',:;. .' {'_-- I ,. l. . \>. ,--.,... ..' y!>'" "/-, r .., IV ",,,,..ób~_ : I -" __<'- '-~- ~"'-ë""'''~'''''''''''-'"i~,_. .--_~- _.'.~: /! -" ,'-.. \ .;..' ì',( ,~\ 0/;" \V,~::"~.,.;, -:~q> ~.' J r;--:' ..\ v,~ , J" \ '. .'0' "._ N ( C/.. (", /~.... /\ '. I. ..~. e".' -.. -"~~~--_. ,,:',/"'" I __riC' .. ',"'? .-::-,: ~ '-'..' .,~ \., '-''''''''. -",,~.\. ~'''f''';:-.v . .'" èY' .......;.:-- :'..' :.::~-c'3. ~__-. ~ _" _/-,::; ,'I .~~~" u- ;...,.; _____ _: '/.' "_.'_ ___, '. _.' ._ . JP - - oJ ¡i \J "\_ ",'" __ . . _ .:". -J~ - __ / Ram . % - - ", ~"'. -,-..... '- ~- '-./-,,--\ Z ""~'" ......" .....-.--.,. "-., -.- r__- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.>---'---,, \;\ ." .,' ~:..'~' ___ I": '\ ~. / - \ \t-.-.::;7'F / ~.~ -- - --{J'\....- .... ./""-s ' _.> ..... 1\ . \'-... ~ ,,' / '_: 0 c ~ . ';?;~'- '."" . ..' .~ -. V¡·:,,,,~- . . '\'; '\...I ~"<' ~ .:- } Fff!-f" -- ....,' 0."'-<- 'd v] ,,,,/ ",0 ~ / '" . \ :-- _.," I 0:.-., ."-./ '.. ::C:.- 'J.~ ,_ . .,,!~ ^'-'/Ç',' (., 0 ' \, . \......'\ [\ I\../;-r"'~! I I 0". "\. '~....' , . .:. .. lÞJL'...r-i.._.;---.o'",=., ~ \ ' (' 0 '-> "&:'. ..... '.-:>c:>!...,......., "'~'-./'-J ¡ ~.. '\J..::., __-¡ _/"'. /: ~., I poga,' ~ I .,' ..' ".., (.. ,.., ,) -- /") 0---\. . _.) - ". _ . . . ,. ,;~ '" \ /-- --. - ,\ . . . ... . . ~ .- ~. ._V" V v-..;", '- \J' '. . --.,.... ~. -.;.,-, A~ I ...., I' """........ __/ c... ~ -¡7----/ )~~~ /:-.....;--...) '17 ,\ 5 /" - Y "" .? - ~ '- '< =.." -." ~ 'v _.~ ,..{ ~,-- . ~:: ,~ _ N ffiI ~ __ C ~ ,~'_~~ ~ -..~~-:=~~..-<,___. ~~ ~:/. Ì'\," 0 .~. 2000 --- - :: -,~ - ---- FEET Topo~:'apnlc :,180 Sno'.vJri~ LûC:.ltlOn or tï:e Project Site (Portions of ~atlOnal Cîtv Jamul .\wun taln, Imperi:ìl Beach ;Joe Otav :\Jesa 7.5r lJSGS Quaarán¡;;le) .. FIG I - _._.~......_- ....--..-...- -- .~:: >:f:~~'t't"'?i' ,,;1'~{;{%;17~?:\i2;~'?? ~: ~.1:,'~'> ~F';:-·.' " . Ii i ~ " \..3 ' . . J :', ,I,' ~ ' .". ~, ' e:; 40 ,_ ~ " . ,v",' .~. .~ ,,~".r,.. .~- '=co ... -._! i:'" ~ ,.,0 ....¡'" r= 3' ~ ~ >' '. .- 0 " t· .,:' ""~ ?., " " _ ~, :¡ ~ 0 U '.- ,. "ò ¡¡,," --, f- " ~' ' ~ p" "¡; is §1 U I o. o g' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , b ','.: ~ §~< ßc: « ~ '. ' ~ ~ ~ ~. ~,~ I~ Î;¡~: ~::; ::!¡-¡,": ] n i'"V .,.. _ :> ... !-> .... ...",. ~ ,'" \!i "', .:;"''''0 :'J~ >' U U "0 .",'k oo,~u \ f- <~ t) ~ ... ¡j t! ~ ;:¡ .... VI ¡;¡-s '1<: ¡;J g; ~...~~ j .' ~ ._ . ~ _ ª . . 0 "0 0 ~""~- 0 ' '" ,~ ~ .', e,' 0 'if' - ~ ~ ¡; .1,,, ~ ~ .~~~ ¿. .. .=<I: .'12 t õ~~_ . o~~' .'0>" ""_. >þ f- Q g. ~-~ .. ~~:; § B ~ - ~ ,,~ ~ 0 ~~. .. ," SSKJ) "_.. <.~e<."" '_~_·'_I:.t:<,..r: ( <: ~ "~ ~ ",," " > " o~ ~ 0 "" > "~.... ... ::J !;;... O~! t;;:5 I'·.. ð "X<_ <0·--0" 'o~ ,< 0.0_ - ,-' ,~> < " .'0 0 u<'o<u<.o_"~ ~e"'"'U" jo ' ~ -:.r---- <';'" > _e2~"~"~ªe~:.~:£~§""51~8E;~ ~~ ....,. sS/ « _ s ;;.. ,â~. J ~ ~ ~ U ~~ ~ ;,~ . " ~ < > .; .'~j"':3 ~š ~~ e c:..=,..... ~ æ~ g~d~ ª~~"~~~gß8~~~:I~"":- -~ ~ " ~~~~~g ~~8:~~~~""lg§~æ~;"E~~~~~'~~'''~;ª' :,¡ ~," J ~ rL--. ~ ,. _ '" ~ - 0 "., - ,. " 0 - b . ' ' ~O, . >-- . [¡--'~-';jIH::§~~~~¡~I~~~;~~~.g~~~~~~lHi~:~~: ~ ~§ ";~;") 0 . z ooo",,,":~~¡;¡¡::';¡¡j::!I;;...~~o..3~""~I~¡5t:' ~ §.'" ;;~;:; ~'::s _ .; _ ' ..' "" " 0 8 " " ;; ':J > . , ~ ;1< "~. ~ "~ õ"~~' ~' . " _ " ,...; 0'; " . , .. o. "" <~~. ~~" ª """ " __ _ _ .;:"" _, ' . . . .I ,."' 8'" ., '" _ " _ _,. , ~ __1M d ~ e~S ~§"~ >.¡ ~ .... "'¡ N.... N '" g:§'-' :;; """,,.i '\\ ~~, ~ . " _,. ,., ",,,;¡¡ i3w~"'<iI '.W . ,,~~~ ,! ,~e C' \ ~~~~ .1 1 ~~~~/ ).- h... , :tl~~~ i ~~ ,I ltC' ' ~h~ .t7'" ..... , , ' ' \ - - ", . ,.'~ -.-::.- I. fr£~~iW' 1"-' -r:' __-' ~'¡¡,\X7,-,., ,'. ,I"./~ ,~I·\-i..\ . ,,- ,'~ " "< ,.....------\ \ ~ _ '~'¡f -- . ..' ( . \ 1> '! :.~(J4 , .I ~ 1 ' ;,.., ... I.,;,. 1i"'~1-;" ' I' I.,~·>"·.··..··;; ~ ;: .. ';:¡, \. I~¡; , : '\';:," , "',' >;;. ~ . _ t ' -b,',i',: '" ' ~ ~ ",. ' ' ... ' " ~ " , _. I ',", - ' ;:"','.' \ , ,," ' "',',.' ' ~I . - i ~ "- , ' ,_ I ,,. " . , ." . " . _, " ' "I'-"r ' ~ ...., I, "- ,,"'"~ " I , '" ·<.f C' ,~ ~ ,'~ ' . . '0 , . ,_" I , .n' i " ..... ,,¡ ,,¥ ,; 9! ~.o ~I')' >' (1' ~I " ~%\"ÌI .. :J.- I~' "?' ,:: i\ 'õ;? II.....~. '''1' ",1 >,. .~ §! . ,-' ./; ."'.' ~, ~ , Ii" ,~-' '" \ . ' I <.., ' '. " ,~ It" L ~~ / \>~ q i~ TABLE 1 E1 Rancho del Rey I.IOUSING [ DWELLING UNITS I DW'FI { lNG ; I NUNI~EF~ OF ; .£o,u,~/Low · - ~ ~ s,~ ,~t~ 4~* z~,o ~o~ (:: :::,',',:':, :'.'.::::::::::, p . - -' - - ~ 6. ....:....- ---~- .:,..... - - ',,'. .' .' .' .' .' .' " ··--'·t~·- ,."-- --.. .... . .~. ... " ...." ..' ,.,... , l1J a 10 - ~ I 1<) 10 I ã: 1<) it 0 I (!) 10 1 1<) ~ 0 I (!) (!) (!) I I ~ ~ ~ q: -.I , I (9 I ~ 0 z w If) .... . . . . .- .' .- o 0 . :.0\/ . ... .- .. .. 0 ...; .- o . ,.' ...---.:-... .. ~ - - .- - 7. 3.0 Impact Analysis 3.1 Land Form 3.1.1 Project Setting The topography of the site ranges from gentle slopes to areas of 2 to 1 and 1 1/2 to 1 steepness. The property is transected by one draw extending northerly along the western property line and a smaller draw along the eastern boundary. 3.1.2 Impact The project will require the moving of approximately 52,000 cubic yards of cut and 137,000 cubic yards of fill material. The maximum height of the cut slopes will be 24 ft. and 60 ft. in the case of fill slopes. A portion of the fill slopes encroach into the designated open space area shown on the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, which is adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Rd., a "scenic highway", as designated by the Chula Vista General Plan. The appearance of the upper natural slope areas will be irreversably altered by the proposed project. 3.1.3 Mitigation The rounding and blending of the proposed variable slopes, facing Telegraph Canyon Rd. would assist in creating a more natural appearing land form. In addition, these manufactured slopes should be planted with native plant materials to reduce the visual contrast with adjacent natural open space areas and also to reduce water consumption. 3,1.4 Analysis of Significance Regardless of how the property is graded to accommodate the proposed use, there will be an irreversible land form change of a substantial character. This impact could be reduced, although not eliminated, through the use of grading concepts which would result in a more natural appearing finished product, and by the planting of native plant materials on manufactured slopes. 3,2 Geology/Soils (See Geological Investigation Appendix A) 3.2.1 Project Setting The site is underlain by three geologic formational units (Woodward-Clyde, 1980). The enclosed Geologic Map and Site Plan (Appx. A) shows the approximate areal extent of each of the various geologic and soil units, which are described below in order of increasing age. The geologic map symbol for each unit is given after the formal name for the unit. 8. Alluvium (Qal) - This unit consists of gray or brown silt, sand, and gravel deposited along the bottom of the drainage draw. Alluvium typically grades into slopewash along valley sides. Typically alluvium is in a relatively loose state and may be porous and potentially compressible. This unit may be up to 10 ft. thick on the site. Overburden Soils (not a mapped unit) - A residual soil mantle blankets the site. Exposures in nearby areas indicate that the depth of the soil on the site could range from less than 1 foot to 5 feet. A poorly to well developed residual clay ("'Bn) soil horizon is less than 8 inches thick, and is most commonly associated with soils formed on the upper terrace (Lindavista Formation). Lindavista Formation (Qln) - This unit predominantly consists of marine and nonmarine sediments composed of medium dense to very dense, red-brown to brown, silty, medium to coarse grained sand and sandy gravels, which are locally cemented. In general, the materials in this unit are nonexpansive, however, on occasion layers and lenses of potentially expansive materials have been noted in nearby areas. This unit is located generally above an elevation of 450 ft. (MLS Datum). San Diego Formation (Tsd) - This formation pre- dominantly consists of marine sediments composed of dense to very dense, light yellow-brown to light gray, silty very fine to medium grained sand containing thin layers and lenses of cobbles. The base of the formation is often marked by a thin pebble to cobble conglomerate. The unit is located generally between the elevations of 400 and 450 feet (MLS Datum). Otay Member of the Rosarito Beach Formation (Trb) - This unit consists of very dense, light gray to light brown, silty to clayey, fine to coarse grained sand (sandstone) and hard, light gray to red-brown silty clay (siltstone and mudstone). This unit appears to underlie the site below an elevation of 400 ft. (MLS Datum). The sandstones of this section are composed of a white to light gray very fine to coarse silty sandstone. Many coarse grained and pebble size, rounded, red-brown, bentonite clay are contained in the sandstone. Inter- bedded with the sandstones are thin to moderately bedded, light gray to redish-brown siltstones and mudstones, which contain lenses (on the order of 3 inches thick) of nearly pure, redish-brown to white bentonitic clay, which are highly expansive. _ '___,"U ~".-'-__'__'" .______ .>"_ ...._._...._._____. ------ 3.2.1.1 Faulting No faults were observed during the field reconnaissance. In addition, an examination of aerial photographs of this site did not disclose any lineations, scarps, or other types of topo- graphic features that could be indicative of, or construed to be, faults. A review of Map Sheet 29, prepared by the State of California shows a north-south dashed lineation that would project across the extreme northwest corner of the site, and would approximately transect the backs of Lots 1 through 4. A reconnaissance map done by Kuper and Gastil in 1977 shows no fault in the general area. In addition, no stratigraphic disconformaties are shown in the area. 3.2.1.2 Landslides Review of aerial photographs did not dis- close any significant or pronounced topographic features that was interpreted to indicate landslides. However, the Rosarito Beach Formation in other areas has been subject to landslides, and review of the topographic map of the site and the site reconnais- sance indicated possible shallow slides of thick colluvial deposits in the south-drainage draw. Three borings were made in this area below the approximate elevation of 425 ft., which is the approximate location of the contact of Otay Member of the Rosarito Beach Formation. The borings indicated thick alluvial deposits and topsoils in the bottom and sides of the subcanyon. Although remolded clay seams, which suggest relatively weak strength, were observed in the Otay Member, no evidence of landsliding was observed. (Woodward- Clyde 1980) 3.2.1.3 Expansive Soils The geotechnical investigation indicates that portions of the site are underlain by potentially expansive soils. 3.2.2 Impacts Southern California is susceptible to seismic hazards. The project site does not lie close to any known active faults and carries no greater risk of seismic damage than most areas of the County. No other geologic hazards pose a significant risk to the proposed project. Because landslides were not found during the investigation, the project is not expected to be impacted by landslide hazards. 10. The placement of structures on expansive soil could have serious impacts due to cracking and differential settling. 3.2.3 Mitigation Grading plans and/or foundations must be designed to reduce the impact of expansive soils on finished structures. 