Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/06/27 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday. June 27, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of May 9 and May 23, 1990 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: PCZ-90-O-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, which is a portion generally bounded by Oxford Street, Broadway, Orange Avenue and a line 750 ft. west of Broadway; also a portion generally bounded by Orange Avenue, Hermosa Avenue, Broadway and an irregular line from Anita Street to approximately 150 ft. north of Main Street, from its City-adopted "County Zoning" classifications to the "City Zoning" classifications, utilized throughout Chula Vista. The proposed rezonings are confined to the Otay Town II subcommunity of Montgomery, and are governed by the Montgomery Specific Plan, adopted by the Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988 and on September 13, 1988. Short Form of Title of Proposal: "Otay Town II - Rezoning" 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-3, Salt Creek Ranch (continued from 5-23-90) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-12: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, Don Goss (continued from 6-13-90) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Fairway Villas, Chula Vista Tract 90-8 Century American Corp. AGENDA -2- June 27, 1990 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-39: Request to construct a 30-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue - Crandall-Williams OTHER BUSINESS DIRECTOR'S REPORT Agency/Planning Commission meeting on August I6, 1990 regarding Bayfront Draft Environmental Impact Report COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of July 11, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-O-M City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, generally bounded by Orange Avenue, Main Street, Fourth Avenue and Broadway, plus an additional area west of Broadway between Oxford Street and the SDG&E power right-of-way south of valomar ~treet, trom t~elr Clty-aOopteo County zon: classifications to City classifications utilized t~roughout Chu~a Vista. The precise territorial limits and proposed rezonings are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan referred to as Otay Town Part II. An area generally bounded by Oxford Street, Broadway, Orange Avenue and a line 750 ft. west of Broadway and a portion generally bounded by Orange Avenue, Hermosa Avenue, Broadway and an irregular line from Anita Street to approximately 150 ft. north of Main Street. Specifically, this request will convert the existing City-adopted County zoning to City zoning classifications. Those are as follows: A. C36 to C-C-P for the area west of Broadway between Oxford and Palomar Street, for the commercial lots on the southern corners of Broadway and Palomar, and for the lots south of Orange Avenue, west of the mobile home park. B. C37 to C-C-P for two lots south of Orange Avenue between the mobile home park and Broadway. C. RMH9, RMHS, RMHll and RV15 to MHP for the bulk of the subcommunity consisting of the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park, the Continental Country Club, the Hacienda Mobile Estates, the Lynwood South Mobile Home Park and the Granada Mobile Estates. D. RV15 to R-2-P for three residential lots on the south side of Orange Avenue surrounded by the Continental Country Club Mobile Home Park. E. C36 to C-T-P for the Travel Lodge on Broadway. F. RU31 to R-3-P for the Villa de Anita Condominium Complex at the corner of Anita Street and Broadway. G. RU2g to R-3-L for the Casa de Anita subdivision located at the western terminus of Tremont Street, south of Anita Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 2 H. RU29 to R-2-P for the area west of Fourth Avenue between Anita Street and the south side of Zenith Street (the subcommunity Boundary). I. S94 - no change proposed - for the area located within the SDG&E power easement south of Palomar and Orange Avenues. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M. 3. On May 2, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee approved staff's recommendation as noted above [(McFarlin/Roberts) 5-0]. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on the attached Exhibit "A". C. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoning and land use. North C-C commercial C-T-P commercial R-3 single and multi family R-3-P-9 trailer court R-l-7 single family residential dwellings South M52 {County) auto center, retail and repair shops C37 {County) auto shops RU24 {County) motel, trailer parks M52 {County) trailer park, car sales, thrift store, self storage buildings, miscellaneous commercial and light industrial uses City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 3 West I-L-P industrial complex C-C-P commercial complex M52 (County) vacant, church, residential S94 (County) power line easement C36 (County) commercial RU29 (County) trailer park and multi family residential C37 (County) commercial complex East RV15 (County) single family residences S94 (County) power easement RMH13 (County) mobile home park RU29 (County) Montgomery Elementary School, single family, duplex and multi- residential 2. Existing site characteristics. The topography of the area is generally flat with a slight rise toward Orange Avenue to the north. The majority of land area in Otay Town Part II is developed. Only four vacant parcels remain. The predominant land use is residential. Five mobile home parks are situated in the eastern portion of this subcommunity and comprise 527 units. The southeastern corner of the subcommunity is developed with a mixture of single family, duplex and multi unit residences. Two remaining residential areas include condominium units at the north east corner of Anita Street and Broadway and a single story planned community subdivision at the western end of Tremont Street. These two areas add an additional 136 units. The property north of Palomar, on the west side of Broadway, is developed with the Ralph's and Target shopping center. McDonalds is located on the corner of Broadway and Palomar, a Pizza Hut is located at Broadway and Oxford and a variety of other commercial stores and convenience businesses are located on the block as well. Industrial suites facing Oxford Street are built behind the commercial stores. South of Palomar, the commercial uses include similar fast food and convenience commercial stores and auto related businesses. A Travelodge is located further south, on the east side of Broadway. 3. Specific Plan. The Otay Town Part II Subcommunity Area contains several Land Use Designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan (per Exhibit "B"): City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 4 Mercantile & Office Commercial This Designation is applied to two areas in Otay Town Part II: A. The existing commercial development on Broadway and Orange Avenue. This includes the Ralph's/Target shopping center, the Palomar Square Shopping Center (at the southeast corner of Broadway and Orange) and the commercial development on the west side of Broadway, south of Palomar. The proposed zone amendment is from C36 (General Commercial) and C37 {Heavy Commercial) to C-C-P to accommodate the commercial uses that exist on the properties. B. The Travelodge on Broadway, north of Anita Street. The proposed zone amendment is from C36 to C-T-P to accommodate the transit oriented land use. Medium Density Residential, 6 to ll Dwelling Units per Acre This designation is applied to all the mobile home parks located in the subcommunity. The proposed zone amendments include RMH8, RMH9, RMHll and RV15 to MHP. This is a straightforward conversion from County mobile home zoning to the City of Chula Vista equivalent. The numbers included in the County zones refer to the density for that particular area. Parks - Open space / Special study Area This designation is applied to the power line right-of-way area south of Orange Avenue. The proposal is to further study this area and to report back with recommendations on zoning and land use. High Density, 18 to 27 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation is applied to the existing condominium complex at the corner of Broadway and Anita Street. The proposed zone amendment is from RU31 (Urban Residential, 31 dwelling Units per acre) to R-3-P (Apartment Residential with a Precise Plan modifying overlay). This change is consistent with the Specific Plan and existing land use. Medium High Density, 11 to lB Dwelling Units per Acre This designation applies to the subdivision at the western terminus of Tremont Street. The proposed zone amendment is from RU29 (Urban Residential, 29 dwelling units per acre) to R-3-L, (Low-rise apartment Residential). This zone is consistent with the existing land use and Specific Plan designation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 5 Low - Medium Density, 3 to 6 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation is applied to the remaining residential area in Otay Town Part II. Specifically, it applies to the mixture of single family, duplex and multi unit residences west of Fourth Avenue, from Anita Street south to the subcommunity boundary. The proposed zone amendment in this area is from RU29 to R-2-P. The R-2-P designation is a one and two family oriented zone. This designation will provide for the current mix of housing types to continue while allowing Dwelling Groups for multi unit developments on lots of appropriate size. The average lot size in this area is 10,300 square feet. D. ANALYSIS Several factors support the rezonings described above: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone classifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. 2. The rezonings proposed for the residential areas will continue to allow the type of single family and duplex developments as exist in the area today. Additional dwellings on the lots will be allowed where the lots are large enough, without having to subdivide the land. The precise plan modifier will allow for discretionary review of projects prior to building permits. 3. The deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area will allow the city to consider the needs of a park or open space lands in the area of the power line easement. 4. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning, keeping in mind consistency with existing land uses, without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. WPC 7603P (C-C; ~'~' (R- 1-'~-) C-C-P ~ ~. ' 594 (~o to ~($94) MHP RMH8 to MHP Study Area) ~ C. RMH9 (R~H 10) ~ RU31 tO to (M52) RMH11 to MHP ~ (C37') ]:I (M52) ! ~ (RMH1 1) MAIN STREET PROPOSED ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS SCALE: I '= 600' LETTIERI - MclNTYRE and ASSOCIATES &~OFFICE COMMERCIAL , - ~ ~ & RESIDEN~AL ~ (6-1 1 DU/AC) STUDy AREA MEDIUM D~81TY RES~AL -- HIGH DENSI~ (6-1 1 DU/AC) - - HIGH DENSITY RES. MEDIUM DENSITY 1 1-18 RESIDENTIAL ~U/AC) ~ 6-11 · -~ :: DU/AC) MAIN ,-- EXHIBIT B OTAY TOWN PART II -MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS , , SCALE:/I"..= 600' LETTIERI - MclNTYRE and ASSOCIATES EXCERPT FROM MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 5/2/90 MPC MINUTES 3 May 2, 1990 3. PUBLIC HEARING PCZ-90-0-M - City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, generally bounded by Orange Avenue, Main Street, Fourth Avenue and Broadway, plus an additional area west of Broadway between Oxford Street and the SDG&E power right- of-way south of Palomar Street, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throughout Chula Vista. The precise territorial limits and proposed rezonings are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". Zoning and Implementation Consultant Lettieri made the presentation indicating the rezoning involves the Subcommunity referred to as Otay Town Part II. He reviewed the proposed classification changes and the rationale for the changes. He noted that the rezoning would implement the Specific Plan; will continue to allow the type of single- family and duplex developments existing in the area; the deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area would allow the City to consider the needs of a park or open space lands in the area; and the proposed zone amendments represent the best attempt to convert City-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impact and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS- 88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. [(Palmer/McFarlin) 5-0.] MSUC to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of an ordinance to change the zones as described on attached Exhibit "A". [(McFarlin/Roberts) 5-0.] ADDENDUM IS-88-4M MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART III May 6, 1988 1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required unless: a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negattve Oeclaratton due to tile Involvement of new significant environmental tmpacts not considered tn a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located which will require important revisions tn the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered tn a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. Because the preparation of the Montgomery Spectftc Plan has been the subject of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of implementation of the plan, a new initial study (IS-88-~M) was required. Zt is the conclusion of the tnittal study that prior envir~ffmental review of the Montgomery Specific Plan contained wtthtn ]S-88-4M continues to accurately assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional information regarding implementation of the document contained tn part IZI. Previous Project The Montgomery Specific Plan ts a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. ~t contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning all ow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. Proposed Project Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines. Additional Plan Implementation addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review. -2- Analysis 1. Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and whitelands designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required at this time. 2. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas include: a. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. d. Transportation/Access Both Montgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. -3- e. Land Form/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may ~nclude significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will ~w.at this point and no mitigation is required pending future Conclusion The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified in the Negative Declaration issued for case hum · Negative Declaration is o, ....... bet IS-88-4M. There n~ SU~ v. L~ number . f--~, ~-~ II, may also a ~lv t ¢o ~c oo ~ ...... I~ 88-4M, Montgomery S ecific p P~ ~ o ca~. ,~-oo-~m, ~ne ~ontgomery Specific Plan ~II. lan Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that the Montgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the project. L~D.~REID ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 5244P -4- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4M DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Setting The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L" Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. -The subcommunities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. G~neralized existing land use is shown in Exhibit B of this report. Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres (3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within Hontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along Broadway, Main Street and Third Avenue. city of chula vista planning department CI~O~ environmental review section CHI.)[,&. VISTA Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The Chula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every l,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community pdrks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is 100 acres. There are 202 acres of land within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to )36 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include 151 acres located within Castle Park owned by the San Diego Country Club for use as a golf course.) Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands. Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that currently permitteo by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the i.lontgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to t~e west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. B. Project Description The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chuta Vista General Plan. Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I and II of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the implementation phase. ~ additional initial study will be required upon completion of that document. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellin9s per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. C. Compatibility with Zonin9 and Plans Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to methodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Groundwater/Drainage There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west draining into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of this report. 1. Telegraph Canyon Creek The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of the rlontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "j" Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers is engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove properties adjacent to the channel from the 100 year floodplain. The channelization project does not include properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and some areas which are not contained within a channel will continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space {west of Third Avenue subject to further study) and private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent structures anO are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain designation. In addition, since the special study area requires project specific environmental review to assess potential issues with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. 2. Otay River Valley The Otay River Valley bounds the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area south of Main Street between Broadway and Industrial and a small area north of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with industrial buildings under County regulations prior to annexation under development regulations requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when flooOing occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a combination of large inoustrial uses with interim type storage and inOustrial yards, intermixed with residential and commercial uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties. The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County floodplain ~evelopment regulations so that a permanent development pattern has already been establishe~. The area sout~ of ~qain Street is proposed for Research and Industrial land uses subject to special study prior to designation of pemanent land uses. The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposeO for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted until the conlpletion of comprehensive biological and wetlands determination studies, as well as development of a regional park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The special study area and "Whitelands" function ~s a holding designation pending resolution of 'complex environmental and jurisdictional land use issues. As such, no adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social Displacement There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These areas are: l) properties south of Main Street between Date Street and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main Street, an~ 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del h~ar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.) These areas have the potential for displacement o~ residents or people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in land use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows. l) Brodericks Otay Acres The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential streets in combination with the use of private streets and drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single family uses. In May of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow development of multiple units with a density not to exceeo 14.5 net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to return the designated land use to single family development with a density of no more than five dwellings per acre. Since the proposeo land use designation is in keeping with the existing land uses present and the circulation system available, and since there are no actual apartments developed within this subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur from this action. 2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels which access Center Street and Mace Street are currently zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open uses within fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from operation of these businesses. The proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. Properties east of Third ~venue between Naples and Kennedy The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus point for community civic and commercial activities within the area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street. This civic and con~nercial activity center is referred to in the plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus. Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of commercial land use designations along the east side of Third Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations would take place on properties which are currently residential in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing housing as an indirect result of development according to the plan. However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive studies which acdress socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning, and traffic issues." The special study area is structured so that commercial development on properties with existing residential uses is precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected. In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to further environmental study and must include these comprehensive studies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposed action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. Transportation/Access Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to widen the right-of-way for Main Street beneath the MTDB bridge at Industrial 8oulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse environmental impact. Landform/Topography One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, ~loodlawn Park, is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further development of this area for single family residential uses as outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista require that grading and construction permits be obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Given these standard development regulations, no significant and adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep topographic conditions at the plan stage. E. Project Modifications Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and whitelands designations, no mitigation is required. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas are listed as follows: A. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Transportation/Access The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. Landform/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level wi th attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area. 3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified; there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively conservative. 4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gore, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning}, Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1~87 4) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers- Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 1967 5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control dna Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-21§2, 060284-2154, 060284-215~, Federal Emergency Hanagement Agency, June 15, 1964 7) Sout~ Bay Community P).an, County of San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista · lO) Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city o! Chula vista planning department CI~OF environmenlal review section CHUL~ EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT C FOR OFFICE USE Case No. IS-88-65M INITIAL STUDY Fee _ Receipt No. Date Rec'd - City of Chula Vista A ccepted by -- Application Form Project No.~? .~ ~,~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concludin9 part of the three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or regulator.y mechanisms which are designed to execut~ nr Pff~ct~tp Ihe plan. 4. Name of Applicant_. City of Chula Vista, Planninq Department Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101 City Chula Vista State CA Zip_ 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner and Frank j. ~errera, Assistant Address Same as #4 City State Zip Relation to Applicant Agent 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 X 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/B2) 3~3~88 I40NTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT PART THREE PAGE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1 B. Past Plan Implementation 1 C. Present Plan Implementation 2 D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2 II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3 A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3 B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5 3. Special Hontgomery Regulations 6 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8 III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 10 A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls 10 B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12 £. Code Enforcement and Coordination 13 D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13 E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 WPC 4173P DRAFT MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART THREE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, principles, and planning and design proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text. B. Past Plan Implementation Past plan implementation efforts in ~1ontgomery were predicated upon the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery. Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning needs of Montgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation efforts in h~ontgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation, subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and -1- missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust formulated in conjunction with these issues. C. Present Plan Implementation Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of Montgomery and its several subcommunities. D. Proposed Plan Implementation The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban design guidelines. A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from "County Zoning" to "City Zoning." -2- The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It should be recognized that Part Three establishes an Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be undertaken separately. II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by t~e City of Chula Vista upon the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of developments over a broad geographical area. The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipa] Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable. Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista Zoning Plan. While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's identity and unique -3- land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as modified by the special provisions and regulations of the Implementation Program. The "Special Montgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of this section of Part III, shall take precedence over other land use regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them. B. .Proposed ~ont~omery Zoning Plan 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a fundamental basis of the Implementation Program. With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants mentioned in the above paragraph. The ~iontgomery specific Plan's gross residential density categories, as employed in Part lwo, and its net residential density standards, which are fundamental to zoning regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are: "Net residential density is the density of the building site. Gross residential density is the density of the building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections." As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore, if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it has a gross density of lO dwelling units per acre.* 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and changes which are essential to the effective implementation and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning. The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide for the direct translation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is therefore called the "Table of Translation." Gallion & Eisner, in The Urban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is (the) area exclusive of public righ~§-of-way...whereas "gross density" usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by gross density. -5- 3. Special Montgomery Regulations a. Land Use The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a planned equilibrium of medium density residential, park and open space, institutional, commercial, and light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land, such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards, waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and shall not be expanded or continued beyond their existing time limits, or within 24 months after the date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L, Limited Industrial," whichever occurs last. This protracted time limit is designed to provide the involved land users the opportunity to convert their open uses of land into well-designed, authorized light-industrial developments. All of the subject uses which are not time-limited shall be governed by the City's Nonconforming Uses regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. (2) Existin~ vehicular and equipment storage yards and open impounds shall not be governed by the above provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope or tenure. New vehicular and equipment Storage yards or open impounds shall be generally discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under the conditional use permit process. -6- (3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned; thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commission; and, approved under the City's conditional use permit process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use development, residential land use shall not be permitted in industrial or commercial zones. (4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter 5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be prohibited. (5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Hontgomery Planning Committee and the Chula Vista Design Review Committee, may authorize a maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a project proposed for development within an area designated "Low/Medium Density Residential" {3-6 dwelling units per acre). This authorization must be predicated upon the Director's finding that the proposed project would be characterized by outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not become effective or operational in the absence of its ratification by the Planning Commission. The subject residential bonus would not be applicable to a project which qualifies as a Senior Housing Development, as defined in Section lg.04.201 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies for an affordable-housing density bonus under -7- Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government {'ode, or the provisions of the Housing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. b. Height The height of commercial and industrial buildings and structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not exceed two stories, or 28 feet. c. Setbacks All buildings constructed along the Main Street, Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the required setback areas. 4. Townscape Plannin9 and Design Guidelines a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee shall be prerequisite to its approval or conditional approval of a developmental project. b. The Design Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the fundamental guide for the design review of projects proposed for development within )lontgomery. Under special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus, shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning -8- Committee may determine that the townscape-planning guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are appropriate, and may request their employment by the Design Peview Committee. c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be promoted in the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and civic projects. d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which they are located. e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between residential and other land use categories shall be encouraged. f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial project should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of the involved parcel's street frontage. Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum, twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may -9- be permitted through the conditional (major) use permit and design review processes. A directional sign permitted under this provision shall not be located within, or overhang a street right-of-way. g. New development should reflect the basic design character and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high levels of urbanity and sophistication. h. Architectural diversity and freedom should be encouraged in Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, ho~ever, will necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design coordination. i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture, bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered. These features could commemorate the history of the involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence. j. Vertical or. roof-mounted structures which do not make an important design statement should be discouraged. III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLE~.IENTATION A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This process establishes a lot and street pattern, which greatly -lO- influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner. Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and amorphous design. This has significantly impaired the Community's order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and circulation. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical reorganization. Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets; and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially reduce on-street and front yard parking and storage, and thereby improve the overall appearance of Montgomery. Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's subdivision controls, as amended in 'accordance with the above suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Community. -ll- B. Citywide and Special £apital Improvement Pro~ramming Chula Vista's ~!aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major capital improvements of citywide significance. The ~tontgomery Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery planning area to the year 2005. The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as school districts and public utility companies. It will require an annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity. The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement Program could facilitate the advance purchase of public sites at a substantial savings. This program could also encourage private investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate their development prog?ms with those of the City. Capital improvement programming for Montgomery should be oriented toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities. Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan. -12- C. Code Enforcement and Coordination While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the public safety, health, and general welfare, it also provides a plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline; and, promote revitalization. Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation. In t.lontgomery, the code enforcement program should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the Specific Plan. D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of ~ontgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end. These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the selective application of urban renewal measures, such as conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the circumstances of the particular project. 1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal, and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not significant. It often involves the cleaning and sprucing up of residential neighborhoods or commercial areas, and the provision of improved public services, works, and infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively undertaken by neighborhood groups and businesses, and usually do not entail extensive contributions from local government. -13- In tl~e Montgomery Community, where much conservation activity is indicated, the ~ontgomery Planning Committee should promote it on an outreach basis. 2. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of concerted action by the private and public sectors could result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation, the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a general rule, street improvements or additional public facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of dignity," and requires a strong community commitment. Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program. 3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it includes the remedies associated with conservation and rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of buildings; the r?latting of territory; and the expenditure of considerable capital for public improvements. Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within Montgomery, such as ~lest Fairfield, where land must be marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most practical remedy available is redevelopment. -14- E. The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program The Montgomery Neighborhood ~evitalization Program (NRP) is a newly instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program include: -- identification and prioritization of needed public capital improvements; -- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation loan program; -- public education on zoning, building and other City codes; -- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up programs. The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for target-area status: -- need for public improvements; -- need for housing rehabilitation; -- neighborhood character; -- income status; -- demonstration of local support for NRP. -15- IV. CONCLUSION The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives, statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban center in question. The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called "incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally, the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of Montgomery and its several subcommunitie$. WPC 4173P -16- - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* bonsu]tant 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. -8- 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 East West Is the project compatible with the Genera] 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? , i (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect'or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) .~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ,'i ;,~) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School ~.ttendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to he 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) i:~ Natural Gas (per year) ' '' ~later (per day) 6. Remarks: Director oi' Planning or Representative ~-ate G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. ~raina9e 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 anylflooding hazards? _ d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. ~ransportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project (per day)? ~/~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. 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? __ A/~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessar~a~t'ions. - ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction?, Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? . 4, Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ,~/~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site?., b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12- Case Ho. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ~(per day) Factor Pollution co x 1 8.3 Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 = NOx IN02) X 20.0 : Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sulfur ~ X .78 = 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid /sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ ~iqu~d ~' What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? ,~y//~ 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. (Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures , , _ - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPART~IENT . 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 proposed facility without an increase in equipment. or personnel? ' · 3. .Remarks Case No. H. FIRE DEPART)lENT m 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 proposed facility . or personnel?~ without an increase.in equipment Eire Narsha! - 14 - 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 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a.Does the project s'ite 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? ~ -15- YES POTENTIAL NO 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? _L~~ _ b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorptio~ 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. ~esou/ce~ -- -- Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources uhich can be economically extracted? ~ v~~ 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?' ~ ~V YES POTENTIAL 7. Air Oual ity a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile Source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes or smoke? ' Emissions which could degrade the ambient air quality? -. Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference ~ith the maintenance, of standard air quality? The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies ~RAQS)? 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public wa~er supplies? 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? -- .. b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? -17- YES ~OTENTIAI_ N~O 10. Biology - a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontologica)~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 ~t~ - a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation _ Scenic Highways - - Conservation _ Housing Noise _ - Park and Recreation ~.~~ ~ ._~ Open Space _ Safety Seismic Safety - Public Facilities --~ - 18 - YES POTENTIAL b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a new light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in. The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? The~ntial demand for additional housing or afl--existing housing? 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the con~nunity 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 POT£N?IAL NO 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. ~til i_~ties -" Could the project result in a need for new systems or alternatives to the following utili.ties: 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 o? any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-rene~able natural resources? _ _., - 20 - YES POTENTIAL NO 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ~ 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? ~J 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, whil~ 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 ~vhen 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? - 22 - K. DETERM/NATION On the basis of this initial study: C~It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. _ It is recommended that the decision making authority find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. _ It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. _ It ~s found that further information ;.lill be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. onmenta~Revi~w Oordinato~ -- Date-- WPC 0169P City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft EIR-89-3 Salt Creek Ranch A. BACKGROUND The Draft of this EIR was issued for Agency and public review on April 3 1980. The State Clearing House (SCH) review concluded mid-May, 1990. Under new State law, which was effective January 1, 1990, State review of environmental documents must conclude prior to local review periods. Letters of comment from state agencies include the following (attached): 1. Cover letter from the SCH 2. CalTrans District 11 3. Department of Water Resources 4. Department of Fish and Game 5. Department of Food and Agriculture From other agencies 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 7. SANDAG 8. Chula Vista City School District 9. Sweetwater Union High School District (4/25/90 and 5/22/90) 10. Chula Vista Department of Parks and Recreation ll. Chula Vista Police Department 12. Chula Vista Fire Department 13. Chula Vista Public Works/City Engineer 14. Duane Bazzel, Senior Planner 15. The Baldwin Co. (5/16/90 and 5/21/90) 16. City of San Diego Water Utilities Department Salt Creek Ranch is a 1,200 acre property located in east Chula vista. A General Development Plan (GDP), annexation to the City of Chula Vista and pre-zone for development of the property are currently under consideration by the city of Chula Vista. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assesses potential environmental impacts of the proposed GDP, annexation and change in the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence. B. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing and take any testimony relevant to the Draft EIR. The final EIR and other environmental documents will be scheduled for consideration at the time of hearing on the Prezoning and GDP. - ~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 2 C. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES During preparation of this Draft EIR for the Salt Creek Ranch project, the CEQA revi ew process reveal ed issues of concern to the city and vari ous environmental impacts of the project. The most significant impacts are those related to biological resources, locations of open space and recreation areas, and locations of public facilities, specifically school, fire station and church sites. In an attempt to reduce or eliminate those impacts, the appl icant refi ned the project descri pti on, creati ng Desi gn Alternative A, as illustrated in Figures 5-1 through 5-5. Alternative A was resubmitted to the city as the revised General Development Plan (GDP) in December 1989. The following paragraphs describe the resubmitted Alternative A, discuss the differences between the two plans (originally submitted GDP versus Alternative A), and evaluate significant environmental issues of alternative A as compared to the original GDP. 1. Description of Alternative A GDP Illustrated in Figure 5-1, Alternative A proposes a mix of uses similar to the original GDP. Refinements in land use acreages, as compared to the original GDP, are shown in Table 5-1. Under Alternative A, a range of densities under each category is proposed to provide flexibility; the total number of residential units would range from 2,765 to a maximum of 3,755. The proposed density ranges exceed those permitted in the General Pl an as the density calculations incorrectly included school and church sites in the net acreages. The confi gurati on of resi denti al development and open space in the southeast site area is changed in Alternative A to conserve a portion of sensitive biological resources (see Biological Resources Section 3.7 and evaluation below). The private east-west recreation belt in the northeast has been removed in the Alternative A Plan, although a trail corridor is now included in the same area (see Figure 5-5), to be further described and defined at the SPA Plan level and reflected in precise plans for individual development enclaves. The equestrian center has been replaced with a smaller equestrian staging area within the community park. The total amount of open space is increased in Alternative A to 362.6 acres (Table 5-1). Alternative A identifies specific locations for public facilities and institutional uses which were not identified in the original GDP. Figures 5-1 and 5-4 illustrate the locations of these uses and Table 5-1 shows acreages. A l-acre fire station is now included in the GDP, located at the southeast project boundary adjacent to the Salt Creek I property. Two 10-acre elementary school sites are reflected in Alternative A (whereas one elementary school site is identified in the ori gi nal GDP): one site is located next to a nei ghborhood park at the southwest project corner abutting the EastLake Business Park, and the other is at the central, north project boundary adjacent to a City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 3 church site, open space and a low-density residential enclave (Figure 5-1). Two church sites are identified in the Alternative A GDP, located adjacent to parks, open space and/or residential areas. No church sites are identified in the original GDP. 2. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Overall impacts to the existing visual open space resources of the site are generally similar between the two plans. From a regional perspective, Alternative A plan will contribute to the unavoidable, significant cumulative impact on the existing natural aesthetic character of the area, simply by converting the land to urban uses, as does the original GDP. Minor refinements in school site and residential locations will reduce potential aesthetic-related land use interface impacts, specifically at the southwest project corner where the project abutt the EastLake Business Center. The Alternative A GDP proposes a greenbelt buffer along the south project edge, and positions an elementary school and park site further buffer residential uses from the business park. This will reduce potential aesthetic impacts previously associated with this area of the project. At the southeast project edge, residential development has been pulled back to respect the sensitive adjacent Upper Otay Reservoir and effectively reduce impacts. The project design has been reconfigured to enlarge the southeast open space and community park area reducing aesthetic impacts to the Otay Lake area. Sensitive site design and buffering will be required along portions of the eastern project boundary where development is proposed, to minimize impacts of residential development on areas to the east. Alternative A was initiated in response to biological impacts identified with the original plan (see Biological Resources discussion below) and also reflects a more sensitive project design from an aesthetic standpoint. 3. Biological Resources Impacts The alternative design open space concept plan calls for 252.2 acres of natural open space. The overall open space design is an improvement over the proposed open space plan with respect to providing adequate habitat for wildlife existing within the open space. Continuity between open space areas onsite and offsite is significantly better than the proposed plan. Impacts to native plant communities and sensitive animals are reduced in the alternative design compared to the proposed design. Most of the areas in which California gnatcatchers were sighted and two cactus wren habitat patches would be preserved with the alternative design. Impacts to City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 4 wetland areas would affect 0.7 acre with the alternative design, compared to 2.1 acres with the proposed design. Impacts to native grassland is slightly reduced, from 14.6 acres with the proposed design to 12.0 acres with the alternative design. Mitigation Riparian Wetlands Impacts to riparian wetlands shall be mitigated in the form of onsite habitat creation and/or enhancement. A 2:1 mitigation ratio is considered adequate for the loss of habitat value onsite. Suitable areas for wetland restoration include the Salt Creek corridor and the riparian habitat found within the proposed community park area. Coastal Sage Scrub Over 56 percent {207.6 acres) of the existing coastal sage scrub habitat onsite is being preserved in natural open space; approximately 158 acres of sage scrub, however, will be affected. This amount of open space to be preserved is in conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan. The City of Chula Vista, however, considers losses of greater than 5 acres of sage scrub significant. To reduce this impact to sage scrub, areas vegetated with disturbed grassland within natural open spaces shall be revegetated with native sage scrub species. 4. Cultural Resources The reconfigured development and open space areas of the Alternative A GDP show no significant differences in impacts to historic and archaeological resources. A minor reduction in impact to sites SDI-4776, -6961 and -6963 may be realized by the Alternative A Plan due to a change in the residential development area along the site's northwest boundary. The extent of impact reduction is probably not significant because this large archaeological site would require a data recovery program regardless of specific development edges. In summary, implementation of measures cited in Section 3.8 of the EIR would serve to reduce impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance. 5. Traffic and Circulation Similar residential densities are proposed in the Alternative A GDP compared to the original GDP, thus similar traffic generation impacts would result. Impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance by measures cited in this EIR. Regarding locations of institutional uses from a circulation standpoint, access to the fire station as illustrated in the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 5 . Alternative A plan has bee~ conceptually approved by the City Fire Department following extensive negotiations, and. the school site locations and configuration~ have been approved in concept by the CVCS~. The Alternative A~DP represents an improvement over the original GDP from this perspective, site-specific ?clave design and access issues would be further addressed appropriately at the SPA Plan level of planning, m 6. Noise and Air Quality Because the Alternative A plan proposes similar residential densities, noise and air ( ality impacts are expected to be similar to the original GDP impa~ is discussed in this EIR. Onsite noise impacts can be mitigate( by site design and noise attenuation measures which would be vailable at design states. Long-term regional air quality impact will be cumulatively significant as with the original plan; short-t, 'm impacts can be mitigated by measures herein. 7. Parks and Recreation The Alternative A plan proposes a revision from the original GDP regarding the configuratiol and types of recreation and open space areas. The Community P~rk in the site's southeast has been acres to 54.8 reconfigured towards the s(uth and expanded (from 28.4 acres). This change evol"ed from discussions with the city, and represents a positive effect on the project's recreation system. However, as is noted in the letter from Parks and Recreation Department, the preferred location for the Community Park would be adjacent to the Salt Cree greenbelt. The drainage course of the identified community park would then be retained in a natural condition. 8. Recent Field Work Recent field work with pro ect biologists, representatives of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and city staff here revealed il ~ortant facts that could impact the design of the project. a. Important open space inks through the project which provide which provides wild life corridors through the project site from Mt. Miguel/Mother Mi§~el to Otay Lakes/Jamul mountains may not be adequate. This i$ a very important factor because this area is a constraint in t~~ freedom of movement of wildlife from one lace to another (see fig. 3-lb, pg 3-3). large area of open s These linkages or cor idors must be adequately maintained if the overall retention of wildlife is to be maintained. It is the opinion of the Wildlife agencies that the proposed plan does not provide adequate linklges. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 6 b. It is the opinion of the wildlife agencies that the best locations for mitigations of wetlands impact (i.e. no net loss) would be in the area of the proponent proposed Community Park. Preservation of this area and other upstream areas could mitigate wetlands impact of Salt Creek I and this project. Such a mitigation program would require the relocation of the Community Park out of the eastern area. WPC 7783P DIEGO FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA · 401 B STREET. SUITE 600 , SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 - 4229 · Mail Station 960 ENGINEERING DIVISION ~AY 2 5 WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT May 23, 1990 533-5200 ~ Environmental Review Coordinator City of Cbula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Subj eot: Salt Creek R~nch Draft Enviro~ment-al T--pact Report The City of San Diego Water Utilities Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Salt Creek Ranch Project prepared for the City of Chula Vista and offers the following comments. Drainage from the Salt Creek project constitutes a portion of runoff that normally reaches the Upper and Lower Otay Lakes. The EIR notes tbe potential water quality impacts of urbanization and recommends a diversion ditch, or other plan, acceptable to the City of Chula Vista and Department of Health Services, to mitigate these impacts. The EIR should also state that this plan must be acceptable to the City of San Diego. These reservoirs are an important potable water supply for the City of San Diego, and runoff must be controlled to reduce any threat to public health. The EIR recommendations sbould fully mitigate adverse impacts. These impacts include water quality degradation due to urban pollutants, irrigation runoff and percolation, and increased public access. The EIR should state that any plan developed to mitigate these impacts must address the possibility of failures in the adjacent sewage collection system, increased levels of nutrients, salts, and pesticides from landscape irrigation, and petroleum products from surface street runoff. The City of San Diego will also require developments in the watershed to bear both the initial capital costs and reoccurring operation and maintenance costs of the mitigation facilities, including the cost of lost water yield, if any. We appreciate the opportunity to comment at this time and wish to work with you on this issue. If you need additional information, please contact me at 533-5149. TIBO~ Senior Civil Engineer Engineering Division TV:bi cc:¥. Saitsk± E. Chert The lhddwhl. Compan~ May ltl, 1990 Douglas R. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chttla Vista, California 9~010 Re: Dra/t Environmental Impact Report for Salt Creek Ranch (EIR 89-:5) D~ar Mr. Reid: The Baldwin Compaw appreciates this oppommity to comment on the Draft Envimnraental Impact Report ("Draft t/IR") for the Salt Creek Ranch development project. Although the Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes the potential ~i~i~icant envircmmental effects associated with this project, w~ have prepared the following comments for review and consideration. GIi:NI/;RAL COMMF_,N~ During preparation of the Drai~ EIR, certain potentially sll/nificant effects were identified with r~spect to thc originally propo~d p~:ojcct. By working with City staff and its EIR consultant, The Baldwin Company refined the project and created a design alternative (Dedgn Alternative A) to reduce or eliminate the identified impacts of the original project, The Baldwin Company then resubmitted to {he City a rev/sod General Development Plan to incorporate Design Alternative A, and to evaluate the potential environmental effects of that design altemat/ve as compared to the original proposed project. The Draft contains a thorough analyais of Design Alternative A at pages 5-2 through 5.14, The Baldwin Company /s therefore proposing that the C/t/ consider approval of Design Altematiwe A as the proposed project, By considering approval of Design Ahemative A, the City will promote the requirements in CEQA w consider alternatives which minimize potentiRl~y significant environmental effects associated with a proposed project. 11975 I~1 C~cdxto Real · Suite 200 · ~ Diego, CA 92130 * (619) 259~2900 Douglas R. Reid May 1~ 1990 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. At page 1-1, ~e se~nd p~a~aph under '~ronmenml Proc~d~es" ~co~cfly rites co,eot citation is: ~omia Code of Re~ations ~15000 et ~. , ~:. :.Z . At page 1-~ ~ Draft EIR ~co~orates ~ ~feren~ ~ ~.~ which was prepaid ~d ~d for the ~ of ~ula Vista's GenerE Plan Update. C~OA ~idet~es ~mit an EIR to inco~orate other relevam do~ents as lon~ as the other doc~en~ are a matter of public re,rd ~d gener~y avElable to ~e publi~ See, ~delinus ~15150. ~ documents whose contents are ~co~ora~d ~ reference, hoover, m~t ~ made ~flable ~.public ~eaion at a public place or public bufld~t ~d the ~co~ora~g ~IR must sta~ where such inspection can be undert~en. ._~de~es ~15150~). In li8ht of th~se leg~ requirements, th~ ~feren~ to EIR 88-2 should ~ e~anded to ~clude ~formafion relatini lo where ~e public can find ~d :gtg~..to empty tierS, in ~der: to avoid repetifi~ness, wasted t~e and p~mamre speculation, the preparation of tiered EIRs ~1 not necessar~y be ~quired for all subsequent actMties or approvals for this project, Before deriding wh~thcr tiering may be u~ed for.later projects, the lead agen~ must conduct an i~tial study to detemine whether the project may ~use any po~ntia~ si~ficant en~ronmental effects not anal~ed ~ a prior EIR. Guidelines ~151~2(d). ~mr ~e initial study, if the public agen~ should find that fur~er en~ronmental documentation is wqui~d, then it can ~quest prep~afion of either an EIR (possibly a tiered ~R), a supplemental EIR, an addendum m ~ e~sting EIR, or a Negative Decimation. In H~ht of these comments, this Section should be reused to cla~ that subsequent ~screfiona~ acti~ties ~lafing to t~s project ~11 not necessary require a tiered 4. At page 1-3, the Dr~t EIR pro, des a s~aU of impacts. Under the land ~e impacts, the Draft SIR states that the project's proposed densiW is '~consistent' ~th the Ci~'s General Plan. ~is statement should ~ deleted from the Dr~ EIR for the reasons we have identified in our comments on the ~nd Use Impact ~Eysis. (See pages 4, 5, coment ~ of t~s letter.) f. At page 1-3, the Draft EIR pro, des as a ~tigation measure reducing th~ d~nsiw of the project to levels "ac~ptable to the CiS'." ~is prop()sed mitigation should Douglas R. Reid May 16, 1990 Page 3 be deleted from the Draft EIR for the reasons we have identified in our comments on the Land Use Impact Analysis. (See pages $, 6, comment 3, of this letter.) 6, At page 1-3, the Draft EIR states that the impact relating to the "inconsistency" of the proposed project with the General Plan has not been mitigated. This statement should be deleted from the Draft I:!IR for the reasons we have identified in our comments on the l..nd Use Impact Analysis. (See pages 4-6, comments 2, 3, of this letter.) S~:'no,~/P,~ Lo~ U~ Im,,~cr A.,~,~,,,s~s/3.1.3-12 1. At page 3-6, ~e Dr~t EIR discusses ~e Chula Vhta General Plan ~nd Use Desi~afion~ Because ~e ~ Council has ~nfly ~ended ~e lan~age ~ ~e l~nd U~ Element o~ ~e ~ula Vista Genera Plan Upda~, the ~= ~ ~is See~on of the Dra~ E~ should ~ flele~fl and the foxing te~ should ~ included for clarification pu~oses: ~e ~W of ~a Vista Gener~ PI~ Upda~ desi~ates Salt ~eek R~ch for three residential ~tegofies: Residential ~w, Residenti~ ~w- Medium ~d Resident/al Medium. ~ese areas are sho~ on Fibre 3-2. The Residential ~ catego~ includes sin~e-5~ detached dwe~ngs on large rural and estate.