Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Comm Reports/1988/04/13
AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, April 13, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-88-38M Conditional Use Permit: Request to continue an existing auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street - Dan and Ruth Street 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-6: Proposed amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code pertaining to Large Family Daycare Homes 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-22M: Consideration of an interim ordinance regulating the processing of land use proposals which are inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4 Roy and Judy Shepard 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5 Mascot Realty 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-K: Consideration to prezone lands constitutent to the proposed Bonita-Sunnyside Annexation - City of Chula Vista DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Study Session Meeting on April 20, 1988 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms #2 & 3 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-88-38M; request to continue an existing auto dismantlin~ yard at 2365 Main Street - Dan and Ruth Street A. BACKGROUND The auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street was originally approved by a major use permit (P77-93,) from the County in 1977 for a period of 10 years. The dismantling operation was sold to new owners who inadvertently allowed the major use permit to expire in September of 1987. The applicants are requesting that a new major use permit be granted in order to continue auto dismantling and participate in the gradual abatement of the operation afforded to other open storage uses with valid major use permits under the auspices of the Montgomery Specific Plan. An Initial Study, IS-88-48M, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on March 15, 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 April 6, 1988, voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the request for a major use permit, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-48M. 2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-88-38M, to allow continuation of the existing auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street subject to the following conditions: a. The major use permit is granted for a period of time not to exceed two years from the date of rezone of the property in compliance with the Montgomery Specific Plan. The major use permit will not be renewed at the end of that time. b. The dismantling operation shall comply with all the requirements listed in the decision of the San Diego County Planning Commission on application number P77-93, attached in Exhibit A and made a part hereto. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North C-37 Industrial buildings South M-54 Faivre Street, truck yard East M-54 Miniwarehouses West M-54 Miniwarehouses City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 2 Existing site characteristics The project site is an existing auto dismantling yard on a 3-acre rectangular parcel on the south side of Main Street. The lot is level and contains a one-story 2,820 sq. ft. office and an 18-space landscaped parking lot on the northern portion of the lot adjacent to Main Street, with a storage area for wrecked autos and parts surrounded by a solid aluminum fence 8' in height. The office and parking lot is separated from the auto storage area by an 8 ft. solid wood fence, so that auto storage areas are not visible from Main Street. Proposed use The applicant is requesting continuation of the dismantling yard under the conditions of approval of the previous major use permit granted for the property by the County of San Diego. Similar establishments In addition to the auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street, there are 5 auto dismantling yards and one scrap yard in Montgomery. The status of those major use permits for auto dismantling are listed as follows: Major Use Type of Expiration Business Name Location Permit Use Date J and C Auto Wreckers 3513 & 3517 P79-013 Auto 1989 Main Street Dismantling Standard Auto Recycling 150 Center St. P87-40M Auto June 1989 Dismantling or 90 days after specific plan Phil Reeds 3525 Main Street P85-091 Auto 1990 Auto Recycling Dismantling Phil Reeds West side of PCC 86-24M Auto June 1988 Auto Recycling 128 Mace Street Dismantling or 60 days after specific plan Action Auto Dismantlers 151 Center St. P80-055 Auto 1994 Dismantling Chula Vista Recycling East side of PCC 86-24M Scrap Yard June 30, 128 Mace Street 1987 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS The auto dismantling yard at 2365 Main Street has operated without any reported complaints since 1977. The issue of renewal of the major use permit came to the attention of Planning staff when the applicants met with staff in October of 1987 to inquire about the status of wrecking yards in Montgomery as it relates to their operation. In a subsequent review of their major use permit, it was discovered that the expiration date for the permit was in September of 1987 and not in 1989 as the owners had thought. Consequently, the major use permit had already expired. Upon being informed of the expiration the owners have applied for a new major use permit in order to continue the use and to allow them to participate in any abatement programs afforded to wrecking yards with valid use permits within Montgomery through the Montgomery Specific Plan. After reviewing the applicant's request, staff is recommending approval of the major use permit for a non-renewable period of two years after scheduled rezoning of the property in compliance with the Montgomery Specific Plan, subject to the conditions originally imposed by the major use permit granted in 1977. Rezoning of the property will occur throughout Montgomery in phases after adoption of the implementation portion of the Montgomery Specific Plan. A timetable for rezoning has not been established as yet. The Montgomery Specific Plan adopted in January discourages the presence of junk yards, wrecking yards and open storage uses, and calls for gradual discontinuance or phasing out of existing operations. A recommendation for approval for a limited, non-renewable period of time would be consistent with the intent of the plan by allowing for abatement of the use in a timely fashion and in concert with abatement of other existing dismantling operations. The use appears to be in compliance with the conditions of the previous major use permit, and had completed all necessary public improvements for both Main Street and Faivre Street in 1977-78. A recent fire inspection found that the business is operating in compliance with City fire codes, and the view of the site from Main Street appears well ordered. In summary, staff is of the opinion that continuance of the auto dismantling yard for a limited period of time will not adversely impact surrounding properties or the general community. Returning vested permit status and allowing participation in a more gradual abatement program under these circumstances would be warranted. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 4 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 existing auto dismantling yard provides for the storage and recycling of inoperable vehicles for re-use by the community. The use is compatible with several allied automotive related industries located throughout the area. 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 existing auto dismantling yard presents a neat, well ordered appearance, so that approval of the existing use, as conditioned will not result in impacts from aesthetic degradation which would adversely affect humans or surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The existing site dismantling use complies with zoning ordinance requirements governing the Montgomery area for the M-54 general industrial zone, with approval of a major use permit. 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. Granting a limited, non-renewable continuation period for the major use permit for an auto dismantling yard is consistent with the intent of the Montgomery Specific Plan to gradually phase out or discontinue wrecking yards, junk yards and other open storage uses. WPC 5012P SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, California 92123 September 2, 1977 Decision of the Commission On the ApplicatiO~of-J~s~ph C. Kelly Application Number P77-95 G~kNT, a variance pursuant to Section 700 of The Zoning Ordinance to authorize the construction of a section of an 8-foot high fence within the setback on Faivre Street; and GP~T, as per plot plan dated July S, 1977, consisting of 1 sheet, as amended in red and approved concurrently herewith, a special use permit, for a_period of 10 years~ pursuant to Sections 400.9(b) and 4S2.2 of The Zoning Ordinance, for the establish- ment of an auto dismantling yard on a site of 3.09 acres to consist of a 2,800 square foot building for the retail sale of used auto parts, one free standing sign, one wall sign, and an 8 foot high solid fence surrounding the property. The following conditions are imposed with the granting of this special use permit: A. Prior to obtaining any building or other permit pursuant to this special use permit, and prior to commencement of construction or use of the property in reliance.on this special use permit, the applicant shall: 1.Enter into a secured agreement to install a street light on ;.Lin Street. 2. ~%e applicant shall deposit with the County of San Diego, through the Department of Transportation, in care of the Cashier, Build- ing 2, a cash deposit sufficient to: a. Pay the cost of annexing this land, without notice or hearing, to an existing special district to operate and maintain the street lights. This cost shall include the fee for processing through the State Board of Equalization. b. Energize, maintain and operate tile street light[s) until tax revenues begin accruing from this development for those purposes. c. Augment the Contingency Fund of the existing district by an amount equal to three month's operating cost of the street light[s). d. Augment the Reserve Fund by one month's operating cost. 3. Furnish to the Director of LUER evidence that the finished floor surface elevation for the proposed building and any future buildings be at 29.7 feet or more above mean sea level. 4. Submit for the approval of the Director of LUER detailed and complete landscaping plans for the development? Said landscape plans shall include: ~ a. Indication of the proposed width of any adjacent public right-of-way, and the locations of any required improvements and any proposed plant materials to be installed or planted therein. The applicant shall also obtain a permit from the Department of Transportation approving the variety, location and spacing of all trees proposed to be planted within said ri~t (s) -of-way. b. A complete planting plan including the names, sizes and locations of all plant materials, including trees, shrubs and ground cover, i~herever appropriate, native or natural- izing plant materials shall be used which can thrive on natural moisture other than such irrigation as is necessary to establish the plantings. c. A complete watering system including the location, size and type of all backflow prevention devices, pressure and non- pressure water lines, valves and sprinkler heads in those areas requiring a permanent irrigation system. For areas of native or naturalizing plant material, the landscape plan shall show a method of irrigation adequate to assure · establishment and growth of plant material through two growing seasons. B. Prior to any occupancy or use of the premises pursuant to this special use permit, the applicant shall: 1. Furnish to the Director of LUER concurrently with the request for final inspection, a letter from the Department of Transportation stating the road improvements required under this permit have been installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation. 2. Improve all parking areas and driveways shown on the approved plot plan with a minimum of one and one-half inches (1-1/2") of road oil mix or surfacing of a more durable type. $. Install all landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan, including the watering system. 4. Obtain from the Department of LUER certification that specified conditions of the permit have been met. Final inspection shall not be performed or permanent clearance of utilities authorized until the Director of LUER has certified that all conditions of the subject permit have been satisfactorily met. C. Upon certification by the Director of LUER for occupancy or establishment of use allowed by this special use permit, the following conditions shall apply: 1. Ail light fixtures shall be de~io~ned and adjusted to reflect light downward, away from any road or street, and away from any adjuoining premises, and shall othem~ise conform'to Section 554.S of The Zoning Ordinance. 2. No loudspeaker or sound amplification system shall be used to produce sounds audible beyond the boundaries of the premises. The parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained. 4. Ail landscaping shall be adequately watered and well maintained at all times. · S. The applicant shall install the proposed 8 foot high solid fence. Said fence shall be maintained in a neat manner and shall not be used for advertising purposes. 6. All operations including the storage of all motor vehicles, junk, auto parts and other materials shall be kept within and restricted to the area enclosed by said fence. 7. No motor vehicles, junk, auto parts and other materials shall be st~cked hi~her than said fencm and nmthin~ he ~laced closer_than ~ two feet to any fence. 8. There shall be no burning of junk, motor vehicles or other materials on the premises. 9. Ail fuel shall be drained from the tanks of stored ve]~cles. 10. Fire lanes, IS feet minimum in width, shall be provided through all storage areas. 11. Ail material shall be placed and maintained so that it will not encourage spontaneous or accidental combustion. 