3.2.4 Analysis of Significance If recommendations of a soils and foundations investigation are incorporated into the project, no significant impacts are expected to result. 3.3 Biology (See Biological Survey Report, Appendix B) 3.3.1 Project Setting A biological reconnaissance of the subject property was made in order to assess the significance of adverse effects on biological resources which would result from the proposed project. (WESTEC Services, Inc.) Most of the 10 acre site is covered by a derivative of the Coastal sage scrub floral community. Three floral species present are considered rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society. These include coast barrel cactus (Fero- cactus viridescens), San Diego sunflower (Virguiera laciniata) and Mesa Clubmoss (Salaginella cinerascens). No rare or endangered faunal species were observed. 3.3.2 Impacts Project implementation will result in construction and landscaped manufactured slopes over approximately 75% of the site. As a result, most of the on-site foraging habitat for predatory birds will be removed. In addition, approximately 2/3 of the existing on-site San Diegc sunflower and 3/4 of the existing Coastal sage scrub will be removed. A proposed open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Rd. will contain the remainder of these plant communities. The small stands of Coast barrel cactus will be entirely eliminated from the project site. 3.3.3 Mitigation No major mitigating measures are required, however, native plants should be used on manufactured slope areas adjacent to natural open space areas. Care shall be taken to prevent construction equipment from entering and scarring the natural open space area. ._~"" ' - _._·m..··"'" ___ _,._..._.._,_.' "'_""~__'. ~_._._._..."---- 11. · SCATTERED VIGUIERA LAC1NIATA oPSN 5PAC~ Location of tli%h Interest P!ant SFec:,es and Open F'IG ,5 - 12. 3.3.4 Analysis of Significance The small on-site populations of the rare and endangered Ferocactus viridescens (37 individuals) and Selaginella cinerascens will be lòst as a result of project development. The majority of the on-site population of Viguiera laciniata will also be lost. A small portion (approximately 25%) of the Viguiera population will be retained in natural open space. Project development will eliminate potential foraging habitat for the cactus wren. However,the property is not considered prirrenesting habitat for this species due to the absence of dense cactus thickets. The incremental loss of the low scrub cover and wildlife habitat and three sensitive plant species is considered an adverse though. non-significant biological effect. Their loss is not considered significant due to the small numbers and dis- junct nature of the populations of the sensitive plants and the fact that representative stands of the low scrub including these species will be retained in designated areas within the Rancho del Rey Specific Development Plan. 3.4 Archaeology (See Archaeological Survey, Appendix C) 3.4.1 Project Setting The subject property was intensively surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources under the supervision of Richard L. Carrico, WESTEC Services, Inc. project archaeologist. Patrice Ballinger and Brian Hunter served as associate archaeologists. The field investigation was conducted on December 6, 1979 and consisted of an intensive on-foot reconnaissance of the property. The results of the field investigation was positive as one newly recorded site (W-2390) was noted within the boundaries of the project. This site (W-2390) is located at an elevation of approxiamtely 460 ft. above mean sea level in the northeastern quarter of the property. As far as can be ascertained by preliminary reconnaissance the site consists of a single locus approximately 30 meters by 30 meters in area, situated on a south trending knoll overlooking Telegraph Canyon. Culturally intrusive surface material present includes one chopping tool and one dozen flakes. Lithic materials evident are available locally. The site generally maintains a static contour and because of that, it is V-shaped. 3.4.2 Impact Because the one archaeological site (W-2390) is a fragile surface site, any earth removal, vehicular traffic or other disruptive activities could seriously impair or destroy the data compiled to date. - ---- --~-----------_._~-_.__._---~------ ]-3. Project Location and Associated Archaeological bites FIG 6 -- 14. 3.4.3 Mitigation The following program is proposed to ensure that direct adverse impacts to archaeological site W-2390, can be mitigated: 1) Instrument location of site. 2 ) A micr o-mapping of surface artifacts and collection of these artifacts. 3) Excavation of four test units, each one meter by one meter square, to assess possible sub- surface cultural debris. 4) Laboratory analysis and cataloging of material collected. 5) A written report submitted. 3.4.4 Analysis of Significance Analysis of archaeological site W-2390 suggests that the limited lithic scatter is the result of minimal use of the area by prehistoric people. All of the cultural debris were found in association with a static elevation around the edge of a knoll as if eroding out at that level. This would seem to indicate a potential depth to the site, particularly in the interior of the U-shape suggested by the surface artifacts. As other sites are known in the area, further investigation may serve to delineate native American land-use patterns, band territoriality, cultural affinity, and inter-site relationships. Potential adverse impacts could occur to site w-2390 due to any landform alteration or change in land use as a result of construction related activities and increased human population. 3.5 Schools 3.5.1 Project Setting The project site lies within the district boundaries of the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. Table 2 shows the current operating characteristics of these districts and Table 3 indicates the areas schools capacities. Table 2. School District Conditions Current Dist. Current Dist. Annual District Enrollment Capacity cost/Student Chula Vista Elementary School District, 1980 14,646 14,420 $1812 Sweetwater Union High School Dist. 23,200 24,036 $2000 1980 --.. -- -."-_. ....-.,..,~._.~,..,._- ------,-_..._.._---~._..__..._...~-~._-_.. 15. Table 3 School Data1 (Fall, 1979) Distance from School School Project School Level Project(Miles) Capacit~ Enroll. Students Valley Vista K-6 5.4 420 436 Tiffany K-6 2.2 728 645 Allen K-6 4.3 420 354 16 Bonita Vista 7-9 2.5 1410 1506 8 Bonita Vista 10-12 2.2 1512 1677 5 1Chula Vista City School District, 1979; Sweetwater Union High School District, 1979 3.5.2 Impact/Mitigation The project will generate 16 elementary and 13 secondary school students. The schools nearest the project site are characterized in Table 2. It should be noted that both districts have policies, for reasons of capacity utilization and racial integration, whereby students might not attend the school which is geographically nearest their home. The new students would require the equivalent of approximately one classroom and one teacher plus the related facilities and other personnel. The developer will be required to provide the City with written assurance from the school districts that they will have the ability to provide educational services to students from this project. This usually involves the developer providing the school district with financial assistance for temporary facilities. In addition to the project in question, there are various projec~approved, under consideration or under construction which could effect the provision of educational services. Those projects currently under construction in the vicinity of the project will result in the following estimated number of students: Elementary 514 Jr. High 280 Sr. High 187 There are also several hundred dwelling units under construction in the nearby County and City of San Diego areas which would add to the potential of higher enrollment levels. - 16. Other projects have been given some level of project approval. The largest of these communities is the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. with its 6000+ dwelling units, the project would result in 2290 elementary school children, 1747 Jr, high school students and 1166 Sr. high students. These projects in the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego would result in the following approximate number of students (including El Rancho del Rey): Elementary 2900-3000 Students Jr. High 1700-1800 Sr. High 1100-1200 It must be pointed out that these are long range projects which will be "built out" over many years if not more than a decade. There are also projects which have been proposed but which have not yet been considered. The Janal Ranch or "Western Salt" property, east of Chula Vista is currently under a private planning effort. No generalities of the development proposals are available at this time. The Otay Mesa East Community Plan is currently under consideration by the City of San Diego. A portion of the project is within the Chula Vista Elementary School District and all of the property is within the Sweetwater Union High School District. The plan envisions 9 elementary school sites, two junior high sites and one senior high school site. No precise plans have been formulated. As these projects develop over the years, the significance of the impact will depend on the rate at which development takes place in relationship to the availability of facilities in these districts which have experienced declining enrollments over the past few years. The determination of the significance of this impact can only be judged to be problematic at this time. The mitigation of this impact can only be dealt with as part of an ongoing planning process including the current ongoing ~oordination between the school districts and the City. Evaluation of the significance of an impact at any given time must be based on an evaluation provided by the school districts at that time. It must be noted however, that the provision of educational facilities (in addition to other public facilities) should be carried out in. a manner consistent with the planning for these facilities. This advanced planning process is currently provided through community plans of the County and City of San Diego, the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista, the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the Public Buildings Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. ---- ----~_.._---~.._-_.~ 17. 3.5.3 Analysis of Significance As long as the school districts can provide adequate educational services, no significant impact will result. If a condition of overcrowding does develop, additional conditions of approval can be imposed on specific projects. 4.0 Insignificant Effects The following is a list of impacts which have been found to be of little or no concern, (Ref. IS-80-50) : 4.1 Ground Water 4.2 Drainage Pattern 4.3 Mineral Resources 4.4 Air Quality 4.5 Water Quality 4.6 Mobile Noise Source 4.7 Stationary Noise Source 4.8 Paleontological Resources 4.9 ~istorical Resources 4.10 Land Uses 4.11 Aesthetics 4.12 Community Social Factors 4.13 Community Tax Structure 4.14 Parks, Recreation and Open Space 4.15 Fire & Police 4.16 Waste Disposal 4.17 Utilities/Energy 4.18 General Government Support 4.19 Transportation/Access 5.0 Significant Adverse Impacts The implementation of the Ladera Villas Project, as shown on the Tentative Map, and including proposed off-site improvements, would have the following unavoidable adverse impact: Landform alterations, totaling 189,000 cubic yards, would take place. Manufactured slopes abutting an open space area would front on Telegraph Canyon Rd. (a designated Scenic Highway) and cause an irreversible ~hange in the appearance of the existing natural slopes. 