Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/03/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 27, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 23, 1991 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: McDonalds Corporation - Appeal of Design Review Committee's decision to deny installation of a 35 ft. high freestanding pole sign at 619 Broadway 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-03 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-03 - Avner Cohen OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of April 10, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Cig/ OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 20, 1991 TO: Chair and Members of Planning Commission The two enclosed attachments were omitted from your March 27, 1991 Planning Commission packet. The Resolution No. DRC-91-37 is for Item #1; the map goes with Item #2. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. /je Enclosures City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page i 1. PUBLIC HEARING: McDonalds Corporation Appeal of Design Review Committee's decision to deny installation of a 35 ft. high freestanding pole siqn at 619 Broadway A. BACKGROUND On January 14, 1991, the Design Review Committee considered a request from the applicant to install a 35 ft. high freestanding sign to identify the business (McDonalds Restaurant) located at 619 Broadway (see locator). The proposal also included the removal of an existing non-conforming sign in response to City's sign abatement program currently in progress. After hearing staff's presentation and the applicant's request, the Design Review Committee recommended modification of the proposed pole sign design to a monument sign, or modification of the pole sign design and height as suggested in staff sketch I. The above mentioned Committee's recommendation was not acceptable to the applicant and requested final action based on the sign design presented. Consequently, the Committee denied the proposal as presented by unanimous vote. The applicant filed an appeal on January 23, 1991, seeking to retain the proposed sign design as submitted, and citing that the difference in the sign design and height recommended by staff as being arbitrary and subjective and not enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the City or promoting the economic well being of the business community as required by Section 19.60.220 of the Sign Code (see applicant's appeal statement in appeal form). The project is exempt from the Environmental Review Process Class l(a). B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Deny the appeal. 2. Approve a 25 ft. high freestanding sign with the restaurant's corporate logo arches incorporated within the sign cabinet frame as suggested in staff sketch I. C. DISCUSSION The applicant's proposal involves the removal plan of an existing non-conforming freestanding sign and installation of a new pole sign consisting of a traditional McDonalds internally illuminated cabinet-type sign with the corporate gold arches projecting above the cabinet (see proposed sign diagram. The sign structure is 35 feet and proposed to be located within a 10~x15~ planting area located at the northwest corner of the parcel. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 2 The proposed sign will identify the existing restaurant facility located on the east side of Broadway between I and Halsey Street within the C-T zone district (Thoroughfare Commercial). The subject property is designated as retail commercial in the general plan. In the C-T zone, each parcel having a minimum lot frontage of 50 feet is allowed a freestanding type sign (roof mounted monument or pole sign) up to 35 feet in height and a sign area of 1 sq. ft. per lineaL feet of lot frontage not to exceed 150 square feet. The subject parcel has 145 lineal feet of street frontage which would allow a maximum sign area of 145 feet. In addition to the above mentioned requirements, a 100 sq. ft. landscaping base is required for signs 25-35 feet in height. The overall sign composition is subject to design review per Section 19.60.230 and 19.60.250 of the current Zoning Ordinance. C. ANALYSIS As stated above, the proposed freestanding sign design consists of a 35 ft. high single pole structure supporting a 5~x13~ internally illuminated, double face, cabinet sign containing the name of the business and a small advertising line. A separate panel (10~x1~6'' high) identifies the drive-thru feature of the restaurant. The restaurant's corporate logo, which is the gold arches outline, extends 6 ft. above the business identification cabinet and is also internally illuminated. The color composition is the traditional McDonalds red, white and yellow. If the three aforementioned sign components were framed, the overall size would be 10'x11-1/2~ or 115 sq. ft. out of which 60 to 70% is dedicated to advertising of the restaurant facilities and corporate logo. Section 19.60.250C restricts logos and advertising to a maximum of 50% of the overall sign area. Section 19.60.250B also requires that the sign copy area (including logos) be located within the perimeter of the sign frame or background. The Design Review Committee is now charged with review of all commercial and industrial areas of the City. The Committee has taken a strong position on the decision and height of freestanding signs in effect to promote the use of lower profile signs along Broadway and other commercial corridors and strong linkage of the sign design to the building architecture. An informal survey of the signs within the immediate vicinity (500± ft. north and south along this portion of Broadway) reveals that the majority of the signs in the immediate area are 20 ft. high or less or an average of 16.5 ft. in height (see neighborhood signs map and inventory). The survey shows that the tallest sign to be 30 ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 3 Address Description Freestandinq Pole Siqn 556 Broadway Butcher Shop 8~x5~x20' 562 Broadway Family House 10~x5~x20~ 568 Broadway Arnolds 13~x13~x30' 588 Broadway Travelodge 12~x4~x30~ 599 Broadway Burger King 8~x8~x15' 600 Broadway Discount Tire 8~x6~x10~ 609 Broadway Dunkin Donuts 9~x2~x12~ 631 Broadway Mulvaneys lO~x5~x15~ Based on the DRC~s decision to support a sign up to 25 ft. in height and 76 sq. ft. in area, staff's informal survey of the immediate neighborhood signs and the design principles stated in Section 19.60.250 B & C, staff recommends that the appeal be denied and that a 25 ft. high freestanding sign featuring the name of the restaurant, corporate logo and drive-thru identification in a single unified internally illuminated cabinet sign, be approved. To produce a simpler more cohesive sign design and a pole height more compatible with other signs in the immediate area. D. FINDINGS The Design Review Committee has based its decision on the principles and standards of the Design Manual and current zoning ordinance as follows: 1. The Chula Vista Design Manual that the signs should be compatible with the nature, character of the locale. The proposed sign as proposed would be significantly higher than any other sign within the immediate vicinity. 