12. Signing of the property shall be limited to one freestanding sign 32 square feet in area, and one wall sign, 32 square feet in area. 15.Dust control methods must be applied to any dust producing con- dition which may develop and result in nuisance from this operation as may be determined by the Air Pollution Control District. No visible dust emissions are allowed beyond the project property line. 14. Access reads and operating area roads must be oiled, paved, watered or otherwise dust proofed, and so mai=tained to reduce any dust emissions belm¢ Air Pollution Control District Rule SO [20% opacity). 1S. The project shall comply with the State Health and Safety Code and the Air Pollution Control District Rule S1, dealing with nuisance. Special Use Permit Pursuant to Section 710 of The Zoning Ordinance~ the following findings in support of the gr~.nting of the special use permit are made: , (1) The granting of such special use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The facts supporting Finding [1). are as follows: [a) The flat topography of the property will lend itself to the proposed development without the necessity of substantial earth moving and the dust and noise disturbances usually associated herewith. Ih) A time limit of 10 years will allow reevaluation of this use with consideration for any future development in the area which may alter the present compatible situation. (c) Subject to the recommended conditions for the granting of this permit which include installation of landscaping along ~[ain Street, fire protection measures and screening of all dismantling operations, no such detriment or injury would exist. [2) The granting of such special use permit will not adversely affect any master or precise plan adopted pursuant to law. The fact supporting Finding [2) is as follows: Establishment of the proposed auto dismantlying yard is consistent with the "Heavy Industrial" land use designation applied to this area in the San Diego County General Plan. Variance Pursuant to Section 708 of The Zoning Ordinance, the following findings in support of the granting of the variance are made: [i) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances Or conditions applidable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The facts supporting Finding (1) are as follows: (a) No access is proposed to the property from Faivre Street on the south. Access to the property will be taken from Hain Street to the north. [b) There is no provision for the future extension of Faivre Street. The placement of an 8 foot high fence within the setback along the cul- de-sac portion of Faivre Street would not obstruct vision along the street. The remainder of the area enclosing the dismantling yard will be enclosed by an 8 foot high solid fence. (c) Enforcement of the required 10 foot setback on Faivre Street would place the fence 3 feet below the grade of the cul-de-sac, thereby increasing the visual impact of the proposed use by allowing additional visibility. [2) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property for which the variance is sought. The fact supporting Finding (2) is as follows: Similar variances have been granted for other wrecking yards in the vicinity. (3) The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. ~le facts supporting Finding [3) are as follows: (a) The requested variance would enclose the site and reduce the visual impact of the dismantling yard when viewed from Faivre Street. (b)The reduction in the required setback would avoid the possibility of a 10 foot strip of unmaintained yard to the rear of .the property. (4) The granting of such variance will not adversely affect any master or precise plan adopted pursuant to law. ~le fact supporting Finding (4) is as follows: The increase in allowable fence height to 8 feet, and the reduction in the required setback along the Faivre Street cul-de-sac will not affect the use of the land. The "Heavy IndUStrial'' land USe designation of the County General Plan and the auto dismantling yard would still be consistent. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: West Auto Wreckers PROJECT LOCATION: 2365 Main Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Dan and Ruth Street CASE NO: IS-88-49M DATE: March 16, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is an existing auto dismantling yard on a 3-acre rectangular parcel on the south side of Main Street. The lot is level and contains a one-story 2820 sq. ft. office and an 18-space landscaped parking lot on the northern portion of the lot adjacent to Main Street, with a storage area for wrecked autos and parts surrounded by a solid aluminum fence 8' in height. The office and'parking lot is separated from the auto storage area by an 8' solid wood fence, so that auto storage areas are not visible from Main Street. Surrounding uses include miniwarehouses to the west and east, industrial buildings to the north, and the terminus of Faivre Street to the south. B. Project Pescription The proposed project consists of continuation of the existing wrecking yard. No expansion, additions or alteration of the use is proposed at this time. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans With approval of an application for a major use permit, the proposed project complies with the M-54 general industrial zone currently in effect for the property. The project does not conform to the limited industrial land use designation in effect for the property. However, approval of the major use permit to continue the existing use for a short period of time with no option to renew the permit at the end of that time allows for gradual abatement period of the use according to the Planning and Design Proposals of the plan Ipage 16G) which states that wrecking yards should be to a substantial extent phased out or discontinued. city of chula vista planning department CIWOF environmental review section~eHUI.AVISTA -2- D. Identification of Environmental Effects Drainage The wrecking yard is located within the 100 year flood plan for the Otay River. The one-story office was constructed with a pad elevation 1' higher than the lO0-year floodplain elevation as a condition of approval of the major use permit granted by the County of San Diego for an auto wrecking yard. The balance of the property was not filled since it was designated for parking, landscaping, or outdoor auto storage and contained no permanent structures. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal for continuance of existing wrecking yard under these circumstances and determined that no additional flood protection measures are necessary, and that continuance would not create a significant and adverse environmental effect due to the existence of the floodplain. Land Use As stated previously, the proposed continuance of the existing auto wrecking yard does not conform with the research and limited industrial land use designation outlined for this area by the Montgomery Specific Plan. However, approval of the major use permit for a short period of time without the option to renew the use at the end of the assigned time period would provide gradual abatement of the use, and would be consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan to phase out wrecking yards, junk yards, and other open storage uses. As such, the proposed land use under the circumstances does not constitute a significant and adverse environmental effect. E. Findings of Insignificant Impa~t 1. The proposed continuance of the auto wrecking yard has previously fulfilled flood protection regulations required through a previous major use permit granted by the County of San Diego. Therefore, the proposed use will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2. Continuance of, the wrecking yard for a short, non renewable period of time provides for gradual abatement of the use and as such will serve to achieve both short- and long-term environmental goals. 3. The continuance of the wrecking yard contains no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulative in nature. 4. With previous construction in adherence to flood protection requirements, the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review lectlon. CHUL~VISTA -3- F. 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 Gore, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer 2. Documents 1) Title 19 {Zoning) Chapter 19.70 Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) Montgomery Specific Plan 1988 3) Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map San Diego County August 15, 1983 4) P77-93 Major Use Permit for Auto Dismantling, 2365 Main Street San Diego County Land Use and Planning Department '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. ENVIR~ME~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC O175P/4907P city of chulm vista planning department environmental review lectlon.CHULAVISTA= Fee z~/[>(~ , -~ 'INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. ~ i ~ J t Date Rec'd .~--1-,~,_% '.': '~ i ~. i~iC~ty~of Chula Vista Accepted .... ' ~ ,'~'>~ .... ~pplication Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND WEST AUTO W~CKERS 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 2365 ~IN ST~ET CH~A VISTA CA. _ 92011 Assessors ~ook, ~a~e ~ ~ar~e] Mo. 622 190 26 00 ~i~y p~ ~S~I~IOM AUTO W~C~ING Ya~ WITH 2820 ~Q. WT. OFFICE BUILDING, OFF ST~ET PARKING ~REA. 8FOOT WO0~ FENCING FACING MAIN ST. 8foot SOLID ~TAL FENCING SURRO~D~N~ ~OPERTY 4. ~a~e o~ A~]~a~t D~NNY L. AND RUTH L. STREET Address 926 ~ria ~ay CHULA VISTA CA ~o~e ~279318 ~231100 C~U~ VISTA State C~. Z~p 92011 ~ ty ~. Na~e ~ Preparer/A~e~t DANNY L AND RUTH L. STREET Address 926 M~IA W~Y ~o~e ~279318 ~231100 City CH~A VISTA State CA. Zip 92011 Relation to Applicant S~ 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 ~ Hydrological Study Site Plan ~ Photos of Site & ~ Biological Study Parcel Map ~ Setting Archaeological Survey ~ Precise Plan ~ Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment ~ Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report ~ Other Agency Permit or ~ Soils Report Other ~ Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) -2- B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage 2. 963 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family 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 h. Square footage of floor area(s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use HEAVY INDUSTRIAL UNDER STUDY 2820 SQ, FT. 15 FEET b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure WOOD AND STUCCO WITH TII~ ROOFING d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets OFF NL~IN STREET e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 18 f. Estimated number of employees per shift 14 , Number of shifts I Total 1~ g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate 35 based on monthlS total receipts h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate SAN DIEGO COUNTY APPROX. ~2~S0. BAY AREA BASED ON RECEIPTS i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND DISMANTLING j. Hours of operation 9 k. Type of exterior lighting exterior flood lights 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. NONE NO 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? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area Isq. 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 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (airhc~i~, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ELECTRICAL OFFICE ~iCHINES ELECTRICAL HEATER IN WiNTeR 4. Indicate the amount O~o~ural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. DELIVI~RY DRZV}~RS , PARTSi~EN, SALESMEN AND M~NGEMENT 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? 1© 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. NONE 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? (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 su~ly, lake, reservoir or bay? 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. NONE 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? NO b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which {if any) will be removed by the project. ~,+,,~ 1 name unkow~ NO~XTW WTT_T~ ~ ?.E~[OI,rED 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? NO b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NO 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. AUTO WRECKING Y~RD. OF?TIlE RTITTflTNG S~LID FENCING SURROUNDING ?ROPERTy b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North LARGE TRUCKING WARE HOUSE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL · South LARGE TRUC~fTN~ WAREHOUSE HJ~AVY INDUSTRIAL East SELF STOPw~GE WAREHOUSE West SELF STORAGE W~E HOUSE 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?) 1L~ Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. THIS PROPERTY H_aS BEEN USED AS aN AUTO WRECKING YARD FOR 10 YEARS. THIS BUSINESS HAS COMPLIED WITH aLL CITY, COUNTY AND STATE RE QUIP~E~NTS WEST aUTO WRECKERS HAS MAINTAINED THE PROPERTY TO BE AESTHETICALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE SURROUNDING aREA. WEST AUTO WRECKERS HAS 1L~ EMPLOYEES, MOST OF WHICH ARE NON SKILT.~.D LABOR. IT WOULD BE DIFFCLFLT FOR THEM TO FIND JOBS WITH TH]E SAME BENEFITS aND WAGES THEyNOW ARE EARNING. WEST GROSSED APPROX. 1 MILLION IN SALES IN 1987. TNE CUSTOY~ERS ARE BODYSHOPS, DEALERSHIPS, AND THE PUBLIC. nPPROX.2~ OF THE DEALERSHIPS AND BODYSHOPS WE SERVICE ARE LOCATED IN THE SOUTH BAY AREA. APPROX. 17~ WAS DIRECT SALES. MOST OF WHICH WE BELIEVE ARE AREA RESIDENTS THIS RESULTS IN ~2~ OF THE BUSINESS IS FROM THE SOUTH BAY AREA.. -7- ? E. CERTIFICATION / / - OF~.n'e~own'er__ in'e§crOw* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. /~-~Y~-/~/~S~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North ¥-,'~ 7 South East /¥_~q- c/ West Does the pr.oject confor, m to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~¢~r£,/q ~z~ North //~ ~ ¥ r~o ~ ~ ~,~- (-~) South ~'~r~ ~,~ ~1 East West ~ Is the pr. oject compatible with'the General Plan Land Us,e D'i~gram? s the~roject area d~signated 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? /~)J)- How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) A,! ~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to p?oyide 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 Capaci~ 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 ~Rbulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe.) /urn 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: E1 ectri~ /~ ~ - Q-~ ~<'~ ~ ~__~ Natural Gas (per year) ~-~ Water (per day) ~~ 6. Remarks: D~ector of ~lanning or e~,~presentat~ve Date -10- 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? project create any flooding hazards? pc) C. Will the d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~Oto~'~ Ogre/%- ~,Se.