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 6.1 No Project Under this alternative, no development would proceed at this time. In that the E1 Rancho del Rey Development Plan calls for the development of the project site at 3-5 dwelling units per acre, it is likely that future projects of unspecified density, design, and impact potential would result. In the short term, "No Project" would reduce or eliminate impacts in - 18. all of the factor categories. However, such an alternative would also mean that additional development pressure would result elsewhere in the area to meet existing housing demands. 6.2 Project of Reduced Scope This alternative would result in the reduction of the number of dwelling units, when compared against the current design of the Ladera Villas project. If the streets and lots were carefully placed, the implementation of this alternative would result in the avoidance of sensitive habitat areas and the disturbance of potential archaeologic finds, in addition to a reduction of unit volume related impacts of landform modification and schools. Again, additional development pressure, equal to the number of units lost through this alternative, would result. 6.3 Project of Increased Scope Under this alternative, an increase in residential density would mean more extensive landform modification and impacts to biological sensitivities than the present project. In addition, increased cumulative impacts to public facilities, air quality, and local streets would result as a result of implementation of this alternative. 7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts In that the project was a part of the El Rancho del Rey Develop- ment Plan, and was shown in that plan as applicable to the use suggested by the project, the growth represented by the Ladera Villas Development has been accounted for in earlier planning and environmental review processes. The proposed development would influence growth of the surrounding area, although the impact is not considered significant. The project conforms to the public policy expressed in the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan which is specifically designed to manage growth within the project area. The provision of sewer and educational services to the project would necessitate an increase in their respective facilities. The growth expected to take place in the sewer treatment facilities of the Metropolitan Sewer System would not be directly related to the project and is expected to occur independent of the proposed development. The growth impact on local educational facilities would be offset by fees. 8.0 Consultation 8.1 The following individuals and organizations have been consulted in the preparation of the draft EIR: D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning Wm. Ullrich, Assoc. Eng. 19. Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Merritt Hodson, Environmental Control Commissioner James Hutchison, Project Design Consultants John Linn, Chula Vista Elementary School District 8.2 The following documents were used in the preparation of this EIR: EIR-78-2 E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan EIR-78-5 Casa del Rey EIR-79-8 Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area, including various technical appendices EIR-80-4 Charter Point Subdivision IS-80-50 Ladera Villas . --. - FOR OFFICE Case No. Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Ladera Villas. £.V. Tract RR-7 2. PROJECT LOCATION {Street address or description) South side of Paseo Entrada~ between Paseo Sarina and Paseo Ranchero Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 640-090-07 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sinql~ Family Residential ~,hdivi~inn. Prooose 46 lots nn lO Acre sitP. 4. Name of Applicant l~H~rm \!illm: nev~lopment Address 3919 California Street Phone 298-1600 City San Diego State California Zip 92110 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Pearson Planning~ Inc. Address 8753 Broadwas~ Suite H Phone 494-1494 City La Mesa State £alifnrnia Zip q2~41 Relation to Applicant ~nnqultant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning X Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting ~J Archaeological Survey Precise Plan X Tentative ~ubd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required E~! ~ ~ev. 12/821 - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage 10 Acres If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 3.5 Acres of dedicated street, 0.35 Acres of Open Space 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family X Two family ~ulti family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 46 Sinqle Family Units c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 46 4 bedrooms Total units 46 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) q.6 ~.U /Acr~ e. Net density {DU/total acres minus any dedication) 7.5 D.U./Acre f. Estimated project population 92 g. Estimated sale or rental price range Unavailable at this time h. Square footage of floor area{s) ~g.n~ i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 25% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided ~9 nff~trP~t k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 40% 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure{s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers {per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces . C. PROJECT CNARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.).identify them. None 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Yes IIf yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? 140~000 b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 1~0~000 c. How much area /sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? ~5 Acres d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 4~' Average depth of c~t ~ ?N' Maximum depth of fill 40' Average depth of fill 20' - 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.) Unavailable at this time 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project {sq. ft. or acres) None 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Employment for construction wnrkers 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 460 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Extension of Paseo Entrada along north line. Construction of outfall sewer in future Paseo Ranchero D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? Yes (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Yes (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or draina-ge improvements on or adjacent to the site? Small canyon in center of project drains to south. .. - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic ¥~ater 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. Storm drain at canyon mouth. Extends to flats to south to prevent erosion. 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? Some noise from construction. Mitigated by limiting working hours. 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? Yes b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which ' (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any kno~.~n historical resources located on or near the project site? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NO 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. None - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North Vacant-Fufure school site South Vacant-Desiqnated open space East Vacant-Future school site West SinglP Family R~iH~ntial 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, ho~ many?) No b. Are there any c~lrrent employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) No Please provide any other information ~hich could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. A 26 unit project on this site was previously approved as T.M. 80-10 with adopted E.I.R. At that time the area was designated 3-5 density. · The previously approved plan required the importation of 85,000 cubic yards of fill dirt, with a total fill required of 137,000 cubic yards, or 5,200 cubic yards : per lot. This plan calls for a total of 140,000 cubic yards, or 3,000 cubic yards per lot, with no import required. Ladera Villas Development, the subdivider, does not intend to build homes, but to sell the lots to a qualified builder. The number and size of units shown above are typical of a project of this nature and are used to establish the anticipated impacts. - ? - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow~ I, Charles R. Pearson, President of PEARSON PLANNING. INC. or Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have Seen included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environm~/~p~ct,//~!~ ~enclosures for attachments thereto. Charles R. Pearson *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name, CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IwAPPLICANT'S OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE CERTAIN HICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Ladera Villas Development List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Gerald R. Lalande Joe Bordi Rita Y. LaLande Murielle N. Bordi 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. Max A. S~w~r~ 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) I Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soc-6-d-F~F club, fraternal organization, corporation, e~tate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality,' district. ,, or other )political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. {NOTE: Att,ch additional pages as Signature o~ applicant/date Charles R. Pearson, President WPC 0701P PEARSON PLANNING, INC. A-110 Print or type name of applicant -8- Case No. /~-~-~L) CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: p(~_ (~-~ South ~ q ~/,~ .... ~ ~_~ Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use uesignation on site: <~tU /~ North ~ ~ /, South ~, , East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~1(~. ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? -~ (If yes, describe the design techniques beipg used t~ protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) -- How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~?~_~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~? ~ ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~ / Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 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.) ,~c~-~' 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) 0 / 6. Remarks: Director oL~t Planner~ or Representative Date / -10- Case NO. ~S gX-~O G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.~, f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? I~tm~4~;_ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~,~ . 2. Transportation .~ ~.~/ a. What roads provide primary access to the -roject?~=~O b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~o c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. ~.C. ~-~. I~t~;-~ I~,~'~ ' L.O.S. ~ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?_~ If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. ~..~,~ ~ r~-,~ o - ll - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? ~S ~ ~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? .. ~.~, c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution co x 118.3 : Hydrocarbons 4~o X 18.3 = NOx (NO2) ~.