~ lots ~ densities r~ng ~om zero to ~ree ~elling uMts per ~oss acre. ~is is also the appropriate residential land use for areas ~ variable terrain of relatively steep slo~s and ~e areas adjacent to ~e proposed G~en~lt. In addition, under the con.pt of cluster development, s~e family deta~ed ~el~gs on ~imum 7,000 squa~ foot lots may ~ pe~tted. ~e Residential ~w. Me~ catego~ Mcludes sEgle-f~ily detached ~ellings on me.urn si~ lots ~th densities ran~ng ~om three to s~ dwelt units per ~oss acre. ~though not a ~um or a standard, ~ese ~eas ~e ~ically 7,000 square foot 1o~. In addition, under ~e con.pt of cluster development, sinCe-family dwellings on smaller lots, zero lot ~ne houses, and some sin~e-family attached units (townhouses and patio homes) could also ~ consistent ~th this desi~ation. ~e Residential Me.urn catego~ ~cludes small s~gle-f~fly, detached u~ts on smaller lots, zero lot line homes, patio homes ~d attached ~ts, such as duplexes and to.houses ~th densities ran~ng from sk to Douglas R. Reid May 1~, 1~0 Page 4 ~ . .eleven dwelling ~mits..per gross acm; This :category:also includes:~mobile With.,tl~e ex~ptio~ O~:an a/oprox/mately .~en acre R~identi~LLow-: :_-.::: .Medium.area in:the~lmcthern, po~/on.of the:site, al] of the Salt C"rcekRanch .:;'.: - .property east of Salt Creek hde~igna~.d for :Residential Low uses, .The_on~ ~ :::~ site area:west of Sa]~ Creek is designated primarily for:Residential :Low- Medium uses with the exception of the most southwesterly corner of the property which is a desigrlat__e..d_R_e~s.!d, en_ti~ Medium on the General Plan. The lower end of the range in each residential land referred to as '~aseline," and the upper end is referred to as "maximum," The point between the lower and upper end is the "midpoint," The appropriate gross, density.for, pr_oject imp. lementat/on, within any_g/yen_range · . is determined based oft-the~ objealti~,¢ er/teria.provided.in: .$ecti0n~ 6 __ ~'.: .Germl~tl Pla,ri;Land Use Element,-.~There is.tm density within.the range whi¢h ~ '- ;i/assumed to be.more~dcsirable than:any:other; The City Council, after.: ;'.:.'~? review by the Planning Commission, may determine that the appropriate density for a project should be above the midpoint if the project contains featurei, which ~pravide. except/ana~ ~,nd: :cx~ram'dinat~:. !esidentS of:the Civj:of-Chula~.Vist~, ~s:interprel~d by the CRy Cotmc/].. ' T~ausfer of density is permitted f~om an open space area designated on the General Plan, within the boundaries of a project. _Thi.s density.may be tramfe~ed:to a residential development area at the rate of o~e dwelling unit per tell acres. The transfer shall not result in a gross density which exceeds the "maximum density" for the range. 2, At page 3-10, the Draft £IR discusses the consistency of the proposed p~oj~ct with the General Plan and zoning, Specifically, the third paragraph makes refezence to Section 6.2 of the General Plan Land Use Elemem and the Planning Department's determination that the project's density is 'inconsistent' with the General Plan. The City has recently amended the language in the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan Update, The re-,4sed Element now gives the City Council the discretionary authority to determine that the appropriate density for a project should above the midpoLnt if the project contains features which provide exceptional and extraordinary benefits to the residents of the City of Chul~ Vista. Thus, although the Planning Department makes the i~itial determination relating to the appropriate density ~or this project, and the Planning Commission reviews the Planning Department's recommendation, the Council has the discretion to determine whether the appropriate density for th~s project should be above the midpoint. Until the City Council determines thc appropriate density for this project, the Draft EIR should only reference the Pin,ming Douglas R. Reid May l6, 1990 Page5 Department's initial determination regarding the project's consistency with the General Plan. At this point, then, the statement in the Draft EIR relating to the project's 'Enconsistency" with the General Plan should be deleted, and the following text should be included: A maximum of 3,644 units are proposed within the Salt Creek Ranch. The proposed number of units is in the high density range permitted on the property. Section 6.2 of the General Plan Land Use Element specifically provides that the City Council, after review by the Planrdng Commission, may determine that the appropriate density for a project should be above the midpoint if the project contains features which provide exceptional and extraordinary benefits to the residents of the City of Chula Vista. Thus, although the Planning Department has made an initial determination, the City Council has the discretion to determine the appropriate density for this projcct. 3. Beginning at page 3-11, the Draft EIR discusses mitigation measures relating to the project's land use compatibility. At page 3-12, Paragraph No. 5 discusses implementation of measures to "mitigate" the project's density. The proposed mitigation measure is: "The project shall reduce the proposed number of units to density levels acceptable to the City." Both CEQA and the Guidelines specifically address the issue of whether a lead agency emu reduce the number of housing units as a mitigation measure in a housing development project. Guidelines Section 15092(e) provides in part: "[w]ith respect to a project which includes a housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation." As provided in Guidelines Section 15021(d)" ... a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety o£ public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian." See also Pub.Res. Code §§21000(g), 21001(d). Based on CEQA and the Guidelines, when a proposed project includes the development of new housing, the lead agency must not reduce the number of housing units as a mitigation measure when comparable mitigation could be achieved through other feasible specific mitigation measures. The Draft EIR has identified potentially significant environmental effects wMch may result from this project. Some of these effects may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed density of the project. These effects include: land use, project-specific traffic, noise, shorMerm air quality, and projeet-specif/c publ/e services and utilities. The Draft EIR concludes, however, that these potentially significant effects will be mitigated to Douglas R. Reid May 16, 1990 Page 6 ~ninsigniflcant level hy irn?lementation:ofrthe recommended mitigation measures already identified in,the l~aftEIR. ~:The~Draft:EIR also identifieg~Potentially significant effects wh/ch~cannot be~mitigated~ta below a level' oft significance through' the ~peififi~ 'mit/gation measures identified (eg., biological impacts to coastal sage/grasslands, cumulative long- term air qual/vd impacts, and cumulative impacts on aesthetics and agricultural land conwrsion)~-~Ho~ver, the ty General. Plan ant~pated thes~ effects from~a regional standpo/nt. ~When~te'EIR:for the General Plan was certified, the C/vd.also adopted m/tigafion'measuresand made a Statement of Oven'/ding Consklera~ons, whkh addressed these environmental effects, The cRrremly proposed project is cons/stent with thc effects identified in the~Gencral Plan EIR. For these reasons, the City should not consider reducing the number of hc~dng un/ts in ~the Salt Creek -Ranch project as a further mitigation measure because mitigation has been achieved through spec/ftc mitigation measures~ already ident/fled ir~the~Draft F_IR and the General Plan'-l~IR. ~-The proposed mitigation measure in the Draft EIR relating to reduce/on /n the.proposed number of housing'un/ts should be deleted. .4. ~t:page. 3.124 the Draft .F_.IR ptovi~lcs an '~'analys/~o/significanc~'~ ~iisc~ss/on. 'Thh~S¢c~ar~ provides ~ par~:~ '.~t]he project is noLin conformance with Section 6.2 of the /~und~Use ~Elemcnt~beca~se ' it proposes a- restdemial cle~sivd i~ thc- 1~igh d~mity ~ range .without prov/ding cxccl~t/onal~and~cx~raordtna~ be~eflts for: the residents'. of-the Civdf .As prmimm'y sta~edr.the rev/scd Land Use Element g/yes the City Council the discretionary author/vd to determine that the appropriate density for a project should be above the midpoint if thc project contains features which prov/de exceptional and c~raordinary bencfit~ to the residents of the City of Chula Vista, as interpretc//' b~the' City Council after teview~y-the: Plannirig. Commiss/on, This ~$ection should therefore be deleted and replaced with the followinE language which is consistent with the revised Land Use Element: Section 6.2 of thc Land Usc FAcmcnt provides that the City Council may determine that thc appropriate density for a project should be above thc midpoint of the range if thc project contains features which prov/de exceptional and extraordinary benefits for the rcs/dents of thc C/ty of Chula Vista as interpreted by the City Council. This project proposes a residential density in thc high density range. Therefore, the C/Vd Council must make a determination as to whether the density for this project should be above the midpoint. Douglas R. Reid May 16, 1990 Page 7 ~ec~ Janua~ 1, 1989, a new req~rement was ~posed on pubic agencies, ~d ~ ~p~cagon p~vatc project applicants, which pr~des ~at eve~ project appro~d ~at ~cludes mi~ga~on measures must ~ co. red ~ a reporting or monito~g pro.am. ~e repor~g or mo~to~g pro~ is not req~md to ~ included in the ~R; ra~er, it m~t ~ adopted ~ ~c lead and respons~le agencies when ~ey make ~eir required ~gs p~su~t to Public Resour~s ~de ~ction 21081(a). However, preparers of th~ ~R should d~clop ~e monito~ng pro.am ~ conjunction ~ ~e E~ in order to help ensure ~at ~tigation mcasu~s c~ be monitored. S~'nol~fP~g: Coswmaos o~ AGmcw'mp.~ L~'~-D~ ~3-13 - 3-15 1. ~ning at page 3-13, the Draft EIR discusses ~e conversion of agri~lt~al lands. San Diego ~CO has d~vclo~d an A~icult~al ~d Open Spa~ Mnds Presc~afion Poli~ for the ~sposifion of annexation proposals ~voMng ~e conversion of a~ic~tur~ or open spa~ l~ds to urban uses. Because ~is Draft ~R assesses poten~al si~ificant en~ronmental ~ffgcts of ~e proposed annexation to the Ci~ of Chula Vista, this Section of the DraR EIR should be m~sed to ~clude a discussion of ~s Po~ and its relagonship to the proposal project. Te= similar to ~e follo~ng should ~ ~cluded: ~o~a law requires ~at ~COs consider the effect of ma~tainint ~e physical and economic imc~i~ of a~cultural land when dete~inin~ an ~exa~on proposal. In re~ew~g, appro~n~ or disappro~n~ annexation proposals, ~COs must usc th~ follo~ policies: (1) development must be ~idcd away from e~s~int p~m~ a~cult~al lands toward areas ~nta~int non-p~ a~culmral l~ds. unless such an action would not promote thc pla~ed, orderly, efficient development of ~ area; and (2) development ~thin an a~en~'s e~st~ jurisdiction or spMra of influen~ should be ~nco~agcd ~fore appr~E of any annexation to that agen~ which wo~d lead to conversion of e~sting o~n spa~ lands to other than open spa~ uses. ~en rc~e~n~ an annexation proposal which ~ l~ad to the conversion of atrlcultural or open spa~ land to urban uses, ~COs must dcte~e whether thc annexation would: {a) adversely affect ~ a~cultural resour~s of the commuE~; or (b) not promote the Douglas R. Reid May 16, 1990 Page 8 . :: :':: planned, orderly,:efficiel~t~devetop, ment of an area. by considering the following criteria: (1) the agricultural s/gn/ficance of the proposal Z~: :. :area;.~el~five to :other- agric, ult~_rst lands in::~e region;- (2) .the: ~e.e: -' ::-.: _: :. ::vaine of the: proposal: area and sm'roundirig pa. rcels; (3)whether~ny : -'-; --, of. ih~zproposakarca: /s :designated for~ agricultural_preservation !l~ -- .~ : :adopted-.locaLplans;:including_Local Coastal:Plans andP. he Co_Unty : :_:r:.:.Agricultural:Element; 'and:whethen (i) public facilities would:be ":; - ~:' ' extended through~or: adjacent to any other agricultural, lands to_. .... . _c ~ "provide-serv/ces to-'the' development anticipated on-'the .proposal .... property;, (ii) the proposal :ar~a is adjacent to or surrounded by existing urban or resident/al development; (iii) the surrounding parcels may be expected to develop to urban uses within the next five y~ars; and (iv) the nalur~l' or 'fii~in---~--de barriers would serve to buffer the proposal area from existing urban uses. 2. At page 3-13~ the Draft t/IR states that the project site "is not a significant contributor to: the :agricultural-production.or economy:.of San .D/ego County,-": and: that norie-~of'xhe land on the ~mject Site~Consldered '.'prime" agricultural, land,: This Sect/on .of the-D, ra/t:EIR shatfld be expande/txo include:the follc~ng additional information: proper~ls:tocata-d;i~ I/a area l~lanned, f~r- urbanization, and.~s-not. i':~.designated for:agricultural prese._r~..~ion by any~:tocal plato ~i:~p01icie. s.-~' Conversion of the property to urban uses would therefore not adversely affect the agricultural resources of the community and would be consistent with LAFCO policy regarding a~ricuhural preservation. With respect to conversion of open space lands, thc project site is designated for urban levels of d~velopmen~ by the Chula Vista General Plan and is consistent with land use designations included in the General Plan, Over 30% of the proposed project is designated for open space uses. With the exception of 240-acres in the northeastern portion of the project siie, the entire properly is within the City of Chula Vista's sphere of influence. The portion of the project site located outside the City's sphere of influence is designated by the Salt Creek Ranch GDP for undeveloped open space and estate development with lots ranging from ¼. P: acre in size. The proposed project represents orderly, planned development within the City of Chula Vista's sphere of influence and would be consistent with 'LAFCO pohcy regarding open space lands preservation. 3. At page 3-13, the third paragraph under "Soil Suitability for Agriculture" incorrectly cites to Government Code Section $11!.01. The correct citation is Government Code Section $1201(c), Douglas R. Reid May 16, 1990 Page 9 $~cnon/P, cE: Btowc~C,L R~o~cm A~sxs/3J5.3.59 .at page 3-$4, the Draft EIR provides in part: "[g]rading shall be prohibited during the rainy season (November through March)." This proposed mitigation measure has not been implemented previously within Chula Vista and its implementation would severely and unnecessarily impact development of the proposed project. At page 3-35, the Draft EIR proposes a more reasonable mitigation measure to protect water quality. This mitigation measure is as follows: "If any portion of the project is proposed to be 8ratted during the rainy season, the project proponent shall submit a (sic) erosion control plan prepared by a reg/stered civil engineer in accordance with City of Chula Vista design standards. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of ~rading permits and shall include placement of sandbags, tcmpora~ sediment basins, and an erosion control maintenance plan." This mitigation measure will also protect biological resources and is a sound alternative to thc originally proposed measure. The proposed mitigation on page 3- 54 should therefore be deleted and replaced by this mitigation. S~CT~on/P~,i~E: Pts,.lc S~v~c~s ~n U~,.~/3-92.3-117 At page 3-95, the Draft FIR states in part: '~'he current maximum day demand (exerted by EastLake development) is 2,000 gpd in the 980 zone." This sentence incorrectly cites to "gl)d." The correct citation is gpm. $xcTIol~/P~E: ALTI~.~,TIVES TO mE PROJI/CT/5-1 - 5-16 1. At page 5-1, the Draft EIR refers to CEOA §15126(d)(3). This cite is incorrect. This cite should be revised as follows: Guidelines §15126(d)(3). 2. At page 5-1, the first paragraph refers to Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR. This reference is incorrect. The proper reference is Section 1.2. 3. At page 5-10, the Draft FIR states in part: 'The Alternative A GDP is inconsistent (in density) with the recently adopted (July 1989) City General Plan (Figure 3- 2), as is the original GDP .... If developed above the midpoint densiE,., the project would not be in compliance with the General Plan, as the Planning Department has determined that the Mternative would not provide exceptional and extraordinary benefits to the Douglas R. Reid May 16~ 1990 Page 10 residents.of Chula Vista: .... The pro~posect densities are inconsistent with the General Plan, as with the original GDP." These statements should be deleted from the Draft ErR for th~ .reasons. we lmve_i~_nt~led ~in-our co~ments on: the-Land Use Imvact:~Anal~sis. ~:.: .::..4, c. :~:At pn~.5-1~ ~the~aft ErR statesrthe :recommended mitigation .meaSures !0!:0vialed on.pages-3~5;7 t~ 3~_9. also apply:toz'!the~atternative design;" These r¢commeriided .l~itigation .measures are aslfollowsl "leencing shall be .installed as feasible and acc.eptable .to; ~ ..City .around: .natural open-~space- .area. to :prevent adverse impacts to biological resources from domestic pets. and human activity,_ An alternative would be the planting of bamer_p ant species that weald discourag~ pedestrian acuwty into_ open space areas No.active.uses shallbe planned in;the open space easements .....Additional trails or ;re-~cre, atiollat acii~tiei-~h~eh 'would promote- pedestrian activity in ~pem space: areas at the expeitse.of wildlife shall riot_be constrtlcted? Implementation of these mitigation :r~azures would preclude ~human. use. of the open space and the proposed trail system. They would therefore prevent the City from achieving its General Plan objectives relating to open space/greenbelt/trails and limit human use of the community's open space resources. A workable compromise between biological resource protection and human use has been achieved in Design Alternative A. See pages 5-8 - 5-10. Therefore, this Section should be revised tO illclude, a sta~t~men~t that these mitigation measures are inapplicable to Design Alternative A. 5, At page 5-11, the last paragraph provides an analysis of mitigation to reduce the impact Design Alternative A will have on the coastal sage scrub. This Section provides in part: "Over 56 percent (207,6 acres) of the existing coastal sage scrub habitat onsite is being preserved in natural open space; approximately 158 acres of sage scrub, however, will be affected." The ErR for the City of Chula Vista General Plan Update (ErR 88-2) notes, at page 3-23, that about 60 percent of the present sage scrub within ~e General Plan area would be affected with build-out of the General Plan including that associated with development of the Salt Creek Ranch property, Thus, the amount of coastal sage scrub affected under Design Alternative A is consistent with the impact identified in the General Plan ErR. This Section of the Draft EIR should therefore be revised to include the following statement: "The amount of coastal sage scrub habitat onsite that will be affected is consistent with that anticipated in thc Chula Vista General Plan Update ERR." 6. At page 5-11, the last paragraph states in part: "This amount of open space to be preserved is in conformance with the Chnla Vista General Plan." The Draft EIR shoulcl be revised to emphasize that the open space design under Design Alternative A has been improved over that anticipated in the General Plan as a result of investigation of coastal sage scrub habitat on-site. In particular, the eastern panhandle area, designated for development on the Chula Vista General Plan, is designated for open space on Design Alternative A in order to preserve on-site gnatcatcher and cactus wren populations and to DouE)~) R. R~id May 1~, 1990 Page 11 provide links to potent/al future open space m'cas to the east. As shown by a comparison of ErR Figures 9-2 (pg. 9-?) and $-! (pg. $.3), the north/south open space areas in the eastern pon/on of th~ property have alto bea~n widened from that anticipated in the Ocneral Plan Update to provide beli'er Links through the Salt Creek Ranch property from the San Mt~el Mountains to the north to tim Omy Lakes to the south. SWrm~PAGR: Im~2eroiv or MmoA~o~ MML'P.m/6-1 · 6.13 At page 6-2, the Dra/t F2R again discusses implementation of mitigation measures relating to the projea's density. This Section states in part: '~he project shall reduce the proposed number of un/Lq to density levels acceptable to the City." TI~ proposed m/tigation thould be deleted from the Draft ~ for the reasons we have identified in out Comrncnu otl the Land Use Impact Analysis. (..cee, pages 4, $, comment 3, of chis Thank you for the opportunity to present our corem=nLq on the Draft EIR for th~ Salt Creek Ranch project, Please let us know if there are any questions regarding our c, orame nlq, TIlE BALDWIN COMPANY Vice P~sident and Project Manager cc: Dr. Jeanne Muiioz The Baldwin Company Craftsmanship tn ~ulldin~ since 1956 May 21, 19~0 Mr. Andre~ B. Campbell SWEE'rWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 1130 Fifth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 Dear Mr. Campbell: It is our understanding that future development of projects within the Sweetwater Umon ~ School District and in the Eastern TerrRories area of Chula Vista. excluding the Olay Ranch project, could generate stud~ents in exce.ss~f ~th~e ca_P_a~.o[~h~?sc~hooo~1 cfoaucldtt~es un existing 8nd under construction. The to +/-200 students or approximately 0.1 of a high school of 2,400 students. Included in the demand from those new projects is student generation from the proposed Salt Creek Ranch project. In lieu of the deatgnation of a 50 acre high school site within Salt Creek Ranch, The Baldwin Company is willing to incorporate the +/-Il00 excess students within The School Facilities Planning of the Olay Ranch project. This will as. sure the School District that adequate facilities will be provided for those students. Pursuant to discussions with the Sweeiwater High School District, It is our understanding that all projects contributing to the need for those facilities will participate in a fair-share cost of the site acquisition and facilities financing. It is also our understanding that you will issue a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that the potential school impact from the Salt Creek Ranch is mitigated with this measure along with mitigations in thc Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan and EIR. Pre slden/I/ GTS:mc 11975 El Camino Rgal · Sult~ ~ · San Diego, CA 92110 * (619) EO ~3~d 9800-~6L-6~gq~J- AN~,4~40~ NI~2-~/~ ~00 HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT GENERATION PROJECT GEN FACT. UD'S STUDENTS DU'S STUDENTS DU'S S?UD~NTS SALT CI~EK OBE 0.19 538 102 538 102 538 102 SALT C&BEK RANCH 0.19 3,644 692 2i824 537 3,100 589 BUlB BONITA 145V)ONS 0.I9 298 57 298 57 298 57 SAN 14IGUEL PARTNERS 0.19 1,700 323 1,100 209 1,450 276 EASTIJU~ 0.19 8,800 1,672 8,000 1,520 8,400 1,596 14,980 2,846 12,760 2,424 13,786 2,619 NO. SCHOOLS REOUIRF. D 1.19 1.01 1.09 (e2400 STUDENTS PER SCHOOL) S~te ~ C411if~zlhll .utln~#, Tmntf~'mti~n ond H~a~ng Ag.n~y Mem.randum State Clearinghouse D.