2. Good townscape requires signs manifest artistic order avoiding offensive and obtrusive signs. The majority of the signs within the immediate vicinity are 12-20 ft. in height and well integrated into a sign frame. The proposed sign, in addition to be higher, contains a disjointed sign composition and a predominant logo advertising component contrary to the established intent of a business identification sign. 3. Property owners shall place considerable emphasis on color, size, shape texture, materials and character. The proposed sign configuration does not contain a unified shape and hierarchy of sign elements. The proposed sign's logo, advertising and business identification are not only different in shape, but are in reverse order. Logo and advertising should be a subordinate feature of the main identification sign. WPC 8990P I I I ! ! I I I---I I ,~ I I I I I I ~ I I i "1' STREET. II I I I I I PROJECT ' " L. OCATION ' " ' ' ' -- ,____~_~__.~._~ ', , I I I I I I I I '1 I I I , I ! ! MANKATO I ® , -- WHITNEY II I I I , ® ® I :-4 I I '1' STREET mm I I G I I II mi I I .... ~-'1--.~--~ I I I I LEGEND Address Descriotion Frees~andino Pgle Siqn I - SS6 Broadway Butcher Shop 8~xS~x20~ z --562 _Broadway Family House 10'xS'x20' s -368 Broadway Arnolds 13~x13~x30~ 4 - 588 Broadway Travelodge 12'x4'x30' ST. S- 599 Broadway Burger King 8'x8'x15' m 6 - 600 Broadway Discount Tire 8'x6'xlO' I 7 - 609 Broadway Dunkin Donuts 9'xg'x12' B- 631 Broadway Nulvaneys 10'x5'x15' APPEAL STATEMENT City of Chula Vista Date Received Planning Department Fee Paid Receipt No. Appeal Form Case NO: Appeal from the decision of: r-~Zoning [~Planning ~;~LDesign Review Administrator Commission ~-'Committee Appellant: Victor Ortega/McDonald's Corp. Phone 619 / 535-8900 Address: McDonald's Corporation, Kroc Drive, Oak Brook, IL 60521 Request for: Approval (£xamp]e: zone change, variance, design review, etc.) Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ~ZA ~PC ~DRC for the property located at: The DRC Staff Summary Report states that the Appellant's sign is in substantial compliance with the City's zoning ordinance and landscape manual. However, the Staff "recommends" using a different design of sign using a single cabinet sign and limiting the sign to only about 23' in total height. These recommendations are arbitrary and subjective and do not enhance the aesthetic appearance of the city or promote the economic well being of the business community as required by Section 19.60.220 of the Sign Code. The Staff's recommendations are subjective and based on personal tastes. They should Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City Council on Planning Commissi=n Secretary City Clerk {This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 not be allowed to require design changes unless a sign is clearly offensive or contains unacceptable features such as flashing lights that are obviously in bad taste or inconsistent with surrounding signs. Merely requiring a single cabinet sign structure is such a minor change considering the overall appearance of the sign that it verges on individual taste. In general, matters of aesthetics are prone to subjective feelings and should be limited unless significant design elements are involved. Otherwise there would be an unwarranted intrusion by the government into private rights. Also, the Staff's recommendations bears no relationship to the economic well being of the surrounding businesses. The slight design change recommended will not impart the success or failure of the surrounding businesses, and they could diminish the national identity of the Appellant. Appellant's sign identification is nationally recognized and proven to be appealing and effective. It would not be used if it was aesthetically unappealing to the public. Finally, the Staff Report does not indicate that the Appellant's sign violates any established or approved sign policy or plan for the surrounding area, and, in fact, it ignores the fact that other signs in the area are not of the single cabinet type. APPLICANTS FREESTANDING SIGN PROPOSAL · DRC-91-37 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEI~ENT LMAPPLICANT'SSTATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF TZE CITY COUNCIL, p~ MISSION AND__ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: l. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. 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) ~fined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, associatio J social club, fraternal organization, corporat~ I thj.s_and. ~a-~.y other county, city and county~~t I political subdivision, or any other group or combination actin ~ ~-~---~ · group or combination acting as ~ unit." -S~gnaturl~ of applic'~t/date ' WPC 0701P Print or type name of applicant March 27, 1991 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Steve Griffin, Senior Planner ~ Subject: Changes to recommended conditions of approval for Item 2, PCS-91-03, Oxford Terrace Condominiums The following changes should be made to the indicated conditions of approval listed under Section B2 of the staff report: Condition f: Add ", in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act" to the end of the first sentence. Condition q: Delete condition in its entirety. SG:nr City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page I 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Pcs-gl-03 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-03 - Avner Cohen A. BACKGROUND I. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-03, in order to develop a one lot, nine unit condominium project on a 0.62 acre site located on the south side of Oxford Street just east of Third Avenue. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-gl-lO, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on Is-g1-10. 3. The Design Review Committee approved the project design on January 14, 1991. 