~- ~b~o 2/. e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? 'q x~ ...,. · ,~, ~ ~z..,... ~x/~xp 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~,o be %e_nerate.d by the project_(per d~ay)? . A_~///Q~.' -/ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? /~ / ~-~t~ Be fore After A.D.T. L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequatg, to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. '-~.~ /(~,'r-','~ , ~x~,,,, ¥~. ,-, Z~ /' ~ " " ,,/ e. !/ill it be necessary that additional dedicatior~, widening and/or ~mprovement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. - ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~ {~ Liquefaction? /~'~ ~ La ndsl i de or sl i ppage? ~x~,f~ / b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~]~ .. 4. Soils a. Are there ~ny anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? /[/.~' /0~o~,~] --~) ~r/,~ ~{~o~,-~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? /L~///], 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 justi~ 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: /A~A Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of {per day) Factor Pollution CO X 118.3 = Hydrocarbons X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) X 20.0 = Particulates X 1.5 = Sulfur X .78 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste?ill be generated by the proposed project per day? /t)~/~ ~ ~/~l~.~7 i~?~/e~¢ Solid Liquid. Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ~j 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible sign'ificant 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 ,' ~/nn,~ - ' - :i~e Date C/ Case No. FIRE DEPARTMENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire.station and what is the Fire 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. Date EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. /,5 J~%-~-/~/~ 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. Soil s 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 significant amount of siltation? 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? 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? 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 .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 lO. 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 endemi~ cies? 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 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 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? l?. 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 in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially ~ lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? YES POTENTIAL 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in seconda~ projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, 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? - 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: Project Proponent Date K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: ~ 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 bi/kY 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. Date Env'i ronmen~ Re~l ew Coordinator WPC O169P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT /'~PPLICANT'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. D~NNY L. STREET RUTH L. STREET List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. DANNY I. STREET RUTH L. STREET 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. DANNY L. STREET RUTH L. STREET 3. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, 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.) f?/] Si~at~f~ ~f~pplicant/~da~e A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-88-6; Proposed amendments to Title 19 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code pertaining to large family daycare permits A. BACKGROUND Large family daycare homes within the City (with the exception of Montgomery) are required to obtain a conditional use permit and are subject to standards for this type of daycare home contained in 19.58.147 of the Zoning Ordinance. The standards and requirement for a CUP within the R-E and R-1 residential zones has been in effect since 1985. Large family daycare homes in Montgomery are subject to the requirements of Section 6156(y) of the County Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted by the City for an interim period pending implementation of the Montgomery Specific Plan. That ordinance requires approval of an administrative permit and outlines requirements governing parking, noise control, spacing, outdoor lighting, and notice to surrounding property owners (Reference Exhibit "B"). Under Section 1597.46 of the California Health and Safety Code, local jurisdictions are given limited discretion when considering such permits, and are required to grant those permits if they comply with reasonable standards or requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control. The local ordinance currently in effect for Montgomery omits traffic control issues in meeting the conditions of approval for obtaining an administrative permit. In addition, other portions of the County ordinance are too general or do not address all the potential impacts of surrounding properties. In response to these issues, the City Council directed staff to redraft the ordinance for large family day care homes, and to add traffic as a consideration to grant or deny a permit for this use. The Montgomery Planning Committee at their meeting of April 16, 1988 voted 6-1 to recommend approval of proposed changes to the large family daycare ordinance as contained in the recommendation section of this report. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a motion to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to amend Title 19 of the Municipal Code to consider traffic issues when evaluating large family daycare homes as contained in Exhibit A attached and made a part hereto. D. ANALYSIS Licensing for large family daycare homes for 7 to 12 children has been mandated by the State Health and Safety Code and administered by the County Department of Social Services for more than 15 years. The code was amended in 1981 to restrict local jurisdictions from prohibiting or regulating large family daycare homes, but was amended again in 1983 to allow local governments to impose limited standards for the placement and operation of these facilities IReference Exhibit "C"). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page Given this limited discretion, the City may require a use permit for large family daycare homes, but is required to grant the permit if the applicant meets certain specified responsible standards outlined by the City. In conjunction with those standards, the City is given the option of noticing surrounding property owners within a minimum of 100 feet of the proposed daycare location, and no public hearing need be held unless there are protestants or the applicant wishes to appeal certain conditions. A recent application for a large family daycare home within Montgomery which was appealed to the City Council and subsequently granted on March 8, 1988, highlighted certain deficiencies in the standards developed by the County for family daycare homes for children, which are currently in effect for Montgomery. The County standards applicable to Montgomery permits large family daycare homes as an accessory use subject to the issuance of an administrative permit, but does not impose traffic control standards in the conditions for granting the permit (see Exhibit B). In addition, spacing regulations appear deficient in that large family daycare homes could be clustered on one street or directly adjacent one another as long as the homes are owned, operated, managed or leased by separate individuals; which could result in cumulative noise and traffic impacts. Other requirements outlined by the ordinance appear too general, referring to "adequate provision" to be made to reduce noise impacts and temporary parking, without specifying any required capacity for parking, or specific locations for play areas. Title 19 of the Municipal Code allows large family daycare homes within R-1 and R-E zones subject to approval of a conditional use permit within the PC planned community zones, the development standards for RE and RS single family areas defer to the R-1 regulations in the zoning ordinance governing large family daycare homes. The standards applied appear to be more in compliance with the intent of State Codes, however, here too, there is no reference to traffic control standards. In addition to this omission, the City Attorney's office has indicated that the findings which must be made for granting a conditional use permit are not appropriate for large family daycare homes, since the State Codes state that the permit must be granted if the applicant meets the required standards or regulations. Staff is recommending that the regulations for large family daycare homes required by Title 19 of the Municipal Code be amended to incorporate traffic control standards and applied citywide. In addition, the requirement for a conditional use permit would be replaced with a requirement for a large family daycare permit process similar in nature to the administrative permit used by the County. A large family daycare permit would be granted by the Zoning Administrator with an appeal process to the Planning Commission and City Council. The findings to be made for the permit would be different in scope, however, simply affirming that the application complies with the standards required by the City for large family daycare homes as well as all other applicable City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 3 regulations specified in the Municipal Code for the use, and that the application complies with all applicable requirements mandated by the State Health and Safety Code governing licensing of daycare facilities. At this point, the appropriate fee to be charged for processing a large family daycare permit has not been determined; an assessment must be made estimating average staff time which would be used in evaluating applications and the percentage of cases for which a public hearing would need to be held. The proposed traffic control standard suggested by staff in 19.70.017F {Exhibit A) would require applications to be reviewed for additional traffic control measures if the estimated traffic volumes for the project plus existing volumes exceed 60% of the design ADT of roadways adjacent to the project. The Health and Safety Codes limit local government permit discretion only for single family zones. Single family homes within multiple family zones can and should be required to obtain a conditional use permit with standard discretionary findings. With the incidence of increased residential densities permitted in multiple family residential zones, the potential for land use conflicts, noise and traffic impacts are more apparent and would require more careful regulation on a case-by-case basis. Finally, at the Council hearing to consider an appeal of an administrative permit for a large family daycare home within Montgomery, Council was informed by the Attorney for the applicant that Chula Vista had approximately 24 large family daycare homes which did not have conditional use permits granted by the City. Staff has contacted the family daycare licensing division for the Social Services Department of the County and has requested that a list of all such licensed facilities be provided to City staff. Once action is taken on the proposed ordinance amendments, it is staff's intention to inform those homes of the City's requirement for a permit. Those large family daycare homes established between 1981 and 1985 would not be required to obtain a permit from the City, since the State Code either pre-empted the requirement for a use permit or the City did not have standards in place regulating the homes at that time. Verification of a facility grandfather status can be obtained by staff from the family daycare licensing division on a case-by-case basis. WPC 4939P EXHIBIT A Montgomery 19.70.017 Large Family Daycare Homes Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6156(y), large family daycare homes shall be permitted for a single family dwelling within an RS zone subject to approval of a large family daycare permit by the Zoning Administrator, and in compliance with the following standards: A. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family daycare home at least 10 days prior to consideration of the permit. B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property. D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within 1200 feet of another large family daycare facility on the same street as measured from the exterior boundaries of the property. E. An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement. F. The City Traffic Engineer shall review permits for large family daycare homes if the estimated traffic volumes for the daycare home, in conjunction with volumes on the street or streets adjacent to the home exceed 60% of the design capacity of those roadways. The City Traffic Engineer may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety levels within the vicinity of the home. G. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be provided. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home. H. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on surrounding properties. The Zoning Administrator may require the installation of a 6 ft. high block wall around the perimeter of the rear yard to minimize noise impacts. 