~ t May 9, 1990 Attention Garrett Ashley ~leNo., 11-SD-054 125,805 (var) District Prom : D~A~T/~NT OF T~AN~O~A~ON $~W~: D~IR for Salt Creek Ranch. SCH 89092721 Section 3.9, Traffic and Circulation: Project-specific and c~u- lative traffic impact analyses that also focus on Interstate Route 805, a~d State Routes 54 and 125 should be provided. In addition, trip rates for planned school and park developments need to be included in the Traffic Generator analysis. Our contact person for project coordination with future state 125 is Gary Klein, Project Manager, Project Studies Branch 'A", (619) 237-6134. JAM~S T. CHESHI~, Chief Environmental Pta~lng Branch MO:sc The Resources Agency State of Califocnia Memorandu'm APR 1.. 8 'T990 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. To Assistant Secretary for Resources 2. City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attention: Douglas Reid Depa~ment of Water Resources Los Angeles, CA 90055 Subiect DRIR for Salt Creek Ranch for 3,644 Units, SCH 89092721 Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage prevention, are attached. After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water supplies. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at (213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report. Sincerely, Southern District Attachments DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER' RECLAMATION To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described her~. Required The following State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in s~ructures: o He'alth and Safety Code Section 17921.~ requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually ail buildings as follows: "After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National Standards Institute Standard Al12.19.2, and urinals and associated :~fIushOmet~r_ valves, if any, that use less than art~average of 1-1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer valves are exempt from the requirements of this section." · o; Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1664(f) (Applianc~ :- Efficiency Standards)establishes efficiency standards that give the ~;~maximum flow rate of all. new ~howe~heads, lavatory faucets, and sink :~ f~ucats~ as specified in the Standard approved by the American National Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI Al12,18.1M~1979. o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section I606(b) (Appliancn Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable efficiency standards. o Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-~07Ib/ (California Energ7 Conservation Standards for New Buildings/ prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. o Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-~352(i) and address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to steam and steam-condensate return piping and recirculating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than between floors or in interior walls. Insulation o£ water-heating systems is also required. o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned water. o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. To be implemented where applicable Interior: 1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greeter than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing valves. B. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms." Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower. 4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only.' 6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. Exterior:' 1. Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 3. Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of low-water-using plants. Provide information to occupants regardin~ benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. 'The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials or providing other info~mation. .... ~- -~ ...... FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION In fldod~prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development Should be based on the following guidelines: 1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground 2. Alt- b~ildi~g struCtUres should be protected against a lO0-year flood. 3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood B0un~ry 'and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the ~k~vironmental Impact Report. At l~t ~u~nm~te of ingress and egress to the development should be aVailable during a lO0-year flood. 5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on a~.~l~a~o~ and engineering studies, especially for: hillside developments. 6. ~-g~t~tinn of disturbedo~ neWly~constructed slopes, should be done as ~O~s~bl~ (~lT~[in~ ~a~i%Ce:-o~:low-wat~r-us/ng plant m&terial). 7. Tb~_:$gitentia~_~ge tO 'the p~oposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as required. 8. O~adfng should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. ~au.~.,o,OFFICE'~e° T~.m s~OFc~ PLANNINGp~s,~. AND RESEARCH May.~ll~ 1990 ,~ ..... ~'~. ~'~,. ~ F . .......... CityofChula~Vis~~.~ '~ ":~ '-. ~::~: .L~ ; 7. _ ~ ..... 276 ~4t~ Av~he Ch~a Vista, CA 92010 Subjec== Salt Creek Ranch, SCH~8~ Dear Mr. Reid: ~C'~ ~ep~ (K;K) ~ Se~ec~, S~ce~ agencies for =ev~e~. is' ~'~' ~.c~Offed ~nd' ~he ~ cO~enc~ f~om~' ~he respond~ e~o~e4..0~' ~he ~'c~'~e~ :NOel.ce- of_ C~mple~i'On ~ you will: :n~e - ~'~:: ~he Clea=~n~Eouse' ~s checked-=he :a~%~cies-~ ~ve co~ehte~. Please,-~eview =he No~ice of Comple=ion =o ensure =~= you= co=eric pac~e is comple=e, i~ =he co=eriC packase is no= in orde=, please no=if7 =he Sca=e Cle~=in~house Cle~r~$hous~:n~be~ :~o t~.~ ~:~ ~Spon~. prcmp~7 Pleese no~e t~t Section 21~0~ oE the CaliEo~a Public [esources Code req~red t~t: 'a responsible agency or other public a~ency ~ke substantive co~ents re~ardin~ ~hose activiuies involved ~ a project which are wi=bin an area of exDer=ise of ~he a~enc~ or which are required ~o be carried ou~ or approved b7 the a~enc~." Co~en=inE aEencies are also required b7 this section ~o suppor= their co~en=s wi=h specific doc~en=ation. ~ese co=en=s are forwarded for tour use in preparin~ 7our fill ~. Should 7ou need more info--=ion or clarifica:ion, we reco~end that 7ou con=ac= =he co~en~in~ aEencT(ies). ~is lea=er ac~ledEes =~ 7ou ~ve complied wizh the Sta=e Cleari~.Ehouse revi~ req~rements for draf= enviro~en=al doc~ents, put s~n~ =o the Califo~ia ~viro~n=al Q~li=7 Act. Please con,act Barbara Caran a~ (916) a&5-0613 if 7ou have an7 questions re~ard~E ~he enviro~en=a! review process. SincerelT, David C. N~er~p Depuu7 Direcuor, ~e~: Assisuance ~c!osures 5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. 9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AC _Y GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, ~,,,: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ~ Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5]]3 --]~_~ . _~ _. December 20, 1989 Zr%' D~uglas D~'Re~d: C{ty-6~] rChuia Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: This is in response to your October 3, 1989 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Salt Creek Ranch Project (.~C~H .89092721.). '-D~partment..comments on this project were provided %~fEhfn the 30' day period in our Department letter of October 16, L~9~M~_..~ Steve G~iffin o.f~ the City's Planning Department. A c~py_~f the ~that letter~ is ~tach]ed for~your-i~6rmation to compl~t~ your files. Th~nk you for the ouportunity t~ ~eview and~ comment On this proje~:t. If you have any questions, please contact Kris Lal of our Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137. Sincerely, Ered Worthle~ ~ Regional Manager Region 5 cc:SI,;I:,:~ Clearinghouse ESD STATE OF CAUFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AG OI~ORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET P.O. BOX 944209 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2090 (916) 445-3531 October 16, 1989 Mr. Steve Griffin City of Chula Vista Planning Department 0C~ ~ 0 ~ 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Griffin: The Department of Fish and Game biologists familiar with the project area have reviewed the Draft General Development Plan for Salt Creek Ranch. This planned residential community on 1,205 acres is located within the County of San Diego. The majority of the site is within the City of Chula Vista's sphere of influence near the southern foothills of San Miguel Mountain, north of Eastlake Business Center, and northwest of Upper Otay Lake. The project envisions development of 3,644 dwelling units for an estimated 12,600 persons and proposes 57 recreational acres and 269 acres of natural open space. Our preliminary comments on this project are the following: 1. The plan appears to be in advance of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. We are, however, concerned that lots for the dwelling units were already mapped out before evaluation of the biological resources. This advance preparation for the project does not seem to be in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The project area contains abundant habitat (Diegan coastal sage scrub) for threatened reptilian species. This habitat needs to be surveyed so that the better parcels can be preserved, especially if the coast horned lizard and the orange-throated whiptail lizard are present. 2. The entire 1,205-acre area should be surveyed, during the proper season, in order to determine the presence of sensitive plant species. All State- and/or Federally-listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant species, together with all plant species referenced by the California Native Plant Society in "Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California", which occur within the 1,205-acre area should be disclosed in appropriate environmental documentation. Further, all occurrences of these plants should be delineated on detailed maps, and development should be sited and designed to minimize impacts to these plant species. Lastly, any unavoidable impacts to sensitive plants should be mitigated so as to reduce adverse impacts to levels of insignificance. Mr~Steve Griffin -2- October 16, 1989 3. The area will have high density, 12,600 people, utilizing the proposed recreational and natural open space areas~ ~ While interpretive, hiking, and equestrian uses are warranted, sensitive habitat and sensitive wildlife areas should have limited use, with permanent fencing or suitable buffers to ~7_. P~vent-excessive deterioration of those habitat areas. ~;.=-~e.~pp~t~y Reservoir is a source of domestic water and ~ atso_qonstitutes a Department warmwater Florida largemouth ..... bass=hatchery~'-No contaminated run-off from the housing development should be permitted to enter this reservoir = through any route. We recommend that detention basins or bypas~_~stems be provided sq as to_not adversely impact the .... ~ r~se.r~_Qlr~w~ter~quality~ ..... 5~2!Thet~ajq~!~ter~ed ~f~§~ ¢~&ekz~iows th~6ugh'~his .... ~ =development2 W97recommend'revegetat~on'o~_the S~!t Creek<area i-j~..With ~t~ve?~lan~_s andpFovision of<'a~'buffer=areaLto..protec~ i~L'ithe nat~ratLope~ space-area from degradation~ Adverse impacts ..... tOwetlands=Sh~uld~be avo~dedz- ~navoldabte~advers~=lmpacts ~r~suld be'~mD~hs&t~dZ~h~that no het-los~ of-eith6r Wetland Diversion,~obstruction of.the natural flow or changes in the bed, notifica{i6n~t0~the~D~part~eh~ as~eall~d f6~iln~'~h~2?lsh a6d~dame Code.' Thi~ n6tlfi6atioh (with fee) and the subsequent agf6~ment must ~e completed pFior to initiating any.such changes~- Notification-should be.made after-the-Project!is approyed by-the lead?agengy.~ .............. i. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project at the early planning stage. We look forward to the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR for this project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50, Long Beach, CA 90802 or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. Sincerely, .~c-~zPe~ Bontad'elli Director State of California Memorandum Lynne Coughlin D~e : May 3, 1990 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P~a=. : Sacramento 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California 95814 From : Depa.mentofFoodandAgriculture--1220 N Street, P.O. Box 942871 Sacramento, CA 95814-0001 $.bi~: SCH No. 89092721 -- City of Chula Vista Salt Creek Ranch The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concerning the above referenced project which would involve the development of a residential community on a 1200 acre site. The CDFA recommends approval of the DEIR and has the following comment. Will any residential development interface directly with active agricultural operations? If so, the DEIR should discuss land use conflicts and mitigation measures that can reduce these potential impacts. The CDFA supports the right of local agencies to develop and implement land-use policy in its area of influence, but also wants to assure that agricultural land is not prematurely and irreversibly lost due to development which is not accurately assessed for environmental impact. Sincerely, Donna McIntosh Graduate Student Assistant Agricultural Resources Branch (916) 322-5227 cc: San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner California Association of Resource Conservation District United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ~-: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION "' ~L~'~r~ Laguna Niguel Office ?L~..~ZF~d~l?~i~'~g' 24000 Avila Road ~ ~ ~ ' tcrS~%La~ Niguel, California 92656 May 1, 1990 Douglas D. Reid A~n-~zTar-~: ~. ~,- c,~A¥' ~' 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report Annexation/General The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft 2~ance. The following comments and recommendation on the biological impacts of the project are based on our knowledge of sensitive and declining habitat types and species in San Diego ~qqn~... TbP~[S~ry~c~o~ld~.lik~ tg:-emp~asiz9. ~r:in6~egs%~g: ~:~-~ ~co~Ge~n wi~h~ the-cumulative impacts of-projects like SaLk~=eek The proposed project consists of the development of a 3,644 dwelling units and associated facilities on ~,200 acres of land. The project as designed will result in the loss or degradation of existing wildlife habitat including 179 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 14.6 acres of southern California grassland, 2.1 acres of wetlands and 684 acres of non-native grassland. Adverse project induced impacts will occur to wildlife of concern to the Service, including the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and the coastal cactus wren (Camplorhynchus brunneicapillum sandieqense). GENERAL COMMENTS The Service has the legai responsibility for the welfare of all migratory birds, anadromous fish and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. Our mandates require that we provide comments on any public notice issued for a Federal permit or license affecting the nation's waters, in particular, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits pursuant to Section 404 City of Chula Vista 2 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters by establishing strong protection against discharges into special aquatic sites, which include wetlands. The discharge of fill material into 2.1 acres of wetland, as proposed in the subject project, will require a Corps permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The following comments will form the basis of our response to any public notice for application of a 404 permit for the project. In general, the Service recommends that project-induced impacts be avoided or minimized whenever possible through project design. It is the Service's regional policy to view any wetland degradation or losses as unacceptable changes to an important national resource. Unavoidable project impacts to high value biological resources such as wetlands should be mitigated so that no net loss (acreage or value) of wetlands habitat occurs. Proposals for non-water dependent structures, facilities or activities are generally viewed as an unacceptable use of public waters. Acceptability of each proposal will depend upon selection of the least damaging alternative or construction method, and incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts. Based upon present project design, the Service believes that impacts to wetlands can be avoided and therefore, would recommend that the Corps not issue a permit for the project as now proposed. The Service feels that the project should be redesigned to not only avoid impacts to wetland resources but also to provide viable corridors between wetland areas and upland open space. According to the Report, wildlife habitat on-site supports a variety of sensitive species of concern to the Service. Although the project includes 318 acres of natural open space, it is poorly configured, fragmented and lacks long term protection from adjacent disturbances. The open space is proposed to occur in four strips of variable widths separated by areas of development. These narrow wildlife areas will be further degraded by fire protection buffers and adjacent human activities. Moreover, it is unlikely that these areas will retain their wildlife resource values over time. The Service recommends that the subject project be downscaled and redesigned to ensure long-term preservation of important wildlife habitat. The Salt Creek Ranch should include an adequate plan for wildlife resource protection that incorporates a resource preserve design into their project. Such a plan should be based on the following: 1) an evaluation of existing sensitive resource areas and restorable habitat areas; 2) an evaluation of ecologically City of Chula Vista 3 defendable'preserve configuration including adequate buffer; 3) the occurrence:of endangered~ rate'dr ~ensitive plant and animal species;'4) continuation or connection-of existing large open space areaS}~5) perpetUation:Of exi~tingr~ildlife corridOrs; 6) me~sanfsms for preservation~ sUch~ as assessment~diStricts-and development transfer credits; 7) provisions for long term funding for habitat?management 0lethe-preserve; 8)-an evaluation of land ~c~dnfli~ts~and~compatible~activities;~and-9) impact assessment ihef~d~z~ff-road;ve~i~l~S,~road~Way cOnstructiom~ agriculture grazin~ d~mping~iwater~quatity and increased or decreased runoff; -and ~0)?regulatoty measures that=can be used to reduce or eliminate conflicts. We reCOmmend that the project be redesigned in.the following~way. HOuSin9 Unit~ should'be re~onfigUted to allow a substantial Portioh'iof th~ natural open spaceto remain in a large contiguous btock.-of habitat. As presently proposed, natural open space and hOUsing-are i~termixed~. Project-open space should, anticipate--and allow for potential.wildlife~corridOr, linkage with both the City owned~land of Otay Lakes~to the. soUthahd~east and proposed open space-touthe:north~!Naturat open~space~sh6uld be concentrated-in the~area no~th~Of ©ray Valley Road-and-east.of Salt Creek. The ~PenC~p~e~h~u~d-~e~%'~'a~t~e~S~h~step~int~fr~h~-Property head due-northwesterly, encompassing-the exiSting-coastal, sage-- scrub vegetation and including the known gnatcatcher locations. Housing and roads should be excluded from this area. The ~ffhe~most~h0n~native~grasstand area s~OUld be.included as natural open space,tO proVide~raptor foraging area, to protect grasshOpper~parrow habitat and to provide for a viable preserve design, SPECIFIC COMMENTS 3.8 Bioloqical Resources: Paqe 3-51. The project as proposed will result in the direct loss of 179 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and the degradation of the remaining habitat due to indirect impacts resulting from adjacent disturbances. Coastal sage scrub is a declining habitat type in San Diego County. It is estimated that over 70% of the original acreage of this habitat in the County has been destroyed. Several candidate species for listing as endangered are dependent upon coastal sage scrub habitat. The California gnatcatcher is restricted to coastal sage scrub habitat; eight individual and up to ten pairs of this sensitive bird were detected on-site. Based on the acreage of suitable habitat, the Service believes the project site provides habitat for additional pairs of this species. The Service is concerned with not only the subject project, but also with other developments that have adverse affects range wide on coastal sage scrub habitat and the California gnatcatcher. City of Chula Vista 4 The large scale destruction of coastal sage scrub in southern California has had a corresponding impact on the California gnatcatcher. In 1980, only 1,000 to 1,500 pairs of this species were estimated to occur in southern California, with less than 400 occurring in San Diego County. Given the rate of development that has occurred in the coastal areas, a greatly reduced number of California gnatcatchers can be expected. The California gnatcatcher has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino counties. Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties contain the remaining concentrations of this species in the United States. A second species of concern to the Service is the coastal cactus wren. The Report documents that only 230 pairs of this rare bird remain in San Diego County. Cactus wren nests were located on- site within cactus thickets. Up to four pairs of cactus wrens were estimated to occur on-site. Two of the three nest locations will be lost due to the proposed development. It is unlikely that the cactus wren would persist on the site due to the poor configuration of the wildlife open space areas. The Service strongly urges the City of Chula Vista and other local jurisdictional agencies to plan for the preservation of natural resources. Allowing the gnatcatcher or any other species to decline to levels that warrant Federal listing as endangered will complicate planning for future projects. Protection of remaining habitat areas of sufficient size and quality can help preserve existing populations. The Service recommends that the subject project be redesigned to protect coastal sage scrub in a configuration that is conducive to long-term habitat preservation and will allow linkage to adjacent off-site open space areas. The Service believes that project-induced loss of coastal sage scrub will significantly impact wildlife movement on a regional level. Moreover, given the level of coastal sage scrub loss that is presently occurring in San Diego County, the Service believes that mitigation is warranted to partially offset the project-induced loss. In general, the biological mitigation that has occurred has resulted in "fragments" of coastal sage scrub habitat that are isolated from adjacent wildlife areas by development. Habitat fragmentation and isolation often negates many of the biological values that were being attempted to be preserved through open space designation. Fragmentation of wildlife populations is believed to be the most serious threat to the survival of sensitive and endangered species. Mitiqation Measures: Paqe 3-53. The Service believes that the mitigation as presently proposed is inadequate to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. We base this assessment on the following: 1) the natural open space is not expected to maintain wildlife values and diversity City of Chula Vista 5 over time due to poor natural open space configuration and lack of long term protection thus, the mitigation benefits of protection of 187 acres of the coastal sage scrub is partially negated;~ 2) impacts to wetland habitat and the wetland mitigation site is not adequately described; 3) mitigation measures for southern California grassland are ~vague and won't be determined .untiI _a spring, survey, additionally no mitigation is offered for the ~loss of ~4.6 acres of native grassland; and 4) the loss of the gnatcatcher and cactus wren population is not mitigated._ The project site is Strategically located between City of San Diego owned !~and at Qtay Lakes and proposed open space in the San Miguel Mountains. Based on its location, habitat values and presence of highly sensitive species such as the California gnatcatcher, the coastal cactus wren and the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), on-site preservation of sufficient coastal sage scrub and native grassland should be accomplished in a configuration which will retain habitat values over time~ Mitigation measures for ~h~ subject project include the incorporation of open space into the project design. As mentioned pr~wiously, natural open space design should include con~guous~b~o~ks of habitat that-are adjacent to off-site-open~ space a~eas; areas of high wildlife val~ or 'important wildlife corridors.. The natural open space, as presently proposed, results in isolated narrow patches of habitat that, over time wi!l~be degraded by adjacent suburban uses. Information regarding the details of the wetland mitigation plan such as location, feasibility, and existing habitat values of the mitigation site are not included in the Report. Moreover, adequate mitigation should be provided for Diegan sage scrub. Use of open space easements which are narrow in width and intermixed with residential development is ineffective and impractical. The open space should be reconfigured to provide viable mitigation. Analysis of Siqnificance: Paqe 3-59. The Service concurs with the conclusion that the loss of 179 acres of coastal sage scrub and native grassland and the loss of up to 10 pairs of gnatcatchers and four pairs of cactus wrens occurring on-site has not been reduced, even with mitigation, to below significance. This impact could be mitigated on-site with sufficient natural open space design. Off-site mitigation is not discussed. Fire Protection: Paqe: 3-58. The impact of a fire or fuel break should be quantified and qualified in the Report to determine the level of impacts to adjacent natural open space resulting from the development. The City of Chuta Vista 6 present fire protection programs that the Service is aware of generally require the selective clearing of 100 foot fuel breaks and adversely impact wildlife habitat. The Report should q~antify the acreage~of habitat which will be adversely affected by,any'fuel modification?plan. The Service recommends that masonry block Walls between natUral Open space and residential back yards be required. ~Additionally, the use of non-flammable roofing material, l°w flammable landscaping material and restrictions on distances of flammable trees to houses should be required as a condition of the project, as opposed to the clearing of habitat. ~ ~ ~- Alternatives: Paqe 5'~ Thesection on Alternatives is cursory and incomplete and does no~ allow_for a~adequatecomparison of benefits and impacts of each project alternative. . Cumulative Impacts: Paqe 9-1. The Service believes that cumulative impacts resulting from the proPoSed project will result in a significant impact to biOlogical resources. Cumulative impacts to biological resources occur with literally every development,· No ongoing effort to plan for biological resource Preservation in a comprehensive manner is occurring in San Diego County, thus intensifying the effect of-cumulative impacts.- Without such a preservation effort, it is anticipated that the remaining habitat in coastal San Diego County~will become isolated and fragmented, and ultimately become degraded as wildlife habitat. In summary, the proposed project will have significant unmitigated adverse impacts to biological resources. Moreover, we believe it is premature of the City of Chula Vista to be permitting projects of this magnitude, given the expected cumulative impacts of proposed development on sensitive resources in this area, until such time as a comprehensive biological resource plan is developed. Therefore, the Service recommends that the No Project Alternative be selected or require that the subject project be redesigned and downscaled. The redesigned project should incorporate a natural open space configuration which allows for a wide diversity of wildlife use for the life of the project. The Service is willing to work with the City of Chula Vista and other local jurisdictional agencies to develop a plan to preserve wildlife habitat on a region-wide basis, as opposed to the present piecemeal project-by-project approach. The Service recommends that a meeting be arranged between the City of Chula Vista, the project applicant, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Service to discuss the project and the concept of a comprehensive biological resource City of Chula Vista 7 plan. If you have .any questions regarding these comments, please contact Nancy .Gilbert of _this office.at (71~4) 643-4270. ~-~ ~-~ -- -~ ~ -~ Sincerely, ~ ........ Brooks Harper ~ ~c::~ ' : ~:.~ ?~' -? - ~ '' iL ~ Office Supervisor .... cc: CDFG, Long Beach, CA .::CDFG;~ ~ieqQL CA Attn: T. Stewart) 1-6-90=TA-508: . San Diego ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Suite 800. First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street San Diego, California 92101 619/236-5300 Fax 619/236-7222 April 23, 1990 Doug D. Reid APR 3 0 ~.9~0 Environmental Review Coordinator . City of Chula Vista . - . P.O. Box 1087 Chala Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Reid: SANDAG staff members have reviewed the Draft EIR (89-3) for Salt Creek Ranch. We have a number of comments which have not been reviewed by the SANDAG Board. Traffic Impacts and Air Quality. We are eoneerned that the traffie impacts are stated to be mitigated to below a level of significance, but traffic flow improvements, bus and bicycle routes will serve only to slightly reduce air quality impacts. Staff members suggest that additional effort could be made by eonstrueting bus stops, building and striping bicycle lanes, expanding and enhancing pedestrian access areas with landscaping (especially trees), and by distributing ear pooling information to new residents. The DEIR notes that the entire San Diego Air Basin has not attained state and federal standards for ozone. The same is true of carbon monoxide. Open Space and Biological Resources. The Regional Open Space Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), appointed by the SANDAG Board, has prepared a Sensitive Lands Recommendations report which is now under review. The TAC recommends the preservation of steep slopes, floodplains, and wetlands, and it sets forth appropriate elements to include in local ordinances to carry out these recommendations. One important element in the wetlands recommendations is the need for a signi- ficant buffer around any wetlands, usually at least 100 feet. Previous SANDAG studies related to the endangered least Bell's vireo advocate the location of horse stables and other large animal activity areas away from wetlands and riparian areas, because the brown-headed cowbird is attracted to such areas and it is destructive to the survival of riparian-dependent bird species. Additionally, it would be difficult to ensure that the equestrian center would cause no water quality damage to the nearby Upper Otay Reservoir. It appears to be most inappropriate to locate the equestrian facility far from the development itself but immediately adjacent to the water storage reservoir of another agency. MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of CaHsbad, Ch[Jla Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City. Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista and County of San Diego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense and Tiiuana/Baja California Notre. The biology report recommends (Figure 3-12 and p. 3-57) that the project be redesigned to provide biological open space areas that are of significant size and are eontiguous with each other and with open space offsite to preserve sensitive speeies. We believe that the linkage of the project open space to the significant open space owned by the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District should be emphasized. .~ The mitigation measures for biological resources (pp. 6-5 through 6-7) appear to cover our other concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this DEIR. Sincerely~ ~ -- . ~ · RICK ALEXANDER Director of Land Use _. and Public Facilities Planning RA/RP/dab C:9Q-23 ; _~ ~:. ~ CHULA'- ISTA CITY SCHOO - DISTRICT 84 EAST"J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH 80AROO~£~C~Tm~ April 10, 1990 J~E~ O. CUMMINGS. ~.D SHARON GIL~ PATRICK A. JU~ JUO¥ ,ULE. ER APR 1 5 1990 FRANKkTA~INO Nr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator suP~m~E~J~ City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ZmNF. VU~Rm.m.O. Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Case No. EIR-89-3 Salt Creek Ranch - Annexation/General Development Plan Pre-Zone Draft £IR (£CI/CIR 89-3) Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft General Development Plan (GDP) and Draft EIR for Salt Creek Ranch. In reviewing the document relative to elementary schools, I note that the data presented regarding elementary facilities is quite out of date and/or incorrect. My comments follow. Page 3-110 Chula Vista City School District is comprised of 32 elementary schools, not 29, with current enrollment at 17,287. Parkview, Rogers and Kellogg, schools cited as being near the project, are nowhere near the site. All three are located south of Telegraph Canyon, and Kellogg is west of the 805. The closest existing schools are EastLake Elementary, Tiffany and Sunnyside, all of which are at capacity or projected to be prior to any construction on Salt Creek Ranch. The new facility described as planned on Hillside Drive is nearly complete (EastLake Elementary) and scheduled to open in 1990. The District's next school is in the Terra Nova neighborhood, not in Rancho Del Rey. Its opening is anticipated in September, 1991. The school located on Buena Vista Way is named Chula Vista Hills, and has a current enrollment of 506. The District has added 25, not 19, new relocatable classrooms and several trailers over the past few years to accommodate growth. The discussion on funding elementary facilities incorrectly references Sweetwater Union High School District instead of Chula Vista City School District. In addition, developer fees allowed by State law were established at $1.50 per square foot in 1987. They have been increased three times since then and are currently at $1.58. Chula Vista City School District's share is $ .70. This section is much too weak on how elementary facilities are to be financed. In numerous correspondences, the District has stated that fees are inadequate and there are no existing facilities to serve the project. Alternative financing mechanisms, such as formation Of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, are required in order to provide elementary facilities. The impacts section utilizes an incorrect student generation factor. ~.~ ~ The District utilizes a .3 student/dwelling unit rate. Using this figure yields a total of 1093 elementary students at buildout, 20 p~rcent sho~t of two full schools. In addition, no facilities were ..... provided for Salt Creek I, and it has been understood by the District a~d the developer that children from these 550 units will be accommodated at schools within Salt Creek Ranch. The' General Dewlopment Plan shows the wrong location for one of the elementary sites (Table 2-5, not 2-4 as cited).- The location shown was initially proposed and rejected. Discussions with the developer are ongoing, with one school proposed to be located in the southwest area of the project, south of East H and West of Lane Avenue. The second school is proposed to be north of East H, in the residential area east of Hunte Parkway. This map appears to be very outdated~ The Baldwin Company should be contacted for current information. This document needs ~revision to provide corr. ect data. It's inadequate in terms of elementary schools in its present form. If you have any questions, please contact me. Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Tom Silva Jim Harter Sweet ,ater Union High Schoc,, District ADMINISTRATION CI=NTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 920111 (619) 691-5553 April 25. 1990 Mr. Robert Leitter Planning Director City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chu]a Vista. CA 92010 Dear Mr. Leitter: RE: Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the proposed General Development Plan Draft and Environmental Impact Report prepared, for the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community. Our letter of January 29. 1990 requesting that this proposed development participate in the Mello-Roos District to mitigate is still applicable. However. with the introduction of the San Miguel Project Partnership proposal, it has been necessary to locate a school site in this north east territory of the City. As you are aware. I have requested that the San Miguel General Development Plan provide a 50 acre site for a 2400 student high school. However. the development pattern may be such that a site in San Migue! Project is unrealistic. If that is the case. a site located within the Salt Creek Ranch Community may be necessary. On April 20. I met with Mr. Bud Grey, City Consultant for San Miguel Partnership to discuss population distribution in this area. and he concurred with the District's assessment that a high school wilt be needed in this section of town. The District's criteria for sighting schools is as follows: ! I School site shall be located on a 4 lane arterial road rather than a 6 lane through- fare i.e. 'H" street. 21 The placement of the school should not be too close to existing facilities. For example. I do not wisb to have Bonita Vista High. EastLake High and this new future school in such a close proximity that establishing boundary lines becomes impractical 3) The potential community benefits of the site i .e. adjacency to park ases and/or buffers for residential development are desirable. ~r. Robert Leitter Page T~o Based on these parameters, a logical placement of a high school site would be near the 'H" street/Hunter Parkway Intersection located in the Salt Creek Ranch Development Plan. Please incorporate the District's concern regarding this issue into the General Plan. With reference to the E.I.R. prepared for this project, it should be noted that the 1989/1990 CBEDS show an enrollment of 27.266 students in the District. All the school sites indicated on page 3-110 are either at or above capacity. This should be noted in the E.I.R. Again. tha.nk you for the opportunity to respond to these planning developments prepared for this project, If you ha~'e an~ q,ue~stions:, p]ease ffeel ~.ree t~ contact me. Cordially. Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS:m1 cc: Douglas C. Reid. City of Chula VJsta Kate Shurson. Chuia Vista City Schools Andrew B. Campbell, Sweetwater Schoot District Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIF'rH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA S2OI1 May 22. 1990 Mr. Robert Leitter Planning Director City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92010 RE: Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan Rancho San Miguel Draft Development Plan Dear Mr, Leitter: This letter is sent in regard to my April 25. 1990 and March $0. 1990 letters to you regarding the need for a high school site in or near the above subject planned communities. As a result of those letters. Mr. Andrew Campbell and I have met with representatives from the Baldwin Company. San Miguel Partners and the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. After much consideration, an alternative solution acceptable to the District has been reached. As you can see on the attached letter to this office, the Baldwin Company has agreed to incorporate the unhoused students resulting from development in the northeastern Chula Vista territories within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. The Otay Ranch Project will only provide the siting needs of the northeastern territories: Rancho San Miguel and Salt Creek Ranch will be required to provide the financing mechanisms required to service the school needs caused by their projects. This mutual understanding by all affected parties will lead to the mitigation of the concerns raised in my letters to you. Please inform the Planning Commission of this recent development, as it will affect their review of the Salt Creek Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report scheduled for the Wednesday. May 23. 1990 meeting. Mr. Robert Leitter Page T~o If you have any questions or comments regarding this important issue, please feel free to contact me at 691-5553. Cordially, Director of Planning TS:ml cc: Jim Hatter. Salt Creek Ranch ~ayne Loftus. San Miguel Partners Bud Grey. City of Chula Vista Doug Reid. City of Chula Vista May 1, 1990 TO: Douglas Reid - Environmental Review Coordinator, Planning Department FROM: Jerry Foncerrada, Acting Director - Parks and Recreation Departme'n?~ SUBJECT: Salt Creek Ranch DEIR Review Comments As per your request, department staff has reviewed the Salt Creek Ranch DEIR and has generated the following comments. Our comments are based on the General Development Plan, which indicates revised land use areas from what is written and graphically indicated in the DEIR. The DEIR is outdated in quantities of park acreage and the distribution of the park acreage. The General Development Plan submittal indicated the following acreage quantities compared to the DEIR: Community Neighborhood Mini Nature Equestrian Totals P'cck Pi~t~ (~) P~k~ Center Center GDP: 49 14 0 0 0 63 DEIR: 28.4 11 2 1 8.3 50.7 It is our departments position that both the community park and neighborhood parks be relocated to better serve Salt Creek Ranch, Salt Creek I and the surrounding areas. The primary desire of our department is that the twenty three (23) acres for the community park be combined with the seven (7) acres of one neighborhood park to create a 30 acre community park which would then be sited at the preferred location adjacent to Salt Creek at the intersection of Hunte Parkway and East 'H' Street. To address this project as well as all of the projects currently being reviewed by the city in the Eastern Territory our department has begun analyzing the service radius of existing and proposed parks and the facilities that are existing and what needs to be provided to support and compliment them. In analyzing the service radius of the community park at its proposed location, a one mile service radius encompasses only 1/2 of the Salt Creek Ranch project and none of the Salt Creek I project area. The proposed park site provides as much service area to the Upper Otay Lake and the County of San Diego as it does to the project site. At our departments recommended location in the center of the project site the service radius would emcompass the entire Salt Creek Ranch project and the eastern edge of the Salt Creek I project. Also of concern is the types of facilities to be provided at the park sites. The DEIR identifies specific quantities of certain park features that would be required based on the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and the proposed project population. As previously indicated, our department is currently working on a regional analysis of park locations, sizes and recreational facilities that will best serve the community. Based on this analysis we will be able to provide direction as to the exact types and quantities of facilities that are to be provided at each park site. So what is indicated in the DEIR is not necessarily indicative of what our department will be looking for the developer to provide at the park sites. Other issues of concern: o_ The equestrian center has been deleted from the project, being d0wngraded to a equestrian staging ar~a. *; :- The ovemighftent camping has beet~ deleted fr°m the Project. ~- · ~ _ ~ ~he mini-parks-have been. deleted from the project, with the acreage being redistributed into the.other parks. · - - The DEtR makes no mention of the potential impacts that the proposed ..... cemmuni!Y park would make at its current location in the watershed / drainage course. Is there no concern regarding the potential grading impacts as well as the fact that it is indicated as open space on the City General Plan? The grading necessary to makethe site useable for a community park will be very extensive and will result in a much smaller park with limited potential for development as a active park. · The proposed community park site would make an excellent open space area for establishment of a dparian zone with Oak trees, Sycamores and other : wetland plant types and for a recreational trail system. ~ The following issues~address our con_cerns regardi_ng the pro@osed~c~mmuni!y- park~ sit_e:._~ .