4. On March 6, 1991, the Montgomery Planning Committee, by a vote of 0-6, failed to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-gl-lO, and therefore could not consider or make a recommendation on the tentative map. The Committee's action is discussed below. 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-91-10. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the tentative subdivision map for Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract gl-03, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval of the final map by the City Council shall be contingent upon compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. b. Prior to final map approval the subdivider shall enter into an agreement to comply with the City's Growth Management Element and Program, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. c. The amount of fees applicable to the project, including but not limited to PAD, DIF and RCT fees shall be those in effect at the time of collection. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 2 d. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of agreement with the Chula Vista School District and the Sweetwater School District regarding the provision of school facilities adequate to serve the project prior to the approval of a final map. e. The subdivider shall file with the City of Chula Vista a copy of the CC&R's applicable to the subject property. The CC&R's shall include: 1) prohibition of TV antennas, garage conversions and parking outside of designated areas 2) maintenance of common areas and driveways f. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of public street improvements along the full length of the subject property on Oxford Avenue, from the centerline of the street to the property line in conformance with Chula Vista Design Standard No. 2 for a Class II collector street. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to asphalt concrete pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, street lights, street trees, fire hydrants, potable water facilities and driveway approach. The developer shall also be responsible for construction of transitions to existing improvements east of the subject property as required by the City Engineer. g. All streets within the multifamily development shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans for said developments. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private streets. h. The developer shall grant public storm drain easement prior to approval of the final map. Said easement shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but in no case, less than 10 feet. This easement could be transitioned to five feet at the southeastern portion of the property in order to connect to the existing storm drain system. i. Prior to the approval of final map for subject subdivision, the subdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required improvements. j. The property owner shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the Final Map by City if offsite right of way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of Approval. (Only offsite right of way easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 3 After said notification, the owner shall: 1) Pay the fully cost of acquiring offsite right of way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. 2) Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right of way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. 3) Have all easement and/or right of way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to approval of the Final Map. All offsite requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived if the City does not comply with the 120-day time limitation specified in that section of the act. k. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. 1. On the condition that City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense, the subdivider/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approvals by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision. m. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot within the subdivision. However, developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television company(ies) who are and remain in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Cable Company to insure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. n. The developer shall enter into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Sweetwater Authority prior to approval of the final map. o. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways and drainage systems which are private. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. Said CC&R's shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to approval of the final map. p. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvements and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance {No. 1797 as amended}. q. The General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan shall be amended to reflect Medium/High Density Residential {11-18 du/ac) prior to approval of a final map. Code Requirements I. 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 for all applicable sewer connection and sewer repayment district fees prior to issuance of building permits. 3. All utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. 4. The developer shall pay all applicable public facilities financing fees prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 5 Map Revisions A revised Tentative Map with the following changes must be submitted prior to Final Map approval: 1. Show existing street improvements east of the property and proposed transition. 2. Show proposed sewer lateral on property frontage. 3. Remove note "connection to existing sewer system by City of Chula Vista." 4. Add existing street section for Oxford Street and proposed half street section. 5. Identify proposed easement as drainage easement and show a minimum of 5 feet drainage easement at the southeastern portion of property east of proposed triplex. 6. Use same line type and width to identify northerly property line as that shown for the rest of the property perimeter. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoninq and land use. North RV-15 Single family residence South R-3 Multifamily apartment structure East RV-15 Single family residence West CCP Commercial, retail center Existinq site characteristics. The project site is relatively level and is developed with a single family residence, a duplex, and a six car garage structure. All of the structures currently existing on site will be demolished or removed prior to initiation of the proposed project. Tentative map. The subdivision map is solely for the purpose of allowing the applicant to provide for-sale units as opposed to a rental project. The design consists of nine three-bedroom, two-story townhomes featuring private patios and two-car garages for each unit. Two guest parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the proposed common open space. A tot lot as well as other site enhancements will be incorporated into a central recreation area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 6 Montqomerv Plannina Committee action The Montgomery Planning Committee failed to adopt the Negative Declaration primarily because of concerns with the manner in which the school districts are addressing the issue of school overcrowding, i.e., larger class size, portable class rooms, and shifting students to schools farther from their homes. The City, however, must rely on the districts to determine how best to address this issue. For the project at hand, the districts have stated the standard developer fees will be applied and thus with the payment of these fees, the potentially significant environmental impact of school overcrowding is considered to have been reduced to a level below significance. Note: The number of school children projected from this site is approximately three elementary, two junior high, and one high school. D. ANALYSIS The residential type and density of the project is consistent with the site's RV-15 zoning, and is compatible with other multi-family projects approved in the immediate area. However, the current zoning is not consistent with either the General Plan designation or the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Specific Plan shows the site as a special study area under consideration for commercial use. The area on the south side of Oxford Street, east of Third Avenue, of which this property is a part, however, is for all practical purposes no longer under consideration for a commercial designation, but is intended for Medium/High Density Residential {11-18 du/ac). A condition has been recommended which would require the General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan to be amended accordingly prior to approval of a final map for the subdivision. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Oxford Terrace Condominiums, Chula Vista Tract 91-03, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The proposed project will not alter the existing land use character of the surrounding area or have any significant adverse land use impact. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1991 Page 7 b. Circulation - The proposed on-site circulation network is consistent with City standards and fosters public safety and convenience by minimizing the number of driveways into the site. c. Housing The proposed project's attached duplex and triplex townhomes will contribute to the housing alternatives available within the Montgomery Community, will establish diversity in density, housing and land use, and will encourage home ownership. d. Conservation The redevelopment of the site will not impact areas designated for conservation by the Chula Vista General Plan and will contribute to the revitalization of a declining area of the City. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project proposal includes on-site recreational opportunities in the form of a tot lot and passive recreation open space which may reduce impacts on other City parks and recreation facilities. f. Seismic Safety There are no seismic safety concerns on this site and, therefore, the project is in conformance with the Chula Vista Seismic Safety Element. g. Safety - The project will be within existing or proposed response times of all public safety agencies. h. Noise The proposed project will be in conformance within existing noise standards. i. Scenic Highway - The proposed project is not on a scenic highway. j. Bicycle Routes The proposed project is not adjacent to an officially designated bicycle route. k. Public Buildings - The General Plan does not indicate a need for any public buildings at this location. Therefore, the design is consistent with the General Plan. 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 9064P ABBRE; > CG · ]o~ EXIST STD : w~ ~=T mT m= CMU ( ~ SD T OXFOR OF SIC SITE PLAN co~ou~?~ &7 e**~c rom Statement of disclosure of certain or/he,ship interests, payments, or campaign conm'outions, on all marten official ~ The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of ~ per~.m having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or pm'tnership, list thc 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 non-profit or~ni~,ntion or a trust, list the names of any person ~etving as director of the non-profit orga~iTntion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the Umt. 4. Have you had .m.ore gan $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City stnff~ Boards~ Comm~ol~ Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No- - Ifyes -please indicate person(s): $. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent .you before the City in this matter. 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in thc aggregate, contr/buted more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election per/od? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Cotmcflmember(s): e. vtate, mug receiver, o~licate, ~ and any othtr county, city and country, cio/, munlcipality, district or other political ~ubdivisio~ or att), other group or combination acting tt~ a unit: O~101'E: .4~tld~ addition~! lt~ge~ ns ~ax:asr, at~) .,._, - i Da,e: Signature of contractor/applicant Print or type name o£ comracror/applicant .. negatiw - declaration- PROJECT NAME: Oxford Terrace PROJECT LOCATION: 271 Oxford Street PROJECT APPLICANT: Avner Cohen CASE NO: IS-91-10 DATE: 10-12-90 The project site consists of 26,829 square feet (0.62-acre) located in the midst of an urbanized area in southern Chula Vista. It is in the Castle Park neighborhood of the Montgomery Community Planning Area. The site is located on the south side of Oxford Street, immediately east of a commercial area along Third Avenue. There are no sidewalks along the frontage of the site, and Oxford narrows somewhat in the vicinity of the site and eastward. The site is separated from the commercial uses to the west by a wood fence and a parking lot'just west of the western project boundary. Oxford Street separates the site from the residence to the north of the street. The site is separated from the