~,o X 20.0 = Particulates 4&~ X 1.5 : Sulfur ~&o X .78 : ~'~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ Liquid ~k~ t{hat is the location and si~ of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? I~~f ~ ~'~--~ ~,~.' ~ ' 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 C~ty~ineer-or Repres6ntativ~ 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? /,>'~ ~,l.~ ~, 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?. V~s . .- .. F. Na Date CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address Ladera Villas Plan File No. Checker Dyar Date 3-50-88 Type Constr. Occupancy. No. Stories Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: Project will require fire hydrants as required by this department. Hydrants must be installed and operable prior to delivery of combustible construction materials. APPLICATION FOR INITIAL STUDY FPB-29 - ~I I I I ~I -.:./ \' '.. .'.'. ' -,I~I i ~I~i~ H'I-J -' , \, < \1 - ~I I .... J , I I I I I I I I I I I Z w .... '" ~'.. no ~f I \1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I ~to ...u .. ~ co. L c- o;;; ~ .. ..~ .. L~ ".. ~ - L ~ "" co... u ~ ~ " C U .. L ~~ o.~U '- ~ UO' ~ >0 Q.I ..... en 0. _ ~ L ~ L U . "" - ..... 0.411..·_ ~ ~-" >'0... o.c ~no ... VI.c Q.I E LU ~"" 0. "" '~ ~" ·i.... u ~~ a.. L ~ o.u.o "u CL ...~ .. '.. - 0. - .. ~ "-...- '''_ 0 u... ~ .. u.. .. L ~ U "'.. "L -E.. - ~.. ~L_ ~o.L -.. C"" C.. 'a Q.... .,.,a .. - L ~ a .. ... -~ .. C c't:l__Vle ~'Ou a~ ~~ c... ~ ~.. .... c_ ~ Q.I ..- ..~u >- ..~ ~ C ~'" Q./'CftI"C 85 ""~- '0"".. ~ -'- - L _ u_ .....-1:1'I ....L 0.'0 X"" ~.. ot.._ VI 'Ou ""a L " 0._ ..~ C"" o ~ I.. Q.I , C ~_ C o.~ " ~~ o.~ >, aL .."" - .... L... 0 - U .. o.~ U _'OL UUE .. o.~ ~ " "" ~ ~ U c... +-'Q.lCLI.->t ~.- Q.I C ~ L .. .. - ~ _0. C U I...c ... c '0""'0 -~a _0... """ L~ 0. 4Þ cu.... cu. o."c " .. ".. ~ .. U_ ..~~ >,~ - ~ I.. en 0..... L ~ ~...- ~ >- ~ ~,,~ -~ .. .. .... c U~ ~.. GlO.", ..~ ".c> .. .. L C' ~ ~ >,:; '0 "lLQ.lO C~L L 0 L ~ '" """ L'O L ~.. ¡;. ~ '00.0. _ L a C U C ..~ .. E ...- ~ C VI+-' ~ _ a L -..- - ..~ _L -.. " C U ..- ~CLI'" c: .. '0 .._a .....'0 .. "'L ~U.. U_ c.c 0. .. ...- c.c .. uc.. ~.. ~...- ~C" ~ ~ U ..~ 0."'_ "''' ..u õ'Q.I"~~æ ~~L a U_ 0.,,_ 0..... o.~.. --.. U V>~ ~ .. ~ 0".. 0. " 0.""_ 0 0. U'" cu...:::c "' 'O~ ... L I.. C. VI > 0.0.'" .. o.LU au.o 0. U" aLE .. C VI II; > 01 C C. U 0" a L"C U 1.....'... L_ L U La_ ~-- ::)_ULC "'V)>"_u L ......t= OC.. L o.~", 0"_ 0._ 0 a ~ ::s.... 41'", Q.I ... e..... ~ _a ~ -'0 " ..a .. .. ~L ~- L 0. "Cuc....."""'"VCQ)VI..... .c..~ .. .. .. C a "'0- .."" U "ua .." .. 0._ c!..GlC::s._I..1V..........a ~ E....c:: ..... "" ~.. ~ "" 0. .c ....... ""- .c 0.... "0 IG.... U 000'" 0./0 Q.I:s ....... "'....... ~- .. ...... ..~L ~ ~ U ..- ~ ..... UV1U:X: ZOo. OV) V) 0.. "CIuc+-, .. '" "".. .. 0. >,- "'C ""... ..... Q.I ." '_..c: 'a -E" -~"" -.... ~.cc -- .. ~ "... .o~_ """-"- 0;;; u - ~ ~ c.;; --.. .. .. ~ 0.......... "'......... _ C.. _LL _L_ -..a ~ ~.c UIOO.c:J:J; :><.. L L :>< a ~ :><a.c '" ~.. :><LO => -.. " .. '0 - C .. " .. .å Ù ..; ~ .. .0 <..> -' . '" = N - - .- .~ ~I \1 '\1 \ ~I ~I --'I ~I ~I :"1 ''::'1 -' < ::: I I I I I I I I I I Z w .... '" ,', no ~I I I I I I I I I I .. u .. 0. ... E - -~ .. ..C .. .. C C~ - Þe C a i'i~ .. >, . .. - L ~.. ... -" ~ ii ..~ ..... - C .. fl _a .. ~'O >- ~ i'i~ u ..~ § ZL .... ac L. ~ " .. .. 0. E "'L 0;;; 1:" .. LC 0''' .... >,'0 -a >,.. :;;- - .. cc .. L~ C .. ..~ C C L_ .: .c .... u - >, a ..~ ~ .. E c.. _ .0 .. .. C ..>,- 'O~.. - ~ ..~ .. ...~ .. c_ '" --- 0.0. .. 0. .. 0. C ........ .. .. - ~L~ L~ C '0 '0 cÞ .. 0. u L '0 .. ...~ aL "L C a .. .. La C >, 0. .. U 0. - L 0.'_ C Ca_ 'O~ -.." u~u >,c a .... '" ':;-; - a ..- -~ ~"L ...- ~to .. a .. .. - . L ~V> ..- ~u " '; '0 .." E ...... _0 _"L .0..0. U.. .... C _ 0' ~L.c >< ""~ " O~ ..C UC ~ a '0 a ..~ L"~ ..'" ~ 0''' ~ " L..~ ~a ~ -z; - -_ L .c>, CLI........ L_ .. .. .. - to _u~ ~- L " >- ..~ ...... L L " '0-- .0 ~ ~ a .. - _L ..~ .. .. ~ ~ ..... ".. ~ ë u .. ""- ...... "".. ....u - ~ C ..- > ~.. u .. .... o.~ ..- u.._ ~_ 0. UC.. ~ .. ~ .c L C -" _ E.. '" ..,,- 0._ .."'- .. ~ u o.~ "0' ....E ..... ~ .0 ..c.. ~- u>, a .. -~- a.. 0. >''' U .. a~~ ".0 L C ""~ :5i! .... .. ~ L .. 0 ~.... L ~ ~L 0. .. "þ u_ C"-u,.... C L 0..0 ~-~ 0"_ 0... U -.. C .. .. a >, a~ L 0..0 a L .. .. -~ ~- .. .. ~ c_ -- ~ "co. L .. L .. C C o.c "" ..... c_ .... L'O ""G.1......... ~ Þ "" 0. o.~ 0. "" -- ~ --~ 0... .0" ~ L .oL .. ..>, ~ >, 0. .. .. >, ..~ co. -- " L" ..... ::I:::::JQ.lc -.. -- ..~ ...... ..c .. "" '0 "'E ~O' ..~ L'O III.... 010 0._ 0;;; '0 u_ 5 u_ '0- .. -- ~E '; - ~ ~ UV> ~ C ~c_ -- - ~- u_ - ,,- 0;;; a ~ _L .. ~~ Q.... .., 01 >~ " "..... ~.o "~.o ~ L 0. L , XL C.. .co-cQ,/ " 0 a... " ~;g a.." " -... <..> <0. .... wa -~ I- & u L. <0' <">"0' <..>L.. 0 L ~I .. L ~ :;; .. .å ~ .. .å :>< ,..: cO ..: -'-- 0'" """ ".. .Q '" "0' >.- .... """ , "0 M ""0 .. " -".. MC OOCI.I·. "e" e"V -" Co.·., Oeo .-.... L. .. Q. .." VI "'..." ... '- "" '" ..-.. => š:::... VI < "0 ... .. I :E 0"0 e CO - ~ M"_ N 0' .. ¡:: 0" .. . I _ V.. < M"" '" _.., a. ¡:: >00 ".. - .. Q... % ..,,0 '" V"" 0' 0 ".. 0 ..., - VI 00" Z .... V 0 Q.C" - '- .. VI '" .. - 0'"0 M > -"0' ... 6" 0 '" ..v -.. ~ .... _0 u o Q.C e ... .....'" " a 0_ e "VM 0 '" "" e" Q. ... ...._"0 0 .. "'> V " .., 0 ., ........ ... .. - '. . . \ J;¡I \, ::,/ ..../ r' I I \1 ~ .. \1. \1 !¡¡ I I I ')J I ... .... 0 , ... i21 I I I r I I I I -~ ~ " M..e " ~"" I c: ~ c: M L .. ..- .. U" I:OO'OOQl .. 0 .. L .. L ._ 0'''' :> 8~>v5~ v "+Joo .. "'.. ~i'z !,It " ... , 00 ¡, V" " ~ 41 .... c: ... ... eM" " > " .. 0" .- ~ L. ~CI.I '0'_ ... .. " _e e~ ....,.., .., " +.I C1Ic( CI.I c: U '11:I........ C "''0- " V .......""'" " e o~ ,... o U fO_ c.... "" GolD·......, U c: ".. IO::tU'C "'.. .. ,,- .. - ~ 0'" " "C>. 414110"; _ M" QI.o..- .... L_ 0.'0 :> CI.I .. fO C CI.I e- u·... L. c: J:...., .., ....- Q; e v 11" -.. > _ o~ .... fIO r- .... '0.... . .,.....Q.I"'CLlO"'U ~ .." ." V G.I::S.c '" .. ~ ... :> ...,.... CI.I ~ .." '... t......CL,t 0' > f,.. CJI..c;.., .. e ~ 0 - . c ~~,:;;..":ë; ~ ___ \0.& :> 0. u·..., ""L C U 0 ..." ...... :::111I0 CLIO e.... ...- 0' 0'_ -~ " c c e ... VI 0 c: CI.I CLI.... \oil E C c...·...,... e ~ """ ... .... .........::Ic: U .. .. c 0·... CJ'ICI.I.......::s ...::to"'CI.I....00' 0_.. .. "M .. 010 0..:11 C .. eo 0."0.... 21; ò,- vuu....rOOL. .. ..- -..... "" " ~ u u .. o e .. '" uJlQQQ, .- --. L. U'O 0 ..v M .. U Q. 0·... eLl CI.I.., 0 C .. 0..... >, CI.I L >~ 01:;:·_ '!i ~ .. "... .. > s::..s::;... I.. >. 0.1: E ::1_.... cu.......::t e c _u" c.... c·... - IV·... C ...... c·......._... .....c CI.I........ 0 c: +-' "..- c_·... c " CI.I+-' fOC >.. CI.IO~~~CI.IO >"... .. " ..'" 0 .." " ev '" c .. c " ..- fO....L.... "Me .... VI.... > v... 4.1 G.I ....... '" > .... :>weGoo__... >'0...........,"- >~- II'I1V4ICI.I C U 1...,.., U..., .. ~ '" 0 ....... C <oCI.I"""'CLlu::t(l ..".. ou,,- .. 0' '... 0 c ~ ~ .... ..c; E.: ~~'i'''' ..c;....... +-'''0 CI.I u_ -= \II.a " _ e " L .. :31.. iii.., ~ .·..ë ã ~ .:;:;;:: L. ~ > ".. .~~ ..'" 0'''-0 ... .. ..... ... Q,I:>.., cu .... .. "c Õ I'<+-'...."'C ..... .. -... 0 u 0 u ... c: I..~.... U·...::s e c: CI.I CI.I,&J ~~if Q./ "'""... 0 ~ 1!1 i. ~~ ° ~ ..- Q./ , QI C QI QI QI....u QI ° ..c ° > LJ ° c,... ...., ° >. '......... ° QI e :J ...... - i. V QI'" i. '..,oa:l C e" .~ .. .. .. .. Qloa........ ~ o .. eð~....'5·ZQ.l ~~ gQ.5°o. o v~ - "M C C u" u C i. >,.... L _ 0-" _e .. __COIQI ""M Q...cQ./v ¡., 0._,........ i. ...... o.....c>, M ... "'"'.... C C .. e >oc,- " .~ .. "'"'... oa C '- ~ .... oa J:: ° ° _ 0_ .. - o 0 00 " .. ¡ ~ 'û~ c ..-.. o¡¡ . 0..... ° '0 QI ~.... ... ~ 41·... ~ .. .. 0'0·... V _L U ~ .. > ..c GI 01 E c: s: '0 LJ ..c ....... "'"' \It ..c;J:...u M M ..W''QCLI'''' ~o 0 ~ M 0 ... .... ~.... ... > c·... ~ '0 CLI ....... oa... u:J........ ~ ~.. " 0 V'li....oa+ol " ".. "" GlO LoO > i. GI u u ~ v.. => "- '... ..,........ GI ~ C C Q./ C C > ,., ~ ~:ë-~~ï::: ~.... GI ....·..,c Q./ GI ~ u..._ 0 ¡., .... e'O "'"' ~ .. - ..c........ .... ~ .. .... Q,I'O'Ooaoo...... 41·......0 ... .. IG·... IG 0- 0_ ~ .. 0 O~~ 8~'O~:::~·~ o c_..ci.__'" o.c_c: 0 "- c..c....¡.,~ ..." "" ..~.. .. '" .... O·...V'I.... 0.... Q./ QI C:J _..... .. '0_..._ .. ~ - . -;a~§ " M 0 C õ< :; .. ~ ~ o .. ~ .. .. ~ ü ,; '" U... a'lU :E ;:; N ~ -~_.._-,.~--- .--.-- Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER ~arch 31, 1988 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator Chula Vista Planning Department Public Service Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-88-60 The Sweetwater Union High School District will require payment of school fees pursuant to Government Code 53311 or 65995, whichever is most applicable, prior to issuance of building permit. Respect fully, ~ Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sly April 6, 1988 Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Calif. 92012 Attention: Douglas D. Reid Dear Sir: I am replying to the letter sent out on the initial study, dated March 29, 1988 regarding the proposed project, Ladera villas Development, located at the sout~ side of Paseo Entrada between Paseo Safina and Paseo Ranchero. I am located o~ the corner of Paseo Entrada and Paseo Sarina. In reviewing the map of the proposed project I noticed that Lot ~1 has an elevation of 478 feet as opposed to my lot which is 476 feet elevation. The problem is ~e have a swimming pool with a brick wall to the back which will divide this lot. This brick wall is of regulation height as required by the City of Chula Vista for If this proposed development is approved, the lot behind my property will be t~ feet higher which will make the brick wall three feet high on that property whic~ is difinitely unsafe for all concerned. What I suggest the developer to do is to make the proposed lot to be either level or lower to my property so the brick ~all on both sides will stay in city regulations regarding the swimming pool. Sincerely yours,~ Larry J. Hurley// 1157 Paseo Sarina Chula Vista, Calif. 92010 "A CONCERNED CITIZEN" RECEIVED AP~ 08 ~'~'"~ Environmental Review Coordinator ~'. o. Bo;,: 1,:,~ PLANNING DEPART,~'IENT Chula Vista, Ca. 92,]12 CHULA VISTA, OALIFORNIA RE: Ca~e ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traf¢ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa~er community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 C~e ~ ~-~-~0 L~dera Villam Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently p~ay in the general vacinity of the street of F'aseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who r"eside on and ar'ound Paseo Entrada wish to convoy thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our e,xisting residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of tbe street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. ]-he logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access t.o the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mer~tioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-6@. community through development of an a].ternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Bo:-~ 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Pasee Entrada wish to convay thief- concer'n relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity o'F the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possib].ility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the developmeot o.f Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named preject. The City Council has ence before .favorably voted to route traffic around Ot.U~ residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. ]'he below holneowner requests that the study conducted for the a.fore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa'let community through development o.f an alternate route fer access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Cmme ~IS-88-60 Lmderm Villms Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o.