19.?0.018 Large Family Daycare Homes Within Multiple Family Zones Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 6156(y), 2104, and 2144, large family daycare homes may be permitted for a single family dwelling within the RV, RD, RM, and RU residential zones upon issuance of a minor use permit granted by the Zoning Administrator. WPC 4928P EXHIBIT A Title 19 Zonin~ 19.58.147 Family Daycare Homes, Large A large family daycare home shall be allowed in the R-E and R-1 zones, and within the PC desi§nated RE and RS zones, upon issuance of a large family daycare permit by the Zonin~ Administrator, and in compliance with the following standards: A. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the proposed large family daycare home at least l0 days prior to consideration of the permit. B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or other affected party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. C. The family daycare function shall be incidental to the residential use of the property. D. A large family daycare home shall not locate within 1200 feet of another large family daycare facility on the same street as measured from the exterior boundaries of the property. E. An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement. F. The City Traffic Engineer shall review permits for large family daycare homes if the estimated traffic volumes for the daycare home, in conjunction with volumes on the street or streets adjacent to the home exceed 60% of the design capacity of those roadways. The City Traffic Engineer may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety evels within the vicinity o~ the home. G. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be -- provided. Outdoor play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of the home. N. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of -- noise on surrounding properties. The Zoning Administrator may require the installation of a 6 ft. high block wall around the perimeter of the rear yard to minimize noise impacts. R-E ZONE - PERMITTED USES 19.22.030 G Large family daycare homes subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.147 Page 2 R-E ZONE - CONDITIONAL USES R-1 ZONE - PERMITTED USES 19.24.030 J Large family daycare homes subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.147 R-1 ZONE - CONDITIONAL USES R-2 ZONE - CONDITIONAL USES 19.26.040 E Large family daycare homes as defined in Section 19.04.094, within a single family dwelling R-3 ZONE - CONDITIONAL USES ~1~1~1~ ~t~lt~l~l~l~N~ll~ll~ff~l~¢¢~¢~ll~l~l~ wPC 4989P EXHIBIT B 6156 x. (Deleted by Ord. No. 6924 (N.S.) adopted 2-20-85) y. F~nily Day Care Home for Children. A family day care home for children is a permitted accessory use upon issuance of an administrative permit provided the following conditions are complied with: 1. No such day care home may be owned, operated, managed or leased by any person, as defined by these requlations, within one mile of any other such facility owned, operated, managed or leased by the same person. 2. The plot plan for a family day care home for children shall show sufficient information to determine the following: i. At least one on-site parking space will be available for any assistant provider or caregiver not a resident of the subject family day care home. ii. Adequate provision will be made to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties such as dense landscaping, solid fencing slx feet in height around outside activity areas or location of such areas a suitable distance away from adjacent dwellings. i~. There exists an adequate area for temporary parking of an automobile where children may be safely loaded and unloaded, or such area w~ll be provided. iv. Property owners within 100 feet of subject property shall be notified of the receipt of the application not less than 10 days prior to the date on which the decision will be made. No hearing shall be held before a decis}on is made unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected person. The decision may be appealed as provided by the Administrative Appeal Procedure comnencing at Section 7200. v. Every administrative permit approved pursuant to this section shall contain a condition that any outdoor lighting comply with Sections 6324 and 6326 and that no sound ampllf)cation device be permitted in outdoor activity areas. z. Wind Turbine Systems. One wind turbine system shall be permitted on a building site in compliance with the follow}ng conditions: 1. Setback. The system shall be set back from property lines and ' roads at least 1.25 times the height of the wind system (to the top of the blade in vertical pos)tlon). 11 EXHIBIT C HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 1597..30. (Operative until July 1, 1989) L~:glslative findings and declarations :raiSe contxol: ~rl~i'r~"~/~d noise c0ntr0~ rCla{;~ &uch hom~,:~nd compJics with subdivisioa (d) and of thc ap~t. a change of ~upancy for pu~s~ of Part 1,5 (commm~cis~g with Section 17910) of D/vision 13 (State City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-22M - City Council Referral - Consideration of Interim Ordinance Proposed for the Processing of Land Use Proposals Which are Inconsistent With Part Two oF the Montgomery Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND 1. At its public hearing of January 12, 1988, the City Council adopted Parts One and Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and requested recommendations on potential interim land use regulatory measures, which could be adopted by the City Council pending implementation of the Plan. The regulatory measures suggested by Council would be those essential to the protection of the Specific Plan and its underlying land-use order. 2. The City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department jointly reviewed this matter, and reported to the City Council that it would be feasible to establish interim land use regulations for Montgomery. These interim regulations would provide a procedure for resolving land-use issues applicable to those areas where the existing zoning is inconsistent with the adopted plan, but would not constitute a moratorium. At its meeting of March l, 1988, the Council reviewed the staff report, and approved the concept of requiring a Specific Plan Amendment where the zoning is inconsistent with the Specific Plan, and referred the matter to the Montgomery Planning Committee, and the City Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. The City Attorney's office has prepared a suggested interim ordinance which would meet the objective of Council. 3. The Montgomery Planning Committee considered the subject Interim Ordinance at its public hearing of March 16, 1988. The Committee approved it by a 5-1 vote, and recommended that said Interim Ordinance be adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council (minutes attached). B. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached interim ordinance, and recommend that the City Council adopt such. C. ANALYSIS 1. The City Council, meeting in regular session on January 12, 1988, adopted Resolution No. 13413, and thereby approved Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and established it as the Chula Vista General Plan for the Montgomery Community. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 2 2. Several of Montgomery's zonal districts, which were originally established under County aegis, and were retained by the City of Chula Vista upon Montgomery's annexation, are not consistent with Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and therefore necessitate amendment. This amendment will be addressed under Part Three of the Specific Plan, called the Implementation Program, and subsequent rezoning efforts. 3. In the meantime, some property owners of territory within the zones which are in conflict with the Specific Plan may determine to propose the establishment of certain land uses, in reliance upon existing zoning regulations, even though these uses would be inconsistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed interim ordinance embodies a procedure under which the said property owners could process their land-use proposals. 4. The proposed interim ordinance's procedure would require an applicant's submittal of a proposed amendment to Part Two. The required amendment, under this ordinance, would be one which establishes conformity between the proposal in question and the Specific Plan. If this amendment, subsequent to public hearings by the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and City Council, were adopted, the applicant could proceed with the normal processing of the involved development proposal. 5. The Specific Plan is a "general plan," but, unlike the traditional general plan, it can be readily amended, without complying with the State's limitation on the number of times the general plan can be amended per annum, as embodied in the State Planning and Zoning Law. These factors make the proposed interim ordinance an excellent mechanism for the processing of proposed changes to Part Two, prior to the scheduled adoption of the Specific Plan's Implementation Program during the first half of 1988, and subsequent incremental rezoning efforts. D. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the proposed interim ordinance is not a "moratorium," and does not bring into issue the matter of the abrogation of property rights, or that of governmental "taking" without just compensation. Its procedure is not predicated upon delay, or substantial change in local planning administration and practices. WPC 4917P ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGULATING THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, on January 12, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13413 approving Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and WHEREAS, several of the zoning districts in Montgomery which were originally established under County jurisdiction are not consistent with Part Two of the newly adopted Montgomery Specific Plan, and, therefore, need amendment, and WHEREAS, in the interim period between the adoption of the Specific Plan and the amendment of the zoning, there is an inconsistency between the two which must be resolved. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain: SECTION I: All development in the Montgomery area shall be con§istent with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Where existing zoning is inconsistent with the Specific Plan and the developer desires to develop the property in accordance with the existing zoning, the developer must first submit a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. All such amendments shall be subject to public hearings by the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and the City Council. If the amendment is adopted, the developer can proceed with the normal processing of the development proposal. SECTION II: Upon a four-fifth's vote, this ordinance shall become effective immediately and shall be effective for ninety (90) days from its adoption. Within said period, the City Clerk shall notice a public hearing for consideration of an extension of this ordinance for a one-year period. George Krempl, Director of Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney Planning 3899a DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PCM-88-22M RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION AND ENACTMENT OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, meeting in regular session on April 13, 1988, considered the matter of PCM-88-22M, a proposed interim ordinance which would regulate the processing of land use proposals which are inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, notice of the said public hearing had been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to April 13, 1988, in accordance with State law and the Chula Vista Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed interim ordinance had been reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee on March 16, 1988, subsequent to its closure of its duly-advertised public hearing, conducted on the same date; and, WHEREAS, the Montgomery Planning Committee then recommended, by a five-to-one vote, that the City Planning Commission approve the proposed interim ordinance and recommend that the City Council adopt and ordain such; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. The City Council meeting in regular session on January 12, 1988, adopted Resolution No. 13413, and thereby approved Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and established it as the Chula Vista General Plan for the Montgomery Community. 2. Several of Montgomery's zonal districts, which were originally established under County aegis, and were retained by the City of Chula Vista upon Montgomery's annexation, are not consistent with Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and therefore necessitate amendment; and, this amendment will be addressed under Part Three of the Specific Plan, called the Implementation Program, and subsequent rezoning efforts. 3. In the meantime, some property owners of territory within the zones which are in conflict with the Specific Plan may determine to propose the establishment of certain land uses, in reliance upon existing zoning regulations, even though these uses would be inconsistent with the Specific Plan. 4. The proposed interim ordinance embodies a procedure under which the said property owners could process their land-use proposals. 5. The proposed interim ordinance's procedure would require an applicant's submittal of a proposed amendment to Part Two. The required amendment, under this ordinance, would be one which establishes conformity between the proposal in question and the Specific Plan. If this amendment, subsequent to public hearings by the Montgomery Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and City Council, were adopted, the applicant could proceed with the normal processing of the involved development proposal. 