residence to the east by a wood fence and low block wall. To the immediate south is a parking lot associated with apartments. The project site is currently accessed by a dirt/gravel driveway near the eastern end of the north boundary. The front (northernmost) portion of the site is unpaved and is used as a parking area. There are three structures on-site: a single- family residence, a duplex, ~nd, at the southern end, a six-car garage. There are currently six residents living on the site. The only vegetation consists of two trees, a (carob or St. John's bread) with a 14-inch diameter and a ~ ~ (silk oak) with a 34-inch diameter. Neither tree is native to the area. The former is native to the eastern Mediterranean region and the latter is native to Australia. The project site is nearly level and drains to the south. There is an existing catch basin in the southeastern corner of the site. The site is underlain by clayey sands that range from non-expansive to moderately expansive. The project proposes to remove all on-site vegetation and structures and construct nine condominium units in four buildings: three duplexes and one triplex. All units would three bedrooms and would be approximately 1,692 square feet. _ max/mum height would be 24 feet. The project includes 20 on-s~~ -- city of Chula vista planning department ¢I'~OF environmental review section CHU[~ VI i'A parking spaces, and it is estimated that the site would be occupied by 27 to 30 people. The proposed gross density is 14.5 units per acre. The project will implement the minor remedial grading recommended in the Limited Site Investigation by Rosenwald Engineering and Associates (October 1, 1990) in order to mitigate any potential impacts from soil expansion during wet periods. This will consist of _removing, compacting and replacing the existing earthen material. No import or export of soil will be necessary. The project will widen Oxford Street along the project frontage and install a curb, gutter and sidewalk. The access and parking areas will be asphalt interspersed with decorative paving. The access will remain in generally the same location as it exists today and will be landscaped with approximately 55 §-gallon ~ fraseri, an evergreen shrub, and an estimated 12 15- gallon Prunus ~~~_L (flowering plum trees). The western boundary of the project will include a gazebo and will be heavily landscaped with a variety of trees and shrubs. c. The project site is zoned RV 15, as is the land to the north and the east. Land to the south (existing apartments) is zoned R3. The commercial strip land along Third Avenue to the west is zoned CCP. The proposed project is compatible with the zoning. However, the current zoning is not compatible with either the General Plan designation or with the Montgomery Specific Plan. The project site is designated in the General Plan for Retail uses, as are some of the other areas currently occupied by residences. The proposed project will not change the nature of the area and will act as a transition between the commercial area to the west and the residential area to the east. The City's Initial Study concluded that no significant land use impacts would result from development of the project. D. ~ with the Threshold/Standards ~ The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 95% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The Fire Department indicated that the nearest fire station is approximately 1/3 of a mile from the site and that the site can be reached in approximately 2 minutes. Therefore, the project is in compliance with this policy. The Fire Department has indicated that it can provide an adequate level of service to the site provided that the recommendations on the Plan Correction Sheet are implemented. These measures include: (1) provision of a private fire hydrant at the guest parking location, with a capacity of providing 2,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch, or installation of automatic sprinklers in the buildings; (2) installation of smoke detectors; and (3) provision of fire extinguishers at the front entrance and in each unit. 2. ~ The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to Priority i calls within ? minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within ? minutes or less and maintain an average response time to' all Priority 2 calls of ? minutes or less. The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any impacts. The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signal- /zed intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection should reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Oxford Street currently carries an estimated 6,010 trips per day and operates at LOS A. Upon project completion, it is estimated that the street will carry approximately 6,082 trips and will still operate at LOS A. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. However, the project will improve the street frontage to match the existing improvements to the immediate west. 4. k ec e 'o The Threshold/Standards Policy requires 3 acres of park and recreation land for every 1,000 people. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that the existing neighborhood parks are adequate to serve the project. The site is within Park Service District 603, which has a current park acreage requirement of 4.2 acres. The City's Planning Department has indicated that 0.06-acre (apgroximately 2,614 square feet) of parkland is necessary to serve the proposed project. The project includes an estimated 8,752 square feet of landscaped open space in addition to a gazebo. 5. ~ The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards. The City's Engineering Department has indicated that the existing drainage system is adequate to serve the project. 