~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. R CEIV D Environmental Review Coordinator Vt t , CHULA VISTA, Case ~ IS-CS-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and aroond Paseo Entrada wish to convoy thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting o~ many small children who ~requently play in the general vacinity o~ the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed ~er heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility o~ injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development e~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before ~avorably voted to route traffic around our residential area~ regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study condocted ~or the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask ~or your support in understanding our concern for a sa.~er community through development o~ an alternate route ~or access to the propose~/development by way o~ Pasee Ranchero. Concerned Homeowners ~ Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista~ Ca. 92012 RE: Case Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Pasee Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Cooncil has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Del Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way oF Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Bo:-: 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92o1~ Ca~e Lade~a M~tta~ Devetopment Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convoy thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa~er community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thief concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. ]-he logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access 'ko the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for /..adera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development o~ an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. Environment_al Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 . RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around F'aseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. ]'he main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street o~ Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residenti, al area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowr~er requests that the study conducted for the a~ore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted $or Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in ul~derstandir~g our concern ~c]r a safer community through developmeot oF an alterr~ate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Rancbero. Environmental Review Coor-dinator F'.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 k~der~ Vil[~s Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before 'favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. ]'he below homeewner requests that the study conducted for 'the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-.88-60. We ask for your support in ur~derstancJing octr concern for a safer- community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o.f Pasee Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Cam~ #ZS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on aod around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the BeI Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in Ehe study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Bo:.: 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o~ F'aseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traf-~ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa~er community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way oF Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'. O. Bo:.,' 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around F'aseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequeotly play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe thah an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of F'aseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic aroond our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ 1S-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through outr existing residential area. This is an established area consisting o¥ many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Raseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer" community through development of ao alternate route for access to the proposed development by way oF Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review ~oordinator P.O. Box 1087 ~d'J~ L~ ~ '' Chula Vista~ Ca. ~2012 Lad~rm Villms D~velopment Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential ar-ea. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o¥ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Bo~ 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ I S-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ F'aseo Ranchero. ECEIVED Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92,)12 PLAi' t' IE,'G DEPAR'[ E T CdULA STA, Ca~e Ladera Vi 11a~ Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. Concerned Homeowners, ~7~CE!VF.D Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Box 1087 ~ 0~'~ Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Pl/te~q O 'ULA VISTA, Ladera Villas Development Bear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thief concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o-F Paseo Ranchero as the main access ~o the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traf.[ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the stody conducted for the afore mentioned'project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa.Fer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way Bi Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box lO87 Chula Vista, Ca 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thief concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate roote should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above Flamed project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 Ladera V1~la~ ~eve~opment Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bet Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. L[C[IVED Environmental Review Ceordinator i\F'~ 0,'3 P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 ~1 r~ ' PLANM OHULA VISTA, RE: Ca~e ~ IS-88-60 Ladmra Villam Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on aod around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main coocern is the access throegh our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the stedy conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a sa~er community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. 08 i97] Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around F'aseo Entrada wish to convay thief concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o¢ F'aseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92-12 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to coovay tbier concerti relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. -Fbe main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting o.f many small children who frequeotly play in the general vacinity o'~ the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route sboul d be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. ]'Fie logical solution to this pr'oblem ~s tbe development o~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access t.o the above named project. The City Council bas once before favor'ably voted to route traf.~ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Sobdivision. ]'Fie below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the a~ore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our- concern for a sa.~er community through development o.f ara alternate route for access to the proposed development by way c)~ Paseo Rancbero. Environmenkal Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista~ Ca. 92c~12 RE: Case #IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Dooglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier cor~cern r-elitive to the proposed development mentioned abeve. ~he main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe tha~~_ an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. ]-he logical solution to this pr'oblem is the development o.f Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traf-~ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air- Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be coosidered in ~he study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS--88-60. community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92019 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main cencern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of F'aseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route shou], d be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility o~ injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before ~avorably voted to route ~raffic around our residential area~ regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development o~ an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. ]'he main concern is the access through our e;-:~sting residential area. This is an established area consisting o.~ many small children who ~requently play in the general vacinity o¢ the street o~ Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inerder to minimize the pessib!ility o~ injury. The logical solutien to this problem is the developlnent o.~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before ~avorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted ~or the a~ore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted ~or Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask '¢or your support in understaoding our- concern ~or a safer community through development o~ ao alternate route ~or access to the proposed development by way o.~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordioator P.O. Bo).: 1087 ~'~ ' Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 ~U_~ ~ib,T~\, Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing resideotial area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of F'aseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. P.O. Box 1~87 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The Del ow concerned citizens who r'eside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concer'n relitive to the proposed development mentiooed above. The main concern is the access through outr existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small childreo who frequently play in the oeneral vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the pessiblility of injury. ]-he logical solution to this problem is the developmeot of Paseo Ranchero as the main access 'ko the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development o.