6. The Specific Plan is a "general plan," but, unlike the traditional general plan, it can be readily amended, without complying with the State's limitation on the number of times the general plan can be amended per annum, as embodied in the State Planning and Zoning Law. These factors make the proposed interim ordinance an excellent mechanism for the processing of proposed changes to Part Two, prior to the scheduled adoption of the Specific Plan's Implementation Program during the first half of 1988, and subsequent incremental rezoning efforts. 7. The proposed interim ordinance is not a "moratorium," and does not bring into issue the matter of the abrogation of property rights, or that of governmental "taking" without just compensation. Its procedure is not predicated upon delay, or substantial change in local planning administration and practices. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista City Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt and enact the proposed interim ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 13th day of April 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: WPC 4918P -2- EXTRACT ~ ~M MINUTES OF MONTGOMERY PLANNIN.. COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCN 16, 1988 4. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-88-22M: Consideration of an interim ordinance of the City of Chula Vista re~ulatin~ the processing of land use proposals which are inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Dan Pass, Principal Planner, presented the staff report IExhibit "C" attached). The Committee inquired as to how the proposed ordinance would affect the Pacific Scene project on Palomar Street. Staff advised it would have no impact. The Committee further discussed other impacts of the proposed ordinance, and the Committee's prior advice to property owners regarding zone changes and the rights of property owners to use their property under existing zoning regulations. Committee member Fox stated he believed that the Committee was to be presented with alternatives. He also discussed the question of whether the Committee was reneging on past promises to property owners. He concluded that adopting the interim ordinance would not be reneging on prior Committee position statements. Principal Planner Pass noted that the City, in reality, had two options. One of these options was the enactment of the proposed interim ordinance, and the other was the adoption of a moratorium. He observed that the City Attorney's office, as well as the Planning Department, favored the interim ordinance option, since it was more equitable to property owners, and did not place the municipality under the risk of liability for the "taking of private property for a period of time without just compensation." He concluded his response by observing that the City Attorney's concern over the possibility of moratoria being interpreted as acts of eminent domain was motivated by the U. S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the First English Lutheran Church Case. The Committee further discussed the need for the interim ordinance to preclude development in derogation of the plan during the period between adoption of Part three of the Montgomery Specific Plan and the adoption of those zone changes necessary to achieve consistency between the plan and zoning. Committee member Castro stated that he believed the Committee had given tacit advice to property owners that they could rely on the existing zoning until such time as it was changed through normal due process. Bill Harter, Montgomery property owner, stated that the Committee had made prior agreements with the public that the existing zoning would stand until it was changed through the regular rezoning process. The Committee discussed specific situations such as how the proposed ordinance would impact building permits which have already been issued, and the pending project on Dorothy Street. MS IPatton/Fox) to approve the Montgomery Interim Ordinance and recommend that the City Planning Commission and the City Council adopt such. Vote 5-1 (Castro opposed) WPC 4916P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-88-4 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4 - Roy and Judy Shepard A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4, in order to subdivide 1.17 acres located on the west side of Las Flores Drive, north of D Street, into five single-family residential lots. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-54, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the Initial Study and any comments received (attached), the Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends that the Negative Declaration be adopted. 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-88-54. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4, subject to the following conditions: a. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance #1797 (as amended). b. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the Subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. c. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. d. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 2 e. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for any offsite grading prior to issuance of grading permits. f. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. g. All buildings proposed for occupancy shall meet current Federal Flood insurance standards. h. Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the owner shall request reapportionment of the assessment for the subject property for the Las Flores Assessment District. The owner shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the reapportionment of assessments. i. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring maintenance of the private drainage system (brow ditches, storm drain and hydraulic structures). j. The relationship between the existing buildings and walls and the proposed slopes located in the backs of lots 4 and 5 shall conform to CVDS 20. The developer shall submit evidence that the proposed grading will not de-stabilize the retaining wall located westerly of the property. k. Exposed retaining walls, including the retaining wall along the southerly property line, and the retaining wall extending from the dwelling on lot 4 to the toe of the temporary slope on lot 5, shall be of slump block or equal decorative treatment subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. 1. Any fencing abutting or adjacent to the common drive shall be of decorative design per City standards for exterior sideyard fencing subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. m. The dwellings on lots 4 and 5 shall be provided with fully automatic residential sprinkler systems acceptable to the Fire Marshal. n. Plans for lots 4 and 5 shall reflect stairways to connect both levels of the rear yard on lot 4, and the front and rear yard of lot 5 subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. o. The following are Code requirements: (1) The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 3 (2) The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. (3) The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the Subdivision. All utilities serving the Subdivision shall be undergrounded. 14) All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. (5) The developer shall install street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of Chula Vista Municipal Code. (6) The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of Final Maps and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. (7) The developer shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. Residential Construction Taxes shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. (8) Development of lots 4 and 5 shall comply with the panhandle lot provisions of the Municipal Code (Section 19.22.150). C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North - R-1 - Vacant South - R-1 - Vacant East - R-1 - Vacant West - R-1 - Single family Existing site characteristics. The 1.17 acres is zoned R-1 and is located on the west side of Las Flores Drive, approximately 1,000 ft. north of "D" Street Ithis section of Las Flores is presently under construction funded by an assessment district including this and adjoining properties). The easterly half of the site is relatively level, while the westerly half slopes up more than 30 ft. to adjoin the rear of single family lots which front on Second Avenue. Tentative map. The proposal involves the creation of five single-family lots -- three with frontage on Las Flores Drive, and two panhandle lots which will receive access via a 20 ft.-wide common drive. Because of the sloping City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 4 terrain and extensive use of retaining walls, the applicant has submitted cross-sections and a site plan showing how units can be accommodated on the lots. These plans, along with the subdivision map, indicate that all of the lots meet the size, dimensional and setback standards specified in the Code for R-1 use. (The Code allows up to 30% of the lots in an R-1 subdivision to be reduced to 6,000 sq. ft. In this case, one of the five lots is 6,324 sq. ft. and the remining lots are 7,000 sq. ft. or greater.) The panhandle lots will utilize a split-level form of development -- a full-split on lot 4, and a half-split on lot 5 -- in order to reduce the height and exposure of manufactured slopes between the frontage lots and the panhandle lots and the resultant need for retaining walls along the common drive--creating a tunnel effect. Staff encouraged and endorsed this approach, but it has raised some issues regarding the more extensive use of retaining walls in and around the panhandle lots at the rear of the property. A portion of the retaining wall along the southerly property line will reach 5.4 ft. at its highest point, and the retaining wall in and around the terminus of the common drive will reach as high as 6.2 ft. Because of the height and exposure of these walls, we have recommended a condition which would require the use of slump block or equal decorative treatment. An additional condition has been included which would require any fencing abutting the common drive to be of decorative design per City standards for exterior sideyard fencing. The development of the panhandle lots are subject to the criteria contained in Section 19.22.150 of the Code, which specify certain requirements for panhandle development. One of the requirements is guest parking, which is shown on the plans. Another is Site Plan and Architectural Review, which will be required upon application for building permits. Since the common drive does not provide a turn-around for fire equipment, the dwellings on lots 4 and 5 will also be required to have sprinkler systems per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. A tentative map for the creation of single family lots on the opposite side of Las Flores Drive is the next item on the agenda. Both of these proposals have been initiated because of the impending completion of Las Flores Drive, which is being constructed under an assessment district including both properties. D. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores No. 2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 5 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The General Plan designates the property for Medium Density Residential development (4-12 du/ac). The project density of 4.3 du/ac is consistent with this designation. b. Circulation The development will be served by a local residential street and common access drive, both of which meet the City standard for single family use. c. Housing - The project will provide additional single family home ownership opportunities in an established, desirable section of the City. d. Conservation The site or surrounding area is not known to contain any irreplaceable natural resources or endangered species. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The subdivider is required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. f. Seismic Safety The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred geologic fault. g. Safety The site is within the General Plan standard for response time of both police and fire services. Lots 4 and 5 will be required to provide sprinkler systems in lieu of a turn-around for fire equipment. h. Noise - The dwellings will be required to meet the standards of the U.B.C. with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway - The site does not abut a scenic route or gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - The adjoining public street is not a designated bike route. k. Public Buildings No public buildings are planned or proposed for the site. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 4988P/2659P (3) U~,I'ZONI negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Las Flores #2, Chula Vista Tract 88-4 PROJECT LOCATION: On the west side of Las Flores Drive north of "D" Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Roy and Judy Shepard 366 Theresa Way Chula Vista, CA 92010 CASE NO: IS-88-54 DATE: March 30, 1988 A. Project Settin9 The 1.17 acre site is located on the west side of Las Flores Drive near the northern terminus of the street. The topography of the property is moderately steep with an estimated average natural slope of about 15%. Vegetation on the property is comprised of non-native grass banks and non-native trees. The soils in the project vicinity are known to be expansive but not to a degree to be significant. There are no cultural resources on the property. B. Project Description The proposal involves the creation of five single-family lots -- three with frontage on Las Flores Drive, and two panhandle lots which will receive access via a 20 ft.-wide common drive. Because of the sloping terrain and extensive use of retaining walls, the applicant has submitted cross-sections and a site plan showing how units can be accommodated on the lots. These plans, along With the subdivision map, indicate that all of the lots meet the size, dimensional and setback standards specified in the Code for R-1 use. {The Code allows up to 30% of the lots in an R-1 subdivision to be reduced to 6,000 sq. ft. In this case, one of the five lots is 6,324 sq. ft. and the remaining lots are 7,000 sq. ft. or greater.) The panhandle lots will utilize a split-level form of development -- a full-split on lot 4, and a half-split on lot 5 -- in order to reduce the height and exposure of manufactured slopes between the frontage lots and the panhandle lots and the resultant need for retaining walls along the common drive--creating a tunnel effect. Staff encouraged and endorsed this approach, but it has raised some issues regarding the more extensive use of retaining walls in and around the panhandle lots at the rear of the property. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHL/LA VIa-IA A portion of the retaining wall along the southerly property line will reach 5.4 ft. at its highest point, and the retaining wall in and around the terminus of the. common drive will reach as high as 6.2 ft. Because of the height and exposure of these walls, we have recommended a condition which would require the use of slump block or equal decorative treatment. An additional condition has been included which would require any fencing abutting the common drive to be of decorative design per City standards for exterior sideyard fencing. The development of the panhandle lots are subject to the criteria contained in Section 19.22.150 of the Code, which specify certain requirements for panhandle development. One of the requirements is guest parking, which is shown on the plans. Another is Site Plan and Architectural Review, which will be required upon application for building permits. Since the common drive does not provide a turn-around for fire equipment, the dwellings on lots 4 and 5 will also be required to have sprinkler systems per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. A tentative map for the creation of single family lots on the opposite side of Las Flores Drive is the next item on the agenda. Both of these proposals have been initiated because of the impending completion of Las Flores Drive, which is being constructed under an assessment district including both properties. C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans The proposed project conforms to the medium density General Plan designation of the property and the R-1 zoning. D. Identification of' Environmental Effects In accordance with the above discussion and the attached Initial Study, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The biological resources on the property are minor and will not be substantially impacted. There are no cultural resources present that will be effected by the project. All impacts relative to soils, geology, flood plain and land form alteration are relatively minor and can be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact. 2. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The total impacts of the project are so minimal as to preclude any significant cumulative impact. 4. The project will not result in the emission of any noise, pollutant, or any other substance which could cause a significant effec~ on human beings. city of chula vista planning department CI~OF environmental review section.CHULAVl~A F. 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 Cove, Fire Marshal Mike Donnelly, Associate Traffic Engineer Applicant's Agent: Algert Engineering, Inc. 428 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 92010 2. Documents Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan 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. REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5015P city of chula vista planning department (::I'IYOF environmental review lection. CHULA VISTA FOR OFFICE USE Case No. /_c- Fee ~ INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. ,,~-,,~- A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Las ~lores No. 2 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) North end Las ~lmr~m Dr. Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 566-1~0-03 & 06 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Porticn o~ 80 AC Lot 1 o~ Quarte~ S~n~-inn 1~5 of Ran~hn De La Nacion. Map No. 166 4. Name of Applicant Roy and Jud~vShepard Address 366 Theresa Wa¥ Phone 42 City Chula Vista State CA Zip q~fllfl 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Albert Enqim~=erinq, Inc, Address 428 ~rr~r~y Phone 420-7090 City ChulaVista State CA Zip 92010 Relation to Applicant Rngqn~=r 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 Archaeological Survey Precise Plan X Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment --Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report --Other Agency Permit or X Soils Report Other P.R. --Approvals Required X (Rev. 12/82l - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1.Land Area: sq. footage ~I~C~ or acreage (,~7 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family ~ Two family rlulti 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) ~1.~ e. Net density {DU/total acres minus any dedication) f. Estimated project population g. Estimated sale or rental price range ~/~o~o-~ h. Square footage of floor area{s) i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided k. Percent of site in road and paved surface /0 ~o 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. ,m/ 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 ~nd 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 tha~ 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 l. 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? ~S-IZ) ~_~¥ b. Now many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area {sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? f~O~-~y~ d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut '7 Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used [air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) 4.Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) /~o~.J~ 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. l.lill highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, ~.Hll be generated by the project? 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. DESCRIPTIOH OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTIIIG 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? x~-~-c~. (If yes, please explain in detail.). a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? ~J ~-~ ~-~JV b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? /-~"f~-c~ A~FL~SS - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d.Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? /k3o- e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ~)~>~--~-~-Z~-~ ~ o-~ ~ ~ a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? ~ · 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which {if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. /kZ~ ~ ~ -- ~$7~y~6~ ~-~ -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ~/AcA,~-~ -- ~---~_~1~J~L~-~ ~.-~c.c.~_ South t~ ~ ~ East ~, ,, ~ West ~S~ ~~ 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) A~. Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* ~onsultant or $(gent*j -- -- HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. DATE: ~-~-~0~ *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. I~-~c~- __~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 designation on site: ~ ~. North ~ ~ ~ ~ South ~ ~ East ~ j~ 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 sho~n in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~.~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/1000 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. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary ~ ~l/~! /~/'~ ~2.- ~ 1 171 ?-. Jr. High ~ i~¢ Sr. High ~ 1 ~l I~ /~[2/ l~ 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: DirecHYO~ of(~anning or Representative Date G. ENGINEERING DEPARTNENT 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 e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. ~hat is the ~ocation and de~Gi~on.~f ~xisting off-site orainage facilities? g, ~re they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access.to the project? ~.~ b. ~hat is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day}? ..~"0 c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After L.o.s. d. Are ~ne primary access roads ~dequate 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? AJ~ ' If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. - ll - Case No. 2. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~) Liquefaction? ~y~-~t~.~ / ~.~/~ f~m-/~? Landslide or slippage? ~. g~ *o, ~ ~mF.~r} b. Is an engineecing geolo~ report necessary to evaluate t~e project? ~0 4. Soils a. Are there any. anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~ b. If c. Is a soils report necessary? ~SS ~+ ~ ~o~,'~ 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site?~ natural slope of the site? ~ ~ b. What is the maximum 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough tg justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~]0 - 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 c 0 ~-0 x 118.3 Hydrocarbons v X 18.3 : NOx {NO2) ~ 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? T Liquid Solid What is the location and size of existin~ysewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~ ~" ~h~ VI~ 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.) Remacks/necessary mitigation measures ~/r ~,,1~,~ ~ ~o~,~ ~ ~.~b~ ~"~"~¢o Cit~ En~eer~'Re~s~n~a~vE . Da~e- ' . Case No..~S- H. FIRE DEPART~IENT . ~/hat ~s the distance to the nearest f~re station and what ~s the ~re 2. ~]] the F~te ~epavtment be able to provide an adequate level Of f~ve " protection for the p~oposed facility w~thout an ~ncvease.in equipment " or personnel? ~ ' -. :' ~ CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION Addr~ess~~~ PLAN CORRECTION SHEET ~ Plan File No. Checker~ v~]/vn.) Date ~/Z//~' Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories Bldg. Area The roll.lng list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB-29 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. /_.~--~ ~/ I. Analysis (Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES POTENTIAL NO 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? y 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 expansi~ve, 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 significant amount of siltation? )<[ 3. Ground Water a. Is the project site over or near any accessible ground water resources? )<~ 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? X~ 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? 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 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 endemi~ cies? 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 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 Facilities Including Roads YES POTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? y 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 in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? _~ An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? ~ 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial ~! depletion of non-renewable natural resources? YES POTENTIAL 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in seconda~ projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, 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? - 21 - J. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented durin§ the design, construction or operation of the project: Project Proponent Date 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 DECLARF" , 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. E nv i¥oli~en~ Review Coordinator Date WPC O169P CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT DISCLOSURE CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS OF OF WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. / ' List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any ,person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No .~<'_ If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ) ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, thi~ and any other county, city and county, ?ty, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combmatton acting as a unit." . (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)_~ Signat~/e of applicant/date~ / ' O OlP A-110 Print ~r type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-88-5 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5 - Mascot Realty A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5, in order to subdivide 20.6 acres located at the northerly terminus of Las Flores Drive into ll single-family residential lots and one future development lot. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-32, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the Initial Study and any comments received lattached) the Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and has recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments, if any, 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-88-32. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full public improvements in Second Avenue along the subdivision frontage. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to A.C. pavement, base, concrete, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Required improvements shall be constructed with development of lots 1 through ll. b. The developer shall provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that the drainage system in Las Flores Drive is capable of accepting the additional drainage proposed to be diverted by the brow ditch located along the southerly line of lots l, 9, 10 and ll. c. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval of the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and/or grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance 1#1797 as amended). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 2 d. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets within the Subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. e. Lots shall be so graded as to drain on the street or an improved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. f. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes. g. The developer shall obtain letters of permission for any offsite grading prior to issuance of grading permits. h. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. i. All buildings shall meet current City and Federal flood plain management standards. Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the owner shall request reapportionment of the assessment for the subject property for the Las Flores Assessment District. The owner shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the reapportionment of assessments. k. The dwellings on lots 9, 10 and ll shall be provided with fully automatic residential sprinkler systems acceptable to the City Fire Marshal in lieu of a turn-around for fire apparatus. 1. The following are Code requirements: (1) The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation fees in accordance with City Council policy prior to issuance of building permits. (2) The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to the Sewer Participation Fee, prior to issuance of building permits. (3) The developer shall underground all existing overhead facilities lying within the subdivision. All utilities serving the subdivision shall be under§rounded. (4) The developer shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the final map. Residential Construction Taxes shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. (5) Development of lots 9, 10 and ll shall comply with the panhandle lot provisions of the Municipal Code (Section 19.22.150). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 3 (6) All grading work shall be done in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual and Grading Ordinance 1797 as amended. (7) The developer shall install street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of Chula Vista Municipal Code. (8) The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of final maps and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North A and Unzoned KOA Campground and vacant South R-1 Vacant East R-1 Vacant West R-1 Vacant and single family Existing site characteristics. The 20.6 acres is located to the north and east of the northerly terminus of Las Flores Drive, which is presently under construction. The property is irregularly-shaped, vacant and relatively level, with the exception of a finger of land which rises to the west some 65 feet to Second Avenue. The southerly portion of the property is zoned R-l, a small portion extending to the west is zoned A, and the largest portion which extends to the Sweetwater River flood control channel is presently unzoned. Tentative map. The proposal is to subdivide 2.35 acres on the easterly side of Las Flores Drive into ll single family lots. Eight of the lots would front on Las Flores, and the remaining three panhandle lots would receive access via a 25 ft. wide common driveway between lots 2 and 3. All of the lots met the dimensional and size requirements specified in the Code, and the three panhandle lots are further subject to the development criteria set forth in Section 19.22.150. In the absence of adequate turn-around for fire equipment, the three homes on the panhandle lots would be required to be sprinklered. The lots along Las Flores would have to be raised approximately 10 feet to meet the grade of the street. With the exception of some minor fill slopes to accommodate these lots, the remaining 18.25 acres will remain unchanged. This acreage, along with other large holdings to the north and east of Las Flores, are currently under study for replanning and zoning in conjunction with the General Plan Update. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 4 The single family lots will ensure the single family use and character of Las Flores Drive regardless of what may eventually develop on the remaining acreage. An extension from the Las Flores cul-de-sac has been provided to acommodate a two-acre area located directly to the north of the street which could also develop with single family dwellings, in which case the extension would provide access to the additional dwellings. Should this area not develop with single-family homes it, along with the remaining area to the east, would gain access from Edgemere Avenue via an easement across the KOA property. For these reasons, we recommend approval of the tentative map based on the following findings. E. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Mountain Vista, Chula Vista Tract 88-5, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The General Plan designates the residential area for Medium Density development (4-12 du/ac). The project density of 4.7 du/ac is consistent with this designation. b. Circulation - The development will be served by a public street, and in the case of three lots, by a common driveway which meets City standards for single family use. c. Housing - The subdivision will provide additional single family detached housing opportunities in the older, established northerly portion of the City. d. Conservation The site is not known to contain any irreplaceable natural resources or endangered species. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The subdivider is required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 5 f. Seismic Safety - The site is not located adjacent to an identified or inferred geologic fault. g. Safety - The site is within the established response time of both police and fire services. Three homes on panhandle lots will be required to be provided with sprinkler systems in lieu of a turn-around to accommodate fire equipment. h. Noise - The single family units will be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards for acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway The site does not abut a scenic route or gateway. j. Bicycle Routes - Las Flores Drive is not a designated bicycle route. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned or proposed for the property. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 4976P/2659P ¢'/'7 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Mountain Vista PROJECT LOCATION: At the northern end of Las Flores Drive, on the west and east sides PROJECT APPLICANT: Mascott Realty P. O. Box 847 Bonita, CA 92002 CASE NO: IS-88-32 DATE: March 30, 1988 A. Project Setting The project site is on 20.6 acres at the northern terminus of Las Flores Drive. Past uses of the land were field and dairy agriculture. Currently, there are stables, heavy equipment storage and other storage. Human activities have altered almost 100% of the site. Elevations of the natural topography of the site range from approximately 20' to 45'. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as alluvium and slope wash {Kennedy 1977) and the soil type is mapped as Tujungan sand (Bowman, 1973). Portions of the site are subject to inundation as delineated by the flood insurance maps. However, the Sweetwater Flood Control Project, which is currently under construction, will provide flood protection for the property in the future. There is ground water under the property and, therefore, there is a potential for liquefaction to occur. However, given the soil types present, the potential is very low and can be mitigated through standard development regulations. Because of past and present uses, the land precludes any substantial biological impact. There are minor wetlands present including 0.49 ac. of willow stands and a temporarily inundated facultative wetland area of about 0.40 acre. B. Project Description The proposal is to subdivide 2.35 acres on the easterly side of Las Flores Drive into 11 single family lots. Eight of the lots would front on Las Flores, and the remaining three panhandle lots would receive access via a 25 ft. wide common driveway between lots 2 and 3. All of the lots met the dimensional and size requirements specified in the Code, and the three panhandle lots are further subject to the development criteria set forth in Section 19.22.150. In the absence of adequate turn-around for fire equipment, the three homes on the panhandle lots would be required to be sprinklered. The lots along Las Flores would have to be raised approximately lO feet to meet the grade of the street. With the exception of some minor fill slopes to accommodate these lots, the remaining 18.25 acres will remaiknklf~ city of chule vista planning department CFIYOF environmental review section CHI.)L~ VISTA unchanged. This acreage, along with other large hold!ngs to the north and east of Las Flores, are currently under study for rep/anning and zoning in conjunction with the General Plan Update. The single family lots will ensure the single family use and character of Las Flores Drive regardless of what may eventually develop on the remaining acreage. An extension from the Las Flores cul-de-sac has been provided to accommodate a two-acre area located directly to the north of the street which could also develop with single family dwellings, in which case the extension would provide access to the additional dwellings. Should this area not develop with single-family homes it, along with the remaining area to the east, would gain access from Edgemere Avenue via an easement across the KOA property. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed subdivision and grading permit are in compliance residential General Plan designation and zoning of the property. D. Identification of Env~ironmental Effects 1. Geology/Liquefaction Because of the specific soil types present standard development regulations will mitigate to a level of less-than-significant. 2. Soils/Alluvial Development of the property is on alluvial soils; however, preparation of the site will require the importation of about 84,000 cu. yards of fill material which will mitigate any potentially significant impacts. 3. Flood Plain The property is within 'the 100 year flood plain of the Sweetwater River as delineated on the federal flood insurance maps. However, with the development of the Sweetwater flood control channel plus the raising of development pads and streets in the project, any significant impact can be avoided. 4. Land Form Alteration Implementatio~ of the project will result in fill slopes up to 14 feet in height and cut slopes will be up to 10 feet in height. Given the need to elevate the project above the flood plain level and the topography of the site, there will be a less-than-significant impact. 5. Biology The "future development" portion of the site does involve two areas of wetlands which total less than an acre. Given their size and isolation from other wetland areas, this impact is not considered significant. city of chula vllta planning department CI'IYOF - environmental review lectlon. CHULA VISTA E. Findings of Insignificant Impact 1. The biological resources on the property are minor and will not be substantially impacted. There are no cultural resources present that will be effected by the project. All impacts relative to soils, geology, flood plain and land form alteration are relatively minor and can be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant impact. 2. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and therefore will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The total impacts of the project are so minimal as to preclude any significant cumulative impact. 4. The project will not result in the emission of any noise, pollutant, or any other substance which could cause a significant effect on human beings. F. 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: Algert Engineering, Inc. 428 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 92010 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Chula Vista Municipal Code Complete file on the Initial Study for this project 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 92o10. ENVIRON~4~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR , EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) wPc Ol6P city of chula vista planning department CIWOt: environmental review lectlon. CHULA VISTA FOR OFFICE .,' Case No. Fee ~.l,,~',/! INITIAL STUDY Receipt' No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND ]. PROJECT TITLE ~FZ~{~.'..~G, ~)~..-.~k~.J ~"u--y'L ~ AC. 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Street address or description) ~~ Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. J-~Y- ~--/~ ~ 3. BRIEF PRNECT DESCRIPTION ~ ~ ~P~~ ~. Name of App]Jcan~ ~~ Address ~ Phone City ~o~t~ . State ~A , Zip ~ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent ~~ ~(~~ I~. Address ~Z ~ ~A~A~/ Phone City ~ k/,~ State ~. Zip ~ Relation to Applicant ~. 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoni ng ~ Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan ~ Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Pe~it 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 & V Biological Study PanEel 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 ~¢ (~. EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage ~_0. ~:~ ~... . If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family ~m~l-lo~J Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights I ~ JJ~J~-~ ~"~'/ c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms ~ L~ 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 ~-y~/ q~ ~FO! h. Square footage of floor area{s) ~ q~oO0 ~ 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. Typels) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial /kJJ~ . 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 ~rovided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emssion of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated ~/L~_--$ (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? I(.~l~)O0 b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? <~, c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? ~ d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut ~[]) Average depth of cut ~ ~-~k-~. Maximum depth of fill ~r Average depth of fill ~ F - 4 - 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.) ~o~-~,~ 6~7) Ag~.~¢~. 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) ~-~ 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. ~Ir~J~,~ ~q: ~.~,_~-~_~-~ 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? ~'Jo · 7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 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 SETFING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? /~J~. - {If yes, please attach) ~J-:~-~u~C. 