6. Sewer The Thresholds/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. The proposed project is expected to generate an estimated 1,900 gallons of sewage per day. The City's Engineering Department has indicated that the 12-inch sewer main flowing west in Oxford Street is adequate to handle the projected flow. 7. Water The Thresholds/Standard Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Most of the state of California is currently experienc- ing water shortages as a result of a continued drought. However, the site is already receiving water for the on-site uses. If the drought continues, it is possible that d/strict-wide water monitoring and conservation will be required. The Thresholds/Standards Policy states that the City will annually provide the local school districts with a 12 to 15 month development forecast and that the districts should address their abilities to absorb the forecast growth in the affected facilities. The project site is within the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District. The Chula Vista City School District, which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6, is overcrowded, and the District currently charges a development fee of $0.70 per square foot of assessable area for residential projects to mitigate potential impacts of additional students to a level of insignificance. It is estimated that the project might generate two students that would attend Castle Park Middle School and one student that would attend Castle Park High School, both within the Sweetwater Union High School District. Both schools are expected to be over- capacity in 1990-1991 and the District currently charges development fees to mitigate potential impacts. The amount of the fees has not yet been determined. With the payment by the developer of the fees, it is anticipated that potential impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The ~ S/re ~J~~l prepared by Rosenwald Engineering and Associates (October 1, 1990) indicated that there are no known faults on-site but that portions of the site are underlain by expansive soils. The report recommended some minor remedial grading to mitigate potential hazards that are associated with expansive soils. The grading will implement the recommended measures, which consist largely of removing approximately 3 feet of the surficial soil, recompacting it and using it on-site as fill. 2. Noise The demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the project will result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the area, as a result of increased .traffic from heavy vehicles and as a result of the operation of equipment. This-is expected to be a short-term, less than significant impact and does not require any mitigation beyon~compliance with the Noise Ordinance and Noise Element of the. General Plan. 3. Trees The project will remove two existing normative trees, as explained above, and will include extensive landscaping with various sizes and types of trees. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4. L/~ht and Glare The existing on-site structures are one-story, and there are currently only three residences on-site. The increased density could result in an increase in night lighting and glare. However, the project includes landscaping along all boundaries, which will physically and psychologically buffer the adjacent land uses. No significant impacts are anticipated. 5. Traffic~ The project will result in the elimination of the trips currently being generated by the on-site residents and will generate an estimated 72 trips per day. Oxford Street will continue to operate at Level of Service A, and no significant impacts are anticipated. 6. Land Use The project site is zoned RV 15, as is the land to the north and the east. Land to the south (existing apartments) is zoned R3. The commercial strip land along Third Avenue to the west is zoned CCP. The proposed project is compatible with the zoning. However, the current zoning is not compatible with either the General Plan designation or with the Montgomery Specific Plan. The project site is designated in the General Plan for Retail uses, as are some of the other areas currently occupied by residences. The proposed project will not change the nature of the area and will act as a transition between the commercial area to the west and the residential area to the east. The City's Initial Study concluded that no significant land use impacts would result from development of the project. 7. Housina/Socio-economic Issues The project will remove the existing structures, which house six people. There is other housing available in the City, and this is not considered to be a significant impact. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the geotechnical recommendations included in the ~ Site into the project design. In addition, he will pay the fees required for mitigating potential impacts on schools. Therefore, no significant project impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. G. 1. The project does not have the potential to (a) substantially degrade the quality of the environment; (b) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (c) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (d) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (e) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; (f) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1. ~ and~D~ C~ty of Chula vista: Maryann Miller, Planning Dept. Greg Smith, Fire Dept. Roger Daoust, Engineering Dept. Ken Larsen, Building and Housing Dept. Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Dept. Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. R. Solorzano, Engineering Dept. Doug Reid, Planning Dept. Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva Applicant's representative: Tim Jones 2. Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista ~AD~L~_~ ~ode General. Plan, City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista, Policy: Threshold/Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee, as amended November 30, 1989 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 92Q10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR city of chula vlata planning deperlment environmental review ' section. CHUL~ ~· ~'~' FOR OFFICE USE Case No. ' INITIAL STUDY Date Rec'd -.' City of Chula Vista Accepted by .. Application Form Project No. .. .~.A. 'BACKGROUND . .2. PR~ECT L~ATION (Street address or description) r'.'" Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. · -' '4. Na~ of Applicant AYH~ S. Name of Preparer/Agent ~ ~ ~ ~. Relation to Applicant 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or docu~nts .,' ' required by the Envtron~ntal Review Coordinator. a. Pe~its or approvals required: General Plan Revision ~ Design Revi~ Co~ittee Public Project Rezoning/Prezontng Tentative Subd. Map . Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Oestgn Review Board . Specific Plan Tentative Parcel ~p Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Pe~it ~ Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance Other , b. Enclosures or docu~nts (as required by ~e Environ~ntal Review Coordinator). .Location ~p Arch. Elevations Eng. ~ology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Stud~ ~ Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey . Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment .... ~ecific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Pe~it or Soils Report Other Approvals Required ...... 12/82 Ell 3 (Rev. ) B. ,PROPOSED PROJECT " '1. Land Area: sq. footage ~2~ ~ or acreage .~ Zf land area to be dedfcated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section ~f project fs residential. a. Type development: Single famfly Two famfly .... .. t4ult~ family Townhouse Condominium b. Number Of structures and heights -f- ~6-~. . c. Number of Un,ts: 1 bedroom .. 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms ~ 4 bedrooms Total un,ts - e. Net density (OU/total acres mtnus any.dedtcaUon). -- f. EsUmated project populaUon ~ ~ ~o ....... g. 'Estimated sale or rental price range~ -~' " h. Square footage of floor area(s) ./,~?~ ~/~x/,'~ · J. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or's~r~ctures _~ ~', ..... . J. 'Number of on-site parking spaces to be provJded k. Percent of s~te ~n road and paved surface · 3~ Complete th~s secUon tf pro~ect ts commercial or Jndustr~al. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area HeJght of structure(s) .,. c. Type of construction used ~n the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the ortentatfon to acUo~n~ng properties and streets e. Number of on-stte park'~ng spaces provided f. £stJmated number of employees per shift , Number of shffts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basts of estimate t. Type/extent of operations not tn enclosed buildings J. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or fndustrtal -"~ complete thts sectton. 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-stte parking spaces to be provided . ,. ...... g.,. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. .PRO3ECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result ~n the direct emission of any air .~'i ..... pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) tdenttfy them. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backftlled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b.' How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. ~at will be the - Haxtmum depth of cut Average depth of cut ~'~ Haxtmum depth of fill. /~'~ Average depth of fill ~ # t ,, ,3. Describe all energy consuming devices ~htch 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)_ ~?_~ ~ 5. ]f the project ~fll result fn any emplo~nt opportunities describe the nature and type of these ~obs. 6. H~11 highly fla~able or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored ~t~fn the project - -" site? 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project1 ~_~ 8." Describe (fi any) off-site fmprove~nts necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the pro~ect stte. ~mprovements include but not limited t~ t~e.followfng: new ._ streets; street ~denfng; extension of gas, e~ectrfc, and se~er 1fries; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facf]ftfes. O. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE~ING Has a geology study been conducted on the property? · ; ,.:. (Ifyps, 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 tn detail.) .... a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage (mprove~nts on or c. ODes 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? /F~ "' e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their 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? /~x~ 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. Oescribe all structures and land uses currently existing on the b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North ~'~..~(~X,, ~-/,,~/~ - South ~ ~/~/~ - ~ '~' East ~/~/d~ ~ 7. Soctal a. Are there an~ residents on site? b. Are there any current eeplo~nt opportunftfes on sftel (If so, how many and what typeT) . Please provide any other information which could expedtte the evaluatfon the proposed pro~ect. E. CERTIFICATION .... owner In escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the s'tatements 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' Par.ts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. Case No. j_~_ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPART)4ENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use aeslgnation on site: North South East West Is the project compatible with the General. Plan Land Use Diagram? . ~F) *-" Is the project are. a designateU for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~JD (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) / Now many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Park:~/and,Recrea~tion Element of the General Plan?(~.O~+r,c6~ .L' ~- *'; What is the current park aFreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to orovide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) 3. Schools Zf the proposed project is residential, please complete the follo~Jag: Current: Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project 4. Aes~etics ~es the project~6ont~in features which c~uld 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 ~e estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following - sources: Electricity (per year! ~ guJ~/ma X ~ =~ ~ ~ : ~ ~/~K Natural Gas (per year) ~x~/~, Water (per day) ~ ~/~ _ _ D~ec~o~ot Planning o~ ep~esen~a~ve -lO- Case G. ENGINEERING DEPARll4ENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?No c. Will the project create any flooding h~zards? d. What is the location and description of exist!rig on-site. drainage facilities? · . . . j~: ~" ~ · " Aree~fY~adequate *o serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~y/~ - 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project?_=~. b. What is the estimated number of oneJw~y auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Be fo're After A.D.T. ~o1~ L.O.S. A d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ¥~ If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? If so, specify the general nature of the ~ecessary actions. ~ Si-. ~,~f..,, ~ ;,,~,~L~: ^.¢. ?,,.,,~_.~_-~- i ~ · ~' - 11 - Case No. 3. ~eology a. Is the project site subject to: . Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? to~;-~ Landslide or slippage?~~7 b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate ~he project? ......... ~' '~ ~' ~'~ ~ 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse sot1 conditions on the project "' site? t~ b. If yes, ~hat are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope o~'the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trip~ Emission Grams of (per day) .... Factor Pollution CO 'iL X 118.3 Hydrocarbons '?7._ X 18.3 = I-~1 NOx (NO2) '77_. X 20.0 = Particulates ....... ~7~- X 1.5 Sulfur q~ X .78 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~'7.