~ an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way of Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92q~12 RE: Case #IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Pasee Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above, The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. Xhis is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route shool d be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of F'aseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential, area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in c~nderstandiog our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by wa~ of Paseo Ranchero. P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who r'eside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concer-n relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is tbe access through our existing residential area. 'This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access 't.o the above named project. The City Council has once be-fore .favorably voted to route traffic around our residential, area, regarding access ~o the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. ]'he below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternat~e route for access to the proposed development by way of F'aseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case #IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our e;~:isting residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route shool d be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this preblem is the development o~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access, to the above named project. The City Cooncil has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Vil. la Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern fer a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Bo:.: 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92c)12 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid~ The below concerned citizens who reside on aod around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the qeneral vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-6C1. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 PLANi I[' Q RE.. Case C[ ULA VISTA, Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of F'aseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed ~or heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility o~ injury. The logical solotion to this problem is the development o¥ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Cooncil has once before ~avorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted ~or the a~ore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted ~or Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask ~or your support in understanding our concern $or a sa'Fer community through development o~ an alternate route ~or access to the proposed development by~way o~ F'aseo Ranchero. Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 ' RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through OLtr existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o¢ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traf¢ic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in ~he study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. :CEiYE. D Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Bo).: 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 C}-IULA V STA, CALIFORNIA RE: Case ~I S-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Dooglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once b~fore favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. RECEIVED Environmental Review Coordinator ~*Pi~ O~ ~O:~Q P.O. Bo;.: 1087 ~ Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 PLANr If IG DEPART ,'IEI' T CHULA VISTA, C?,LIFOR tlA RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development o~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. E.C E i.V F_D Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 ~OLAJ"~JJ/'~ DEPART[ Ef T REJ Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convoy thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. RECEI.VED £~PR 08 i97] Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Bo~.: 1,:,~ PLA~IFIQ DEPART~I£~T Chula Vt~t~, C~. ~,:,Z~ CHULA ~ISTA, O,qLIFSR~IA RE: Cm~ ~ I S-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Posen Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possiblility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Pasee Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way oF Paseo Ranchero. I ECEIVED Environmental Review Coordinator ~P~ 07,, ~0.~ P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 PLANI~I~GD£PAR'rkJ£ T ' CHULA VISTA, C?,LIFORNIA RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possibliIity of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of F'aseo Ranchero as the main access Eo the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in onderstanding our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o~ Paseo Ranchero. RECEIVED Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. PLANNI D PART B T Chula Vista, Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~ IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and ar'ound Paseo Entrada wish to convay thier corlcer'n relitive to the proposed development mentioned abeve. ]'he main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the street of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possibl, ility of injury. The logical solution to this problem is the development of Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our r-esidential area, regarding access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted for- the afore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understandir~g our concern for a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way oF Paseo Rancbero. ECEiVED April 08, 1988 ~Y'-~ ....... ~ ............ Douglas Reid APR OX Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 1087 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Chula Vista, CA 92012 CHULA VISTA, OALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Reid, I and virtually every other resident who lives in the neighborhood to which Paseo Entrada provides sole access, are concerned about what appears to be the intent of everyone who wishes to develop property into subdivsions around here to rely upon Paseo Entrada for access to their residential units both for construction and later for the individual resident access to their homes. We addressed these concerns to the city council and on January 5, 1988, were assured by city staff in its report to the city council that construction traffic would be routed around our neighborhood for construction of Terra industries "Mission Village" and that opening up Paseo Ranchero would be a prerequisite to development of either the "Ladera Villas" project that is currently proposed on the ten acre school site to its north, which will almost certainly be sub- divided for residentJal development. However, the proposed map for "Ladera Viilas" shows that once again Paseo Entrada is sole access to this development. Consequentialy, even if east Jst and Paseo Ranchero are opened up, the route that these residents will use to access the units will be the straight course up and down Pasedo Entrada. That is entirely inappropriate for this area beacuse of the grade of the street (4°-6°), its straight conrse all the way to the bottom of the hill, and the regular traffic by local residents into and out of their driveways and their children who are regularly near the street areas and will often be in and out of Paseo Entrada and adjacent streets on bikes, scateboards and on foot. I have personally witnessed two very near hits and it is my understanding that there have already been at least two documented accidents on Paseo Entrada in the two years that this neighborhood had been occupied. When one goes to enter ones driveway, vehicle that are following tend to want to climb onto ones back bumper even going aphill. We do not want to see even even more of this traffic from additional subdivisions. Consequentialy, we. and I have little doubt that I speak for this neighborhood collectively, wish to see Ladera Villas accessed by a route other than Paseo Entrada. Two suggestions would be either directly off of Paseo Ranchero or off of east J~st through Paseo Frimavera. In either case it is our desire that Paseo Entrada be kept closed at its current terminus just east of Paseo Sarnia. To do otherwise raises the spectre of a tremendous safty hazard to the homeowners and children who 1ire in the Paseo Entrada area. Sincerely, ~eo~ge E. Hartman Environmental Review Coordinator F'.O. Bo;-: 1087 Chula Vista,. Ca. 92012 RE: Case ~IS-88-60 Ladera Villas Development Dear Mr. Douglas Reid, The below concerned citizens who reside on and around Paseo Entrada wish to convay thief concern relitive to the proposed development mentioned above. The main concern is the access through our existing residential area. This is an established area consisting of many small children who frequently play in the general vacinity of the streek of Paseo Entrada. We believe that an alternate route should be developed for heavy equipment inorder to minimize the possibIility o~ injury. The logical solution to this problem is the de'/elopment o~ Paseo Ranchero as the main access to the above named project. The City Council has once before favorably voted to route traffic around our residential area~ regardiog access to the Bel Air Ridge Subdivision. The below homeowner requests that the study conducted ~or the a~ore mentioned project be considered in the study being conducted for Ladera Villa Development, IS-88-60. We ask for your support in understanding our concern for- a safer community through development of an alternate route for access to the proposed development by way o¢ F'aseo Ranchero. - I . i / r' .. -h ,- , ,Vvu:-,^-'j' 'f-C ^ '-/- " , f ' '/ ( , or {_'CL, ~\'L,C( Q-f {"..C,)L0/ uc-:4cr CJ.. '-,- +[0.' (6 a c r-< 5'1''-4 dLÜ ¿-J~ '-k-lL( ~'-Cì-+C, d7 (c::{cf~¡cz \I JZr 0.... , ?L.<PC/ C'CAAC'Ary u,,'Cc, c,·~-hM' ùl {L.£ See",! ,/c;;",c'! ??c.',oll""/< //L~~ / l' /Í'- ¡ìS' l,/ ' V'e , '-1- l- [,,-'co ¿1-7! u{"\Cr;¿-dfr-(.<,tC£~~?;C~1 yl:-<-,,;J-{ L:T)1C£-1..<A.--..-' / /' ,', (' ," ,ú--~( h ,/JJ, ( tl r", ,[ 6vVlcJ (,.t;-(,<Á cC,c.c/,<C.,AkCC{ ",.,_,v,C 1-'::'-')( "", /9 'j'¿< ~,,, --I (' A~' " i ~u:( n :,<q U / j C:UAA-.Lc¿.<.¿j ç ,,(, / c; 'é~ - I : I ,/ f .. . .. .I ,.-'" ~ ' "'. " ,~". ,".. r·' J ~ ¡ ,\_ or' ("\.._ ,!"t:__ ~_.... L--t I .,rY. J CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE)~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. LodQra Villo$ pevelopment List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Gerald R. Lalande Joe Bordi Rita Y. LaLande Murielle N. Bordi 2. If any person identified pursuant to (l') above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Max A. S~w~r~ 3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person{s) 'Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, e[state, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." {NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.~~t?~ Signature o~ applicant/date J Charles R. Pearson, President WPC 0701P PEARSON PLANNING, INC. A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 11, 1988 Page 1 7. Public Hearing: PCM-88-5 - Consideration of proposed amendments to Chapters 5.26, 19.04, 19.32, 19.36, 19.38, 19.40 and 19.58 of the Municipal Code relating to the licensing of dance permits A. BACKGROUND On December 3, 1987, the City Council requested that staff review existing Code regulations surrounding the granting of dance permits, particularly as they relate to the granting of permits only for those businesses that qualify as "bona fide eating places." A total of 17 dance permits presently exist within the City, seven of which are located within the recently annexed Montgomery community {see Exhibit B). B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study, IS-88-68, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted, and the Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Negative Declaration IS-88-68. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance amending the Municipal Code as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. D. DISCUSSION In an effort to bring zoning and licensing requirements for dance floor permits into consistency between the City and the recently annexed Montgomery area, specific amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code are proposed. The County of San Diego zoning regulations, which have been retained within the Montgomery area per pre-annexation agreements, permit "eating and drinking establishments," which include dance floors, in all commercial zones except the C-38, C-40, and C-44 zones. Chapter 5.26 (Public Dances) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code now governs licensing requirements for dance floor permits within the City, including the Montgomery area. Section 5.26.100 requires that a business establishment qualify as a "bona fide eating place" in order to obtain a dance permit. The elimination of this requirement will provide consistency throughout the City, including MontQomery. The dance floor permit process for the City {including Montgomery) requires the submission of a permit request through the Police Department. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 11, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Pete Case, District Administrator for the State Office of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), issuing authority for liquor licensing, states that licenses for liquor sales with dancing or live entertainment are customarily not issued within high crime areas unless the establishment serves food, however, Mr. Case indicates that there are no such areas within the City of Chula Vista and, therefore, all permit requests are not limited to food service requirements by their agency. If a dance floor permit or live entertainment is proposed, a separation requirement between the business parking lot and the nearest residential structure of 100 feet is required. This system of control adds further protection from potential conflicts between residential and commercial land uses. Mr. Bill Winters, Director of Public Safety, indicates that the Police Department sees no justification for tying dancing in a premise to a requirement that it be a "bona fide eating place." As this requirement, adopted in 1968, was intended to control the proliferation and concentration of establishments with dancing facilities the number of permits (7) that have been issued within the Montgomery area, where this limitation does not occur, has not resulted in an inordinate number of permits. E. ANALYSIS To retain further means of control over potential proliferation of dance floor permits, staff recommends that the 300 foot separation requirement (Chapter 5.26.230) be retained within the Municipal Code. The City Council may, upon application and for good cause, waive said restriction. Since the Police Department finds that there have been few difficulties experienced with establishments containing dance floors with no food services, staff is recommending that dance floor permits be allowed for cocktail lounges, nightclubs or bars, as well as restaurants, subject to the following conditions: a. Any structure containing a dance floor shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from any residential zone. b. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards. c. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from within the establishment adversely affecting adjacent properties or uses. Parking standards for dance floors (1 space per 50 sq. ft. of dance floor area) are presently covered in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 19.62.050, #21 ). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 11, 1988 Page 3 In addition, staff is recommending that the Zoning Administrator (Planning Director) be permitted to modify or waive any of the above conditions upon a determination that the condition is being satisfied by another acceptable means. Additional conditions may be applied, based on an analysis of the site, and any violation of conditions shall be grounds for revocation, upon written notice to the applicant. Each of the existing dance floor permit locations (see Exhibit B) conforms to the proposed regulations listed above. The Police Department has suggested that a minimum size dance floor be considered to avoid patron misunderstandings caused by an inadequate amount of space for movement on and around the floor. Staff surveyed a number of establishments with current dance floor permits to determine an average dance floor size. The dance floors ran~ed in size from approximately 112 sq. ft. (8' x 14') to 390 sq. ft. (15 x 26'). The size of the dance floors appear to be proportionate with the size of the establishment and a comfortable minimum size appears to be approximately 120 sq. ft. (10' x 12'). However, staff does not recommend that a minimum size floor be legislated but rather, this should be left up to the proprietor and the needs of the customers. WPC 5085P EXHIBIT A Chapter 5.26 Public Dances ~l~11~1t1~¢~t~¢~1~1~¢~1~1~1~¢~1~¢~t~1~1~1 ~¢ll~¢¢~¢ll~ll~5'YlN¢l/iN~u/d~lNIl~lll~l~tdvt/,ll~J~ll~ll~l~¢~ ~//~//~//~f//~//~/Ald~d//~d/~///a~l~g//~t~//~//~//~ ~,l,h~l~l~d~l~l~l~dd~/ll~l~ld~l~ ~/~/~¢~/~/~//~d/~/~/~//~//~d/~/~6~ ~/~/~l~¢~/~/$~/~/¢~/~W/~//Wd~d~/~/~ ~/~/~/~d~d~///~.//ll~F/~/~//l~2~//~t/~/~//~ Chapter 19.04 - Definitions 19.04.063 - Dance hall and Dance floor. "Dance hall" means a business establishment wherein the patrons thereof may dance with another person for a fee other than a price of admission to such establishment. "Dancefloor" means a defined floor area located within a business establishment designed for the purpose of dancin~ b~ patrons of the establishment. Chapter 19.32 - C-B - Central Business Zone 19.32.00 Permitted uses. B. Restaurants, cocktail lounges and night clubs (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115 and Section 5.26); Chapter 19.36 C-C - Central Commercial Zone 19.36.020 Permitted uses. B. Restaurants, cocktail lounges and, night clubs~/Ib~/s/~/~fl//~l~ ~%~%~ (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115 and Section 5.26); I. Theaters. //////// - Deletions - Additions Chapter 19.38 C-V - Visitor Commercial Zone D. Bars or night clubs (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115 and Section 5.26); Chapter 19.40 C-T - Thoroughfare Commercial Zone 19.40.020 Permitted uses. E. Restaurants and cocktail lounges IDance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115 and Section 5.26); Chapter 19.58 Uses 19.58.115 Dance floors. Dance floors in conjunction with restaurants, bars, cocktail lounges or night clubs shall be subject to the following standards; A. Any structure containing a dance floor shall maintain a minimum setback of twents feet from any residential zone; B. Ingress and e§ress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards; C. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from within the establishment adversely affecting adjacent properties or uses; D. Parkin~ requirements, as established in Section 19.62.050. The zoning administrator may modify or waive any of the above regulations upon a determination that the provision is being satisfied by another acceptable means. The zoning administrator may require additional conditions of approval based on an analysis of the site. Any violation of the above regulations or other conditions attached to the ~ermit shall be sufficient ~rounds for the City Council to suspend or revoke he dance floor permit. //////// - Deletions - Additions WPC 4721P -2- EXHIBIT B CURRENT DANCE FLOOR PERMITS (4/29/88) The Archway Inn 684 Telegraph Canyon Road Bavarian Inn 1402 Broadway Black Angus Restaurant 707 "E" Street Mr. D's 1322 Third Avenue E1 Torito Restaurant 271 Bay Boulevard Joey's 415 Broadway Marisol 2638 Main Street Oasis Bar 1121 Third Avenue Old Bonita Store Restaurant 4014 Bonita Road Palomino Star 3008 Main Street Pericos Restaurant 4062 Bonita Road Royal Vista Inn 632 "E" Street Sahara 626 "E" Street San Diego Country Club 88 "L" Street Scotties Bar & Grill 656 "E" Street Silver Dollar 341 Third Avenue Zoralias Restaurant 603 Palomar Street WPC 5095P negative declarat,on PROJECT NAME: Municipal Code amendments permitting dance floor permits for cocktail lounges, nightclubs, and bars, without qualifying as a "bona fide eating place" in the C-B, C-C, C-V and C-T zones PROJECT LOCATION: Not site specific PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS-88-68 DATE: April 29, 1988 A. Project Setting The Municipal Code presently allows the granting of dance permits in any establishment that qualifies as a "bona fide eating place" provided that said establishment is located in the C-B (central business), C-C (central commercial), C-T (thoroughfare commercial), or C-V (visitor commercial by conditional use permit) zones and not closer than 300 feet from any previously permitted dance floor. A total of 17 dance floor permits are presently active in the City of Chula Vista. B. Project Description Chapter 5.26 Public Dances ~l~l~ltl~¢~t~$~l~l~lf~l~$~l~¢~l~lf#l~l ~//~//dd~de~/~/~//~//~//~d~d/~/i/d/d//a~A~//~/~//~//~//~ ~l~l~l~d~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~/~m~/ ~ll~d~l~l~t~lld~l~Nl~ll~$~llfd~l~~l~l~i~ll~ %~i~/d~i~i~i~i~Z~I%~INI~I$~I~IW~$~I~I~¢¢~ ~~1~11~$1~1~I~1~1~1~1~1~11%~1~/~1%~ ~l~lll/~$/~~/~/~l%~l~/~/N/~~N~/llll~/~lN~/~l ~ll~l~/W~/W~/~l~l?~~//?~/~lll/~(~/~J ~#~/~/~¢#~/~/~h~//ddd/~N/~l~l~l~//~}//~d/N/~¢~ ~%~/~/~l~¢~/~/%~/~/6l/~//~//dd~d~J/~/~ ~%~%~/~/~//~dl/~N/~II~d%~l/NI~II~d~d%~III~IlNI%~I~ ~ll%~l/~/~/~ll/N/~}~//~d/~N/~l~/N/$~/Nd/~N/~ ¢~fd~/~/j~2/Nddd~d~///~N.//ll~/N/~//l~J2~J~//7~l/~/~//~ IIIIIIII - Deletions - Add~[~ons city of chula vista planning department CIIYOF environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- Chapter 19.04 - Definitions 19.04.063.1 Dancefloor. "Dancefloor" means a defined floor area located within a business establishment designed for the purpose of dancing by patrons of the establishment. Chapter 19.32 - C-B - Central Business Zone 19.32.00 Permitted uses. B. Restaurants, cocktail lounges and night clubs (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115); Chapter 19.36 C-C - Central Commercial Zone 19.36.020 Permitted uses. B. Restaurants, cocktail lounges and, night club$~//~l~)/q~/s/,//J~//~J~JT~ 6~J~6~ (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115); I. Theaters. Chapter 19.38 C-V -'Visitor Commercial Zone D. Bars or night clubs (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115); Chapter 19.40 C-T - Thoroughfare 'Commercial Zone 19.40.020 Permitted uses. E. Restaurants and cocktail lounges (Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115); //////// - Deletions - Additions city of chull vista planning department envlronmentll revltw itctlOrl. CHULA VISTA -3- Chapter 19.58 Uses 19.58.115 Dance floors. Dance floors in conjunction with restaurants, bars, cocktail lounges or night clubs shall be subject to th~ following standards; A. Any structure containing a dance floor shall maintain a minimum setback of -- twenty feet from any residential zone; B. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize -- traffic congestion and hazards; C. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from within the establishment adversely affecting adjacenL properties or uses; D. Parking requirements, as established in Section 19.62.050. The zoning administrator may modify or waive any of the above,'regulations upon a determination that the provision is being satisfied by a~nother acceptabl: 'means. The zoning administrator may require additional conditions of approval based on an analysis of the site. Any violation of the above regulations or other conditions attached to the permit shall be sufficient grounds for the zoning administrator to revoke dance floor permit upon written notice to the applicant. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans This project involves a zoning text amendment and, therefore~ upon adoption, it will be compatible with zoning. Discretionary approval will be required through permit ~rocessing with the Police Department as is presently the case. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Proposed standards to be listed under Section 19.58 of the Municipal Code will assure that potential adverse impacts resulting from noise and traffic congestion will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. E..Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are no significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed ordinance changes. city of chull vllt= planning deplrtment CITY(X: envlronmentll review -4- 2. The project will not achieve short-term at the expense of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project will not result in potential cumulative adverse environmental impacts if compliance with existing and proposed code standards occur. No significant environmental impacts will result with the adoption of Code amendments. 4. The project does not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations Ci~ of Chula Vista: Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building..and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffi~ Engineer 2. Documents a. Chula Vista Municipal Code This determination,' that the project will not have au significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Stu~, any comments on the Initial Stu~ and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Fbrther information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5099P city of chula vlata planning deplrtment environmental review sectlon.(:::HUl.~ ~. ~ ~ FOR OFFICE USE Case No. Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE I~lO~lOjp~l~ ~n~N~m~T' ~.~_: 2. PRNECT LOCATION (Street address or description) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PR~ECT DESCRIPTION ~N~~ ~'~ F~D~ 4. Name of Applicant Cl~ ~ ~UL~ Address ~ ~ ~v~. Phone City ~ ~ State ~, Zip ~l~ 5.Name of Preparer/Agent ~$~ ~. ~L~ A~ Address ~ ~ ~. Phone ~l-~r City ~ ul~ State ~. Zip Relation to Applicant ~o~ 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee ~Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning ~Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexation ~Precise Plan ~ Grading Permit ~Design Review Board Specific Plan ~Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency ~ Cond. Use Permit ~ Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance ~ Other ~ON~oP~L~ b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations ~ Eng. Geology Report ~Grading Plan ~Landscape Plans ~Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map ~Noise Assessment Specific Plan ~ Improvement Plans ~Traffic Impact Report ~Other Agency Permit or Soils Report ~ Other ~Approvals Required E~ 3 (Rev. 12/82) Chapter 19.40 C-T - Thoroughfare Commercial Zone 19.40.020 Permitted uses. E. Restaurants and cocktail lounges {Dance floors subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.115); Chapter 19.58 Uses 19.58.115 Dance floors. Dance floors in conjunction with restaurants, bars, cocktail lounges or night clubs shall be subject to the following standards; A. Any structure containing a dance floor shall maintain a minimum setback of -- twenty feet from any residential zone; B. Ingress and egress from the site shall be designed so as to minimize -- traffic congestion and hazards; C. Adequate controls or measures shall be taken to prevent offensive noise and vibration from within the establishment adversely affecting adjacent properties or uses; D. Parking requirements, as established in Section 19.62.050. The zoning administrator may modify or waive any of the above regulations upon a determination that the provision is being satisfied by another acceptablu means. The zoning administrator may require additional conditions of approval based on an analysis of the site. Any violation of the above regulations or other conditions attached to the permit shall be sufficient grounds for the zoning administrator to revoke th: dance floor permit upon written notice to the applicant. //////// - Deletions - Additions WPC 4721P -2- - 8- Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: ~oq' ~ North South East West '~. Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~ ~l'~-- North South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~/~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~//~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~}~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 1~/,~. - - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capaci ty From Project Elementary Jr. Hi gh N/Þ- 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, fexture or color? (If so, please describe.) --1'~ ~ ~ (5I1f:.$f'fC'~~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Nq.. Natural Gas (per year) '\ ,Ia ter (per day) 6. Remark s: îHE- A?tlt.1Ecr Ot>œl~ OF II{V\~ ïõ '11Œ. I'<'01J1'. ~ ~ ti>f /JD'r ~n::.. ~C"Á~ . 4/n/ra8 Date I / --""- .- ..-..,..-- ...--...,....----...,.- ..-.....---.., -lO- Case No. I% i~-(~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any:flooding hazards? d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~A e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. ~ ""- ( \ ", - 11 - Case No. '"ò> 'ò'6-(.oß 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~þ.. - Nm C:;\ \E.. ~:oP= \ç=,c... Li quefacti on?, pÞ- , Landslide or slippage? K,'''' b. Is an enginee\ing geology report necessary to evaluate tbe project? ~I\ . 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? to,1\ - Nt, ~;'\L --:.\~¿c- ''Ç"\~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~Þ-- c. Is a soils report necessary? 0.~ 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 eno_~ to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? . _ ____ . ..._~._.____n ___~ - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution co x 118.3 : Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) X 20.0 = Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sulfur ~ X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ Liquid );hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~ Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards.and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City Eng~rQeh O'r~Re'iYl~esentativ6g r- , " "':. - - 13 - Case No. IS-88-68 H. FIRE DEPARTI1ENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? N.4 , 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? N,4 3. . Remarks No fO~v-"t-.t . F.m~rSh~O '-II f¿/ fiP Date ( { .' '. ' '. .. : . ...:...~.' ~..., I - \ .. - _. .."-.. .. .. . - EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. ~-O(b-G~5 I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL NO 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a.Does the project site contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: t~-baT=C~-~CrI' ~(~ A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? __ A significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? ( (- YES POTENTIAL NO - b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? - - ;L A significant alteration of direction or rate - - .;K of flow of ground water? Any other significant affect on ground water? - - .:x 4. Drainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? - - .K- b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? ~ - - Any increase in runoff beyond the capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? ;4 - - Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X- - - Change in amount of surface water in any water body? - - ;£.... Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? ;¡A- - - 5. Resources Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources which can be economically extracted? - - )S.- The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? - - ;t- 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? - - Ä - _ v___·_n··_·_·____.__ -----..--..---- YES POTENTIAL NO 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? X F~issions which could degrade the ambient ~ .r quality? Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference with the maintenance of standard air quality? The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? /%< 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public water supplies? 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? ~<' = \ YES POTENTIAL NO 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wil dl i fe? ~ - - b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemi~ cies? ~ - - 11. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, À archaeological or paleontological resource? - - b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? - - -X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? X - - d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? - - -jÇ 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use f Ci rcul ati on - - Scenic High\~ays - - - - .4- Conservation -X- Housing - - - - ± Noise Park and Recreation - - Open Space - - ± - - Safety - - I Seismic Safety - - Public Facilities -X- - - --- YES POTENTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? The substantial demand for additional housing or affect existing housing? ~_ 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? ~_ b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection Police Protection Schools Parks or Recreational Facilities Maintenance of Public FacilitSes Including Roads - \ . YES POTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? - - .:x- A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? - - -X- A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? ~ - - 17. Uti 1 i ti es Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utilities: Power or natural gas - - $ Communications systems - - ~ Water -X-- Sewer or septic tanks - - - - $. Solid waste & disposal - - .;¿ 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? - - X 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? - - Þ- An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? - - P- 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? - - Ä ----...---...-----...-.. -~-- YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? .~ 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? ~ 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into.the future.) ~ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) ~< d. Does the project have environmental .effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ?< r . . \ .. . - 21 - J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: : ; . . I ProJect Proponent Va te I '. - ~ ----..-"" --~._----~ K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ~>< It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR~" ~ is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. It is found that further information will be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. Environmen ew Coordinator Date~ / ' WPC O169P