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? ~-~ - ~q~-~,%F~ ~-~-~ · b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? ~J-~t~.~, ~_~ ~L~-~- ~ i~J~rl~-F~q - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d.Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. ~0'~) 3. Noise ~~--l~ a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? Y~-Jo. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. 2',-)0 ,r~?";~ C7"~,-- ~,.~.',~" .~r'z.$~- -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. South ~---u ~-t~ ~--- %t ~m. ~-~- F'~'.A~'-~ ~ ~--'~/ !~'-~ I~ ~ C/A~. East ~C~ ~C,~/ 0~)_ 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) ~. Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. E. CERTIFICATION Owner/ ' ' · 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: II-Iff,~? *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South ~{' East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~ ~ North ~ ,~ ~- ~ South ~ 1( East ~ ~ West p / Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to ~n 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 shoun iB the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan?~ y~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? _~, ~ ~ Now many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~O~ ~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~ -9- 3'. School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary ~L ~J '~ Y~-I~ Jr. High i~ /~JZ) I~1 ~' -- ~7 Sr. High ~j~ ]~17 /~2,/ ~ ~ 7 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: Direc or o~}Plannl~ng or l epresentative Date Case No. 6 G. .ENGINEERING DEPARTNENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~'~S 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~scription of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~ ~ e. Are they adequate to :r:[):1 proj:? ::: ,¥ f. Wna: is the location and description of ex~sting off-site drainage facilities? ~~: ~u~ ~(~ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. ~ransportation a. What roads provide primary access to_the project? ',',~":~c~ ~ ~ ~F.~ ~: ~ ~>~ ~ ' b. ~ha~ ~s the estimated number of one-wax au~o.~rJ~s ~.~ generated bz the project (per da~)? . /~O c, ~ha~ is the ~T and es¢~a~ed level of service before ~nd ~f~er pro~ec~ completion? ~f~e~ L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate t6Yserve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. ¥ill it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or Improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? ~ ~}o~L ~yto~o/~ Landslide or slippage? /~ b.Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project?~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~/~ c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. I~hat 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 jusqi~v ~hat 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 /17~° X 118.3 : Zo//! Hydrocarbons u X 18.3 : ~t/F )lOx (NO2) ~ X 20.0 : ~ ~ao Particulates " X 1.5 = . ~ Sul fur ~ X .78 = / ~ ~ 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid t~ /~F 'Liquid. ~ ~ What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent tO the site? ~/~ f~' ~F~ ~q /~ ~/o~,~ ~r~ 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 ~<~ ~e~S~ ~ ,N/ ~ ~ / - 13 - Case No. IS-88-32 H. FIRE DEPARTMENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire st~a. tion add what is the Fire Depa~ment'~ estim~ated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for t.h,ep~oposed facility without an increase.in equipment " or personnel?~.~t-AJ ' · ~..Remarks [ire Marsha! Date LA VISTA FIRE DEPAR'I~MENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address~_q~dJ~,~_J,_~?,.~)Y>y.~Plan File No.__ Checker~ Date~/~ Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories~ Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB-29 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. /~-~l~-~;l- 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 b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? ~X A significant modification of any unique geological features? ~x[ Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? ~ 2. Soil s a. Does the project site contain any soils which are e~pansive, ~luvial or highly erodible? X b. Could the project result in: 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 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? 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? ~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 wildlife? ~<" b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemi~ cies? ,~ 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? ~< m 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 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 addi]ional 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 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 in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-renewable natural resources? 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? X 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? ~/~ 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? ~ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, 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.) ~4~ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ~/ indirectly? - 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: ~roject Proponent Da te 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 DECLARF" 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. Envirb~lllfe~tal~vi~w Coordinator Date WPC O1 69P 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 o[all persons having a financial interest in the application. d List the names of all having any ownership interest in the property involved. persons 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) /~2~A//)/~N Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.J ~ y _ ~-- ~yy ~ l~/t~.~c'~, ~ff~ ~. S fg~ o~p~/da~ ' ', WPC 0701P ~~ ~~ A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 1988 Page 1 6. Public Hearing: PCZ-88-K Consideration to prezone the proposed Bonita-Sunnyside Annexation Area to existing County zoning - City initiated A. BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance would prezone the lands constituent to the proposed Bonita-Sunnyside Annexation to their existing zoning classifications in the County. By operation of the proposed ordinance, the lands so prezoned would retain their County zoning upon annexation. (Please see the attached, proposed ordinance, Exhibit A.) The proposal is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. C. DISCUSSION: The City Council, in March of 1987, adopted Ordinance No. 2198, an ordinance which was similar to the one submitted with this report. The 1987 ordinance, however, did not take effect since "the petition for annexation was not approved by the voters on the November, 1987 ballot." This condition precedent did not occur since the annexation proposal was not fully processed by the time of the November, 1987 election. The Bonita-Sunnyside Annexation is now proposed for inclusion on the November, 1988 ballot, and the readoption of the proposed prezoning ordinance is suggested. LAFCO staff believes that the prezoning of the Bonita-Sunnyside area at an early date would preclude the uncertainty associated with the said area's post-election zoning from prejudicing the November, 1988, election. The said staff urges the adoption of the proposed interim ordinance within the next two weeks, in order that it might include an analysis of such in its report to the LAFCO commission, which will consider the subject annexation early in the spring of this year. D. ANALYSIS: When Montgomery was annexed to Chula Vista in 1985, the City Council passed an emergency ordinance adopting the County of San Diego Zoning Ordinance as an interim control subsequent to December 31, 1985. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of April 13, 19~8 Page 2 A similar process is anticipated should Bonita decide to annex to the City of Chula Vista. A policy similar to the one adopted for Montgomery with respect to Planning and Zoning is also contemplated. That policy would be as follows: "County zoning regulations will continue to prevail while a study is conducted to determine the relationship of existing development. County zoning regulations and proposed City zoning for the area. The Sweetwater Planning Committee will review these issues and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on a proposed zoning plan." The proposed ordinance would implement that policy and only become effective subsequent to voter approval of the annexation proposal. Non-zoning regulations such as the Building Code, Subdivision Ordinance, Environmental Review procedures and other City requirements, policies and standards not referenced by the Zoning Ordinance would not be affected. Fees for applications would be paid in accordance with City fee schedules for the various types of actions. The County's Animal Regulations are a part of the County Zoning Ordinance and thus would be carried over as is with the adoption of this ordinance. This carry over should resolve any concerns of the residents of Bonita-Sunnyside regarding the imposition of City animal regulations to the area. WPC 4947P EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREZONING THE PROPOSED BONITA-SUNNYSIDE FIRE PROTECTION ANNEXATION AREA BY ADOPTING RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, on February 10, 1987, a petition was filed with LAFCO to annex 7.7 square miles of the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District to the City of Chula Vista, and WHEREAS, in addition to the dissolution of the Fire Protection District, some territory would be detached from the Spring Valley Sanitation District, and WHEREAS, prezoning of an area to De annexed is required by the City of Chula Vista, and WHEREAS, this action is exempt from environmental review under Section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and WHEREAS, it is staff's recommendation that County zoning regulations continue to be enforced as the City ordinance while study is conducted to determine the relationship of existing development within the Bonita-Sunnyside area, and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the County zoning for the Bonita-Sunnyside area is in substantial compliance with the adopted Chula Vista General Plan, and WHEREAS, this proposed zoning would only become effective subsequent to voter approval of the annexation proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19.72 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19.72 ZONING REGULATIONS FOR BONITA-SUNNYSIDE Sec. 19.72.010 Intent. A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends to allow County zoning regulations to continue in effect in the Bonita-Sunnyside area while a study -1- is conducted to determine the relationship of existing development, County zoning regulations and proposed City zoning for the area. The Sweetwater Planning Committee will review these issues and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on a proposed zoning plan. This area is specifically described in the annexation maps as filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission and encompasses the area formerly served by the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District. B. In the event that conflicts arise as to the provisions of this chapter and any other provisions of the Chula Vista Municipal code, the latter shall take precedence, except as to those items specifically relating to land use regulation. C. In the event that this chapter, any section within this chapter, or any portion of any section in this chapter are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this chapter shall be in full force and effect. Sec. 19.72.020 Adoption of County zoning Regulations. For the purpose of regulating the use of land, the Height of buildings, the area of lots, building sites, yard spaces and other matters relating to zoning, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts San Diego County Ordinance No. 5281 (New Series), commonly referred to as the "Zoning Ordinance San Diego County" as the Zoning Ordinance for the Bonita-Sunnyside area as though fully set forth herein. Said ordinance is adopted in its entirety except for Sections 1000-1019 and Part 7. Sec. 19.72.030 Terms. A. Wherever the phrase "Board of Supervisors" appears in Section 19.72.030, it shall be read as the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. B. Wherever the phrase "San Diego County Planning Commission", "Planning Commission" or "Board of Planning and Zoning Appeals" appears in Section 19.72.020, it shall be read as the Chula Vista Planning Commission. -2- C. Wherever the phrase "Zoning Administrator" appears in Section 19.72.020, it shall be read as the Zoning Administrator of the City of Chula Vista. D. Wherever the phrase "minor use permit", "administrative permit" or "major use permit" appear in Section 19.72.020, it shall be read as conditional use permit. Sec. 19.72.040 Fees. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in Section 19.72.020, the Master Fee Schedule of the City of Chula Vista shall be used to determine the appropriate fee for the processing of zoning applications, land use applications and variances. Sec. 19.72.050 Duties of Zoning Administrator. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista recognizes that the adoption of the County of San Diego Zoning Ordinance for the Bonita-Sunnyside area will create ambiguities with the zoning regulations for the remainder of the City of Chula Vista. The City Council, therefore, authorizes the Zoning Administrator to use the Council's expressed intent for the Bonita-Sunnyside area to resolve these ambiguities in an administrative process. SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect upon the date that the annexation of the area described by the Bonita Sunnyside Fire Protection District Boundaries is approved by the voters. Presented by Approved as to form by George Krempl, Director of Thomas J. Harron, City Attorney Planning 2666a -3-