-o ~b~.//.~,,,~ '~ .. What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? g. 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 Case No, H. FIRE DEPARTMENT - 1., What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire . protection for the proposeq facility without an increase in equipment or personnel?~ 3. Remarks _ - '~ ~ -- Fire .a~,al · bate -/I- CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address~7/-~_77 ~<~) ;S~TPlan File No~"~-.~~ Checker~X)y7~Date,~/D-~ Type Constr. Occupancy, No. Stories Bldg. Area ~'~b The foll~ing list d~s not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE ~D SHOW ON PL~: .. -13(a)- j Case No. j_~-.~/-/~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks hiD. 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative CHUI CITY SCI-IOO . ISTRICT 84 EAST "~'STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA g~010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH s~u~o~uc~r~ September 13, 1990 · KI~EPa D. ~S, ReD. SHARON GLES P^TR~K~OO Hr. Doug Reid dUOY SCH~ENBERG F~K~T~W~O Environmental Review Coordinator City 'of Chula Vista SU~t~N~Jn 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 .~N F. VUGRN, ~D. RE:IS-91-10 / FA-496 / DP-785 271 Oxford Street (Avner Cohen) 9 Unit Condomini~, 3 Duplex Bldgs., & I Triplex Bldg. Dear Hr. Reid: This is to advise you that the project at 271 Oxford Street is located within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established attendance area boundaries and transportation service. Schools in the Chula Vista Elementary School District are overcrowded -' and the District has added 25 relocatab]e classrooms over the past three years to assist in accommodating growth. The District is unable at this time to advise the City o( Chula Vista or potential homeowners which school students may be required to attend. Lauderbach Elementary is the closest existing facility to the above-referenced project; however, this facility and other schools in this area are over capacity. Students may be required to attend schools in other locations in the District. Should this be the case, the District provides transportation as set forth in Board Policy #3542 (copy attached). School assignment may also be based on individual pupil needs, special programs, or the District's integration goals. It is also possible children from this project may attend a new school constructed at some future date. Please be advised that a developer fee of $1.58 per square foot of assessable area ($ .70 for Chula Vista Elementary School District and $ .88 for Sweetwater Union High School District) is currently being c~arged to assist in providing school facilities. The schoo] fees credit for removal of an existing house(s) is not allowable when replacement is with multiple units~ this credit is only provided when a house is replaced by a new single family dwelling. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ~ate Shurson Director of Planning ~S:dp cc: Avner Cohen Tom Silva CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD POLICY ~3542 Authorized Minimum Distances for Bus Transportation The following are the minimum distances.~chlldren in different grades must live fl:om school to have bus transportation provided: Grade Distance Kindergarten 3/4 mile Grade 1 1 mile Grades 2-3 1~ mile Grades 4-6 1~ mile ..... For reasons of safety, the Superintendent or designee may make individual exceptions to these dlste~nces. LEGAL REFERENCE: POLICY ADOPTED: 7-1-60 Reviewed and readopted: 2-11-63 AMENDED: 6-1-76 " SwcCt ater Union High School District September 17, 1990 Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA g2011 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: Oxford Terrace The proposed Oxford Terrace will result in the addition of approximately three students into the Sweetwater Union High School District school system. Two are expected to enter into grades 7- 9; one is expected to enter high school. The two facilities servicing this project are Castle Park Middle School and Castle '. Park High School. The projected enrollments for the lggO-gl school year are shown below: School Projected 90-91 Permanent Enrollment Capacity Castle Park Middle ll20 1456 Castle Park High 1820 1568- *Eight relocatable classrooms have been installed to provide tntertum space. At the close of the first week of school Castle Park High School's enrollment exceeded lgO0 students thereby forcing the District to direct new arrivals to other school sites. Because of our severe overcrowding, fees will be assessed on the proposed Oxford Terrace project. Director of Planning TS/sf ~ ROUTING FORM DATE: September 7, lggO TO: Ken Larson, Building & Housing John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only) Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only) Hal Rosenberg, Engineering {EIR only) Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2) Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Current Planning Advance Planning Bob Leiter, Planning Director Chula Vista City School Dist., Kate Shurson Swe~twater Union H.S. District , Tom Silva {IS & EIR) Other FROM: Doug Reid Environmental Section SUBJECT: ~-~ Application for Initial Study (IS-gl-lO /FA-496 /DP- 785 ) ~ Checkprint Draft EIR {20 days){EIR- /FB- /DP ) F--] Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- /FB- /DP .) ~-~ Review of Environmental Review ~ecord FC- /ERR- .) The project consists of: The proposed construction of a 9 unit condominium building, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex and proposed removal of one single family residence, one duplex and a 6-car garage. Location: 271 Oxford Street ~ Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by g/14/90 Please submit all time incurred for this docuemnt below: Date Person Time ~- . /?, 'D ~ .--~.-- '' : '" L' ' MEMORANDUM DATE: March 19, 1991 TO: ~y~Members of the Planning Commission VIA:I/.4/~,,R~beA/~.'.~ Leiter, Planning Director FROM-- Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator )q~Y~l SUBJECT: Mobile Home Relocation Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-09) Attached for your review is a copy of the Mobile Home Relocation Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-09). A public hearing on the Draft EIR has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, April 10, 1991. This meeting will close the public review period on the Draft EIR after public testimony has been received.