-' ~: ~, . - _~ - .- :: COMMUNITY: pARK ISSUES: · - The City of Chula Vista General Plan has indicated that the'proposed community park site be retained as natural open space. · The proposed community park site landform in its existing state is unuseable/undesireable for several reasons: The existing slope gradient is very steep: This would necessitate an extreme amount of grading to develop any flat, ( 2% gradient across the site ), useable areas. The existing stream running through the middle of the proposed park site is a limiting factor. It is our understanding that the stream must remain intact. Based upon the grading study done by staff this would segment the park site into two halves with graded slopes of varying heights, ( depending on weather the slopes were only at the perimeter or if they were at both the perimeter and at the stream bed ). All dedicated park land is to be net 2% slope for the entire park site. Slopes are not considered in the calculations towards fulfilling the park land dedication requirements. So depending upon the extent of these slopes the actual park land may not be as generous as the 49 acre total that has been indicated as the size of the proposed community park. · Having the proposed community park separated from the equestrian staging area by East ,H" Street is not desirable. This would result in a segmented condition requiring a grade separated crossing to access the equestrian staging area and vice-versa. The equestrian staging area is not to be considered as part of the proposed community park as far as fulfilling park land dedication. · The proposed community park site is as far from the Salt Creek I project site as possible. This site would actually service the Eastlake community better than the Salt Creek community. It is our departments understanding that no parks were required in Salt Creek I with the agreement that the requirement for Salt Creek I would be made up in the Salt Creek Ranch Project. Because of this fact our department wants to see the community park centrally located to facilitate both phases of the Salt Creek Ranch. · Our department realizes that the proposed community park site initially indicates a greater amount of acerage, but by the time a design and grading study are done to provide the park facilities, how much of the park site would actually be useable and how much of it would be designated as open space slopes? ( We do not believe that the schematic plan for the proposed community park indicated in the General Plan is an accurate depiction of what would realisitically happen by the time a grading concept is worked out, given the constraints of the topography and the existing stream course running through the site ). Our department would pealer to have the community park site in an area where the land would be the required park size but with net useable acerage. · Locating the community park adjacent to Salt Creek / "Greenbelt" is as per the City of Chula Vista General Plan, page 7 - 12. ( See attachment ). Locating the community park adjacent to Salt Creek would tie the park into the "Greenbelt" with the perceived additional acerage, ( borrowed landscape ) that the "Greenbelt" would provide. The existing stand of Eucalyptus trees could then be utilized to provide an immediate "Grove" effect for the community park, providing a mature apperance to the park and creating a theme for the park to be designed towards. The park at this location would function in a number of ways for the residents of Salt Creek Ranch as well as the citizens of Chula Vista and the region: As a beginning point for a journey on the "Greenbelt" in addition to the facilities being provided on site. As a destination for people who are traveling along the "Greenbelt". As a rest area for the people who are intending on traveling the entire "Greenbelt, with this being a halfway point around the 28 miles of the Journey. · Parks and Recreation would only require the mandatory amount of net useable acerage to be provided at this preferred location. · The types and quantities of facilities to be provided at the community park will be determined based on a regional analysis of the existing recreation facilities and what the projected needs and the future demands are. · The equestrian staging area will still be required. The preferred location can be discussed. Ideally it would be located adjacent to the community park site and the "Greenbelt". · The Nature Center should be deleted from the General Plan with the proposed funding being channeled back into the park facilities. · A'grade separated cr0~sing will still be required at East "H;' Street and .Hunte Park_way fo?. pedestrians bicycliSts a~d equestrian user groups. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ISSUES: · The proposed neighborhood park at the southwest corner adjacent to the proposed school site should be relocated with the school if the school site is shifted away from the UPS warehouse. · The neighborhood park is to have street frontage along at least two streets. The types and quantities of facilities to be provided at the neighborhood parks will be determined based on a regional analysis of the existing recreation facilities and what the projected needs and demands are. ROUTING FORM DATE: April 3, 1990 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 (E~R only) Carol Gove, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation ~. Keith Hawkins, Police Department Current Planning Advance Planning Bob Leiter, Planning D~rector Chula Vista City School Dist., Kate Shurson Other FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Section SUBJECT: [~ Application for Initial Study (IS- /FA- /DP ) [~ Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-.. /FB- /DP ) [3~'] Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- 89-3 /FB- 039 /DP 569 ) ~ Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /ERR- ) The project consists of: approximately 3,644 dwelling units, and 370 acres of other uses including 265 acres natural open space. Included in the DEIR is a "Design Alternative A" on Page 5-2 which is an alternative intended to reduce the significant environmental impacts associated with the project as proposed. Location: Along the extension of East 'H' Street, easterly of Salt Creek I and to the north of EastLake Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 5-1-90 Please submit all time incurred for this docuemnt below: Date Person Time CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION -- PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address ~O-~L ~ 0 ~ 0~{)~ #]:an +Fi:l e- -N o~~: Checker ~/~ Date Type Constr. Occupancy '- ~ ~o. Stories Bldg. Area The following list does ~ot ~ecessa~ily~include all-er~rs and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PL~~ FPB-29 May 4, 1990 File # ¥E-037 TO: Doug Reid, Environmental.Review Coordinator ............ FROM: Cliff Swans Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~ _ SUBJ$CT; Review of Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/General · ---Deve~pmen~ Plaa~-~Rra~Zone Draft Environmental._Impa~_ Report (EgI/EIR 89-3) The~ Engi~%ering Division has reviewed the subject document and submits the following comments: 1. A large portion of the project (approximately 40%) - of the Salt Creek__B.a~.i~. Bound~_ a~._~q~Si~_t~_ the "Fogg" study. Therefore, a detailed hydrologic analysis could result from project development. that the volume and rate of runoff does not exceed existing predevelopment levels. This should be done prior to appr~ya~l of an_~ devel0~ment a~reements. __.~. A stud~ of the ~_gtential for creating~ an .increas~ in % ..... Said _s~udy .should also examine the impact of short term erosion caused by constructi6n'. 4. Appendices A', "B", i'~"'"'~iE" and~'F''- shd6l~ be submift~d ....... for ]~Engin~ering,l..c~mments. 5. . The ADT's shown on Figure 3-13 need updating. The 51.8 shown for East "H"~Street corresponds with the section west of Hidden Vista Drive and not east of it as shown on said ..... figure. ' .......... 6. Rancho del Rey Parkway is mislabeled as Ranchero del Rey Parkway on all figures. 7. East "H" Street should be designated as a six-lane prime arterial west of Hunte Parkway and not as a four-lane major as indicated in many sections of the EIR. SMN:jg (RJhMEMOShDEIR89-3.DOC2) May 16, 1990 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning,~ SUBJECT: Item 3, Lynndale Hills, PCZ-89-M/PCS-90-06 On May 9, 1990, your Commission continued the hearings on the items enumerated above at the request of the applicant to give him the opportunity to discuss several recommended conditions of approval with staff. Based on this discussion, staff recommends amendments to the list of conditions outlined in Section B of the staff report as follows: 1. Delete conditions 2 and 4 since condition 5 already includes these requirements. 2. Reword condition 6 as follows: The remainder parcel southwest of the curve on Lynndale Place shall be deeded to an appropriate neighboring property or shall be disposed of as approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. This has been amended to provide flexibility regarding the disposition of this remainder parcel should a neighbor decline to accept it. 3. Delete condition 7 since condition 26 also deals with this matter. 4. Except for renumbering, all other conditions remain unchanged. This memo supplements the May 9th staff report and related materials which have been retained by the Commission for the May 23rd meeting. The project recommenda- tion in the staff report (2nd paragraph under Section B) should, therefore, be amended to read: "Based on the findings contained in Section E of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the prezone and tentative subdivision map for Lynndale Hills, Chula Vista Tract 90-6, subject to the following conditions as amended by the memo from the Plannin~ Director dated May 16, 1990." BL:SG:je City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-12 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, Don Gos~ A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, in order to subdivide approximately 1.19 acres, located at 54 and 56 F Street, into six single family lots, which range in size from 7,335 square feet to 10,530 square feet. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-43, 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-90-43. 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-90-43. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, subject to the following conditions: a. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring road and landscaping maintenance of the common drive private access easement and fencing setbacks. b. Any fencing abutting or adjacent to the common drive shall be setback a minimum distance of 20 feet from the edge of the pavement and shall be decorative design per City standards subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. c. The dwellings on lots 3 and 4 shall be provided with fully automatic residential sprinkler systems acceptable to the Fire Marshal. d. The site plan and architectural design of the development of lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 2 e. The existing garages on lots 1 and 6 shall be moved to a setback line 20 feet from the edge of the common drive, with access provided perpendicular to the drive. f. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of street improvements in F Street as shown on the Tentative Map. Map. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to concrete sidewalk, street lights, sanitary sewer, fire hydrants and potable water facilities. Required improvements shall be installed along the entire subdivision frontage and shall extend to the existing concrete sidewalk westerly of the property. g. The final map for subject subdivision shall indicate a private access easement to subsequent owners of various parcels to the east pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Easements for guest parking shall be clearly delineated on the final map stating which parcels are granted the right to utilize the, easements. h. A private access road with alley type curb returns shall be provided from F Street to Parcels 3 and 4. Said access road will have two 12 foot lanes with a 4 foot wide landscape median for the first 50 feet south of the property line. Thereafter the road shall transition to a minimum of 20 feet wide. The access road shall be constructed of P.C.C. and shall include 2 pedestrian ramps at the public sidewalk. i. The developer shall submit improvement plans and bonding for the construction of the private access road and street improvements for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. j. Drainage shall be allowed to flow freely in a northwesterly direction through Parcel 3 as shown on the Tentative Map. Any fencing around said parcel shall be constructed so that natural drainage is unobstructed and the CC&R's for the project shall include a provision for this requirement. The remaining Parcels shall be so graded to drain to "F" Street or to an approved drainage system. k. The developer shall prior to final map approval, submit a letter to the City indicating that runoff from the site to adjacent properties will be significantly reduced by completion of the project. Calculations shall be submitted to verify said reduction. k. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 3 The following are requirements of the City Code: a. All utilities within the subdivision shall be undergrounded in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. b. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees, prior to issuance of building permits. c. 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. d. The developer shall pay Park Acquisition and Development fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. Residential Construction Taxes and Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. e. The amount of any fees applicable to the project shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Single Family Residential South R-1 Single Family Residential East R-1 Single Family Residential West R-1 Single Family Residential Existing site characteristics. The site proposed for subdivision compromises approximately 1.19 acres and is zoned R-1. It is located on the south side of F Street approximately 436 feet east of First Avenue. The site has a rectangular shape with 180 feet of frontage on "F" Street, and a depth of 290 feet. The rear portion of the site slopes gently toward the southwest. The existing land uses adjacent to the subject site and facing it across F Street consists entirely of good quality single-family homes. Tentative map. The proposal involves the subdivision of two contiguous parcels of land into six lots, which range in size from 7,335 square foot to 10,530 square feet. All exceed the 7,000 square foot minimum lot size required by the R-1 zone applicable to the site in question. §enda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 4 Lots 1 and 6 front on F Street. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 are panhandle lots. All six lots will receive access via a 20-24 foot wide common drive. The City Engineer has determined that the first 50 feet of this common drive, beginning at this interface with F Street is required to be 24 feet wide. Thereafter, it makes a transition to a 20 foot width to correspond to the City's panhandle lot access standards (see staff sketch 'A'). Three large palm trees are growing on the approximate centerline of the common drive. Staff has concluded it would be appropriate to accommodate these in a median planter bed with a 12 foot access lane on each side. (Note: One palm tree must be relocated.) There are existing single family dwellings on lots 1 and 6. Both have detached garages. The developer has proposed moving the garage on Lot 6 to be located approximately 7 feet from the common drive. The plan shows the garage on lot 1 in its present location, which would create an access parallel to the common drive. This is not acceptable in terms of traffic safety and circulation. Inasmuch as there is adequate space, staff recommends both garages be setback from the common drive a minimum of 20 feet, and that the access thereto be perpendicular to the common drive (see staff sketch 'B'). Development of the panhandle lots is subject to the criteria contained in Section 19.22.150 of the Code, which specifies certain requirements for panhandle development. One of the requirements is for 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 3 and 4 will also be required to have sprinkler systems per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. D. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Gretchen Estates, Chula Vista Tract 90-12, 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: City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 5 a. Land Use The General Plan designates the property for Low Medium Density Residential development (3-6 du/ac). The project density of 5 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 3 and 4 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. Pursuant to Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, development of the site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to insure the maximum utilization of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. WPC7893P 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. 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. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Cable Company to insure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agueement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. i I I 4 ft. drive drive decorative hardscape' 12 ft. palm8 '~'"' *''' - medial with ..I- 30 ft.'-- asphalt con, transition zone down to 20 feet Staff Sketch "A' ~ ,~,~.,~:-~.. -~.June 1990 Gretchen Estates Driveway w/Median F STREET 50 ft. 28 ft. ~ ~ EXI~T~ EXISTG. BLDG EXISTS. (~ARAGE RELOCAIED 20FT.~I}A~K FROM OUT~_S~ID~E ~. .~ EXISTG. G ~AGE RELOCATED ~ ~_ ~_~~20FT. BACI ~ROM OUTSIDE ~' ~ ; 1~ ' lEDGE OF D, Gretchen Estates Staff Sketch June 1990 7ZoT PL,~I,I OF' CI4ULA ACT A/o ciO-12 E~V EETWATER AUTHOR~'Y 505 GARRETT AVENUE POSt OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA CALtFORNIA 92012.2328  (619) 4~0-1413 GOVERNING BOARD May 7, ]990 CARYF WRIGHT City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attention: Mr. Steve Griffin Reference: WATER AVAILABILITY MA y PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~ ~0 CHULA VISTA TRACT PCS-90-12 GRETCHEN ESTATES A.P.N. 569-171-14, 15 Gentlemen: The above referenced property is within the Sweetwater Authority service area. There is an 8" A.C. main in "F" Street fronting the proposed development. Our records indicate two existing services to the proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of 1/4 SEC. 124 which shows these facilities. A main extension will be required to service this development. At this time, we cannot comment on the adequacy of the existing system to provide fire protection. As plans develop for structures, the Owner must submit a letter to the Authority from the City fire agency stating fire flow requirements along with a deposit for engineering design. If the Owner provides the required fire flow information and enters into an agreement for water facility improvements with the Authority, water service can be obtained at a pressure range from maximum of 58 p.s.i, to minimum of 33 p.s.i. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hector Martinez at 420-1413, ext. 239. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Richard A. Reynolds Chief Engineer RAR:JLS:ln encl. 1/4 SEC. 124 ~Public~geno; Ser~,t~'~tt'onal Ct~$~ Chu~ l'53~ and Surroundt~f Jreas MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista ~ ~7G Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 M~¥ Attn: Doug Reid OF PROPOSEO NEGATIVE OECLARATION (FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Chula Vista is considering a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in compliance with Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Negative Declaration (finding of no significant impact) and the Initial Study, which supports the proposed findings, are on file in the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. These documents are available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration should provide their written comments to the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. This proposed finding does not constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it only determines if the project could have significant environmental impact. Proj~ects which could have significant impact must have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence. For further information concerning this project, including public hearing dates, please contact Maryann Miller at (619) 691-5101. This notice is required to be filed with the County Clerk's office for a period of not less than thirty (30) days. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 569-171-14 & PROJECT LOCATION: 56 "F" Street PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6 Lot Subdivision, Single Family Residential JUN ~ '~0 DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Chula Vista Planning Commission INITIAL STUDY NO. IS-90-43 DATE: April 23, 1990 FILED I~ TH~ Ol~IO~ OF THE GOU~T~ GL~i~, EN 7 (Rev. 1/90) 8A~D~GOUNTYON wpc 76] P/0006 ' ~ETU~ED~ A~GY O~ ~,/u' ~ o negative declaration PROJECT NNqE: Gretchen Estates PROJECT LOCATION: 54 and 56 "F" Street Assessor's Parcel No.: 569-171-14 & l§ PROJECT APPLICANT: Don Goss CASE NO: IS-90-43 DATE: April 27, 1990 A. Project Setting The subject property consists of two rectangular shaped parcels Of land each approximately .59 acres located on the south side of "F" Street at 54 and 56 "F". Street. There are currently 2 single family residential uses located on the northern portion of the site. The existing residence on the northwest corner of the site is designated as an historical site although it is not subject to the historical site permit process, as provided in the Municipal Code. Adjacent land uses include single family residential to the north, south, east and west of the project. B. Project Description The project involves subdividing the existing 2 lots into 6 single-family residential lots with 4 new homes to be constructed for a total of 6 single-family units. The lots will range in size from 7,335 sq. ft. to 10,530 sq. ft. Access to the subdivided parcels would be provided by a ~)FI) 20' access driveway off Street transecting the center of the site. The project population is estimated to be approximately 15 people based upon 2.5 people per household.. As part of the project conditions, school development fees will be required. In addition, street widening along "F" Street will be required; pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be installed to provide for 26 foot half width improvements from centerline to curb. The installation of one street light is also required. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The proposed 6-lot subdivision complies with the existing R-1 residential zone since the project density will be 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project falls within the density allowed by the low-medium density residential {3-6 du/ac) designation of the General Plan. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF " environmental review section CHULA VISTA -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The threshold/standards policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within five minutes in 75% of the cases and seven minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is 1 mile from the nearest fire station and the Fire Department's estimated response time is 3 minutes. The provision of a turnaround for fire apparatus or the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all new construction is required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 2. Police The threshold/standards policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within five minutes in 75% of the cases and within seven minutes in 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there would be adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The threshold/standards policy requires that a Level of Service (LOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic {ADT) is estimated to be 5,080. Upon project completion, the ADT would be expected to be 5,120. The estimated LOS would be "A" both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Street widening on "F" Street is required; pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed to provide for half width improvements of 26 feet from centerline to curb. In addition, one street light will be required to be installed. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The estimated project population is approximately 15 people. The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that the project will not create significant impacts to City park and recreation facilities. Appropriate Park Area Development fees will be assessed. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed compatible with the City's policy. -3- 5. Drainage The threshold/standards policy requires that water flows and volumes must not exceed City Engineering standards. Drainage from the project site currently flows over the site to the west into "F" Street. The existing drainage improvements are considered by the City Engineering Department to adequately serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 6. Sewer The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project could generate an estimated gO pounds per day of solid waste and an estimated 1,060 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by an 8-inch sewer line in "F" Street. This line is considered to be adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's Policy. 7. Water The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed development projects. The Sweetwater Authority has been notified and has not identified any problems with providing adequate water supply to the project. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the established threshold standards. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of the Initial Study conducted on the site, that any significant environmental effects will be created as a result of the proposed project. Although impacts to cultural resources were identified, they have been deemed to be less than significant. Cultural Impacts The existing single family residence located on the site at 54 "F" Street is designated as an historical site by the City's Resource Conservation Commission. This site is listed on the City's list of historical sites which is on file with the Planning Department. The proposed project would not adversely this residence. The historic site will remain, therefore, it is not subject to the historical impact site permit process, as regulated by the Municipal Code. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects Because there is no substantial evidence that the project will create any significant environmental effects, mitigation measures are not deemed to be necessary. -4- G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site will not impact any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species. Portions of the project site have already been developed as single family residential uses and the remaining project area is in disturbed grasses. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project is consistent with uses designated by the zone and General Plan. The proposed project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, since long-term goals will be achieved through compliance with the City's Threshold Standards and conditions of project approval. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is relatively minor in size and scope, and will not create significant environmental impacts that are cumulative in nature. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will not result in any significant increases in hazardous substances, the release of emissions, nor any significant increases in ambient noise levels. The proposed project will not create any substantial adverse effects to human beings. -5- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Alex Saucedo, Building and Housing Roger Daoust, Engineering Carol Gore, Fire Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Dept. Robin Keightley, Advance Planning Steve Griffin, Current Planning Lee McEachern, Planning Intern Applicant's Agent: Algert Engineering - Jim Algert 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR (P&D Technologies, 1989) Chula Vista Historic Sites List 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. ~~NTAL REVI~NATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 7506P FOR OFFICE USE Case No. INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Gretchen 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 56 "P" Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 569-171-~4 & 15 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 lot subdivision. .~inql~ t=~rni ly residenti al 4. Name of Applicant Don Goss Address 5130 Bonita Road Phone 475-5Rll City Rnni ta State ca Zip 92002 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Alqert EDqineering~Tn~_ Address 428 Broadway Phone 420-7090 City Chula vi~f~ State CA Zip 92010 Relation to Applicant ~nqineew 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 ~ Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment -- Specific Plan '- Improvement Plans __Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required (Rev. 12/82) B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage ~2~1o~ or acreage I,I~ If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family v~ Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights ~__ ~l-)~J~ c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms ~q 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 ~o,~ ~- h. Square footage of floor area(s) 7_~~ ~ i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures I(~ 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. ~.~/j 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 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 complete this section. ~-~/. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure{s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 0,4~ d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill ~,'~ Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) ~'o0-c~------------------~D 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. 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? 7.How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 4 ~-}~---~ ~ ,~-'~, O~-.~oc~e~ =- <;lO 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 an~bicycle, facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? (If yes, please attach) 2. H~drology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? A-.~o, (If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? A~]~ . b.Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? /,.90 - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or~y~p m 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 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. Biolo~ 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 lYse of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? ~k~O 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. ~ ~r~xuG ,~'~t~ ,~'~'-~-~'~y' -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South East West 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?) ~k,)o , Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. - 7 - Eo CERTIFICATION Owner/owner in escrow* Consul tant Ag~ Y HEREBY AFFIRM, tha~ 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. 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: ~'~-~-'- D~7 ~-~-~/1>¢~-z7-~_ North ~m~T~,~- Oe~/_~y South ~--~p- ~,z-~'s'~r~ ,2-~fpe-~.r?~ East Zm~--~:~ )l:)~-~.~;>w West ~m ,~-- ~_~)- D ~lyq'~ ~% 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? /'~.,/0 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 sh, oJ.~n in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~, ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. High ~,'~,-~' Sr. High W,'I ) r~ 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) ~_~o~0 Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: 'Director o~ Planning or Representative Date - 10 - Case No. lZ~ ~o G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? NO b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~O d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~o~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? ~o~_ - s~r~.~_ g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~- ~. b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project {per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. ~0~0 ~/~ L.O.S. A A d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? x~s If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? '/es If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. %4-F~_e~4F - ..... -ll - Case No. 3. G_eol ogy a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards?~ Liquefaction~ (-~u~-~',~,g,,,'r ,,.,,,:,~. -,~.:~_l:> ~'~_ 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 si te? b. If yes,.what_are these adverse soil conditions? . 6/A c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? ~12- Case No. 7. Air Quality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Tr ~p§~ --' E~'si Oh ......... G~2ms- 6 f {per day) ........ Factor Pollution Hydrocarbons ,~o ......... X .......18'~3 .... : NOx {NO2) ~o X 20.0 : ~oo Particulates 4o X 1.5 : 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project Per day? What is the location and size of ex~st~ng sewer lines on or adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ' y E~neer or R~presentative - Dante - 13 - Case No. ,.,~ H. FIRE DEPAR~IENT l. What is the distance to the nearest fire stati~ and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? /,/~'LJ~, -- ,~ 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facili~ without an increase in equipment or personnel? 3. Remarks -13(a)- Case No. 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 -~_xc_o~L~r~,~ . 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? AJ/A Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative 31 MARCE, 199U SIRS, WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 2§, 1990 CONCERNING THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSA~L FOR 5~ AND 56 "F" STREET IN CHULA VISTA. WE FEEL,VERY STRONGLY, THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ~ SINGLE- FAMILY , 3-BEDROOM, 2-STORY HOUSES ON THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THIS WOULD HAVE A DIRECT NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE DENSITY ISSUE, VISUAL IMPACT, COMMUNITY CHARACTER, CERTAIN TREES AND VEGETATION i~OVED, AND A COMPLETE CHANGE IN THE RURA~ ATMOSPHERE WHICH EXISTS AT PRESENT, IN TH~REAR PROPERTIES. THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN (1) VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONGESTION, (2) PARKING PROBLEMS WITH TOO MANY CARS IN THE LIMITED PARKING AREAS, (3) BOISTEROUS NEIGHBORS AN~ ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LOUD BARKING DOGS, DAY AND NIGHT. ALSO, THE WATER PRESSURE WOULD BECOME EVEN LOWER THAN IT IS NOW. TADEUSZ PIEKNIK ~ , JEANETTE PIEKNIK 72 "F" STREET CHULA VISTA, CA. CASE No. IS-90-43 60 F Street Chula Vista, Ca. April 5, 1990 Dear Mr. Reid, The proposed subdivision plan for 56 F Street causes me great concern. As a homeowner and resident of 60 F Street, my concern is personal. As a resident of Chula Vista, my concern is for the community. The density of the area would be greatly affected by the subdivision plan. The addition of four more homes would stress the air quality ( automobiles and fireplaces), refuse system, noise level and water systems of the area. During the current period of drought, other communities have issued building moratoriums in an effort to curb water usage. I would like to think of Chula Vista as an environmentally conscious community that would be able to investigate and implement creative solutions to our current drought situation. Continued building only contributes to the problem; not the solution. The month of April is dedicated to environmental concerns and thousands of new trees will be planted to commemorate Earth Day. It would be a shame to destroy mature trees in a natural habitat, even if they were to be replaced by saplings. A number of species of birds and other wildlife also inhabit the lot at 56 F Street. The lot provides a respite to the encroachment of urbanization and the dwindling amount of open spaces in Chula Vista. I strongly oppose the subdivision plan and would like to be included in any discussions on the matter. Sincerely, Patricia Kelly 71F. Street Chula Vista, CA 92010 April 5, 1990 Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Sir~ In response to your NOTICE OF INITIAL SURVEY dated 26 March 1990, I wish to state emphatically that I am OPPOSED to the 6 lot subdivision at 56 F. Street. CASE NO~ 1S-90-43 This development would greatly affect the most desirable character of this neigh- borhood in a NEGATIVE manner. This area Cannot properly support a higher population density. The street is already too narrow and heavily traveled as evidenced by the numerous incidents of parked cars being struck while parked on the street. On three separate occasions guests at my home have had their car hit in front of my house. Additional residents would only result in the inevitable widenin~ of the street which could only be accomplished by extensive tree removal. Just the construction of 6 homes would reduce the greenery considerably. We need this foliage to help reduce air and noise pollution as you must know. We need to preserve the attractive nature of Chula Vista. The sewer and water facilities were sized to fit the present home density. Granting this proposed variance would only open the door for additional construct- ion resultin~ in severe overtaxing of the present facilities and requiring considerable expensive renovations at the homeowners' expense. I sympathize with Mr. Goss' desire to make a financial gain, but it should not be at the expense of the residents and to the efficient operation of the city. This is NOT an area to be made into a high density population. Please DO NOT grant this variance. The zoning regulations were made to preserve this area. DON'T CHANGE TH~M. CONCERNED, ' JOHN CHARLES DALEY ~ ~ ~~/ APRIL 5, 1990 'We would like to register our deep concern regarding the proposed property rezoning at 56 F Street. This lsasingte fami!y, residentiatnei~qhborhood. Many of the ~,~ are cleep and could accommodate more titan one resldence However, allowing this kx'~d of mFesponsible development to occur would establ].,h a precedent that would cause a urast]c cnanqe m the character of ~:he area and cause increased traffic in a neiahborh~od w!~iCh is already ~l~nq the effect of the Gevelopment east of ' ~ * .. !nte, ~a~e 805, Many o~ homeowners !n this ne]gnbornood have chosen to stay in the area and add on to t~eir homes rather [han move [o a new home. We, for example, have beer, !n our home for 30 years and have upgraded the property cons~deraDly. AllOwing six homes to be built where one existed before effects our property values and our l~]n~ conditions. Therefore, we request tha~ proposed zone variance be denied. ~ I b]ncere y, Caroled Srn!th John F ~ ~ ~PB Douglas Reid 4 April 1990 Environmental Review Coordinator, City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Subject: Environmental Effects of Case Number IS 90-43 Dear Mr. Reid, As an owner and resident of 60 F Street, Chula Vista, I an expressing the following concerns about the subject project at 56 F Street, Chula Vista: · Density - The density of the block containing this project is high and much higher than it may appear from the street because of the considerable number of previously subdivided lots. The large number of apartments on F Street between Hilltop and Broadway add to the density of the entire area. · Noise - The construction and occupancy of four additional single family homes will dramatically increase the noise for all surrounding residents. · Open Space - Chula Vista is being developed at an alarming rate. Approval of this project will further reduce open space in the city and will probably destroy the last open space in the vicinity of the project. · Habitat - The current lots in this project provide habitat for native birds and other animals and also contain large, mature trees. · Drainage - The property in this project currently absorbs rainfall and causes no drainage problems for my property. The addition of an access road and roofs and patios on four houses could have a negative impact op, drainage and runoff. ~,J . Traffic - The addt~onal housing units in this project will add at least eight cars to th~~ already crowded F Street. I trust that your office will give carefulli[ consideration to these concerns internally and in any subsequent public meetings concerning this project. I wish to be informed of any public meeting on this project. Sincerely, Daryl Skorepa 60 F Street Chula Vista, CA 9201(~~ e ~L990 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLI£ATIONS 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. Don Goss Jane E, Browno Arthur 57, MeK nzie Sayuri McKenzie List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Arthur W. McKenzie Sayuri McKenzie Jane E. Browne 2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to {Il 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, Con~nissions, Con~nittees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No X If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, 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.~j6t/ Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P Don Goss A-ll0 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-8 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Fairway Villas, Chula Vista Tract 90-8 Century American Corporation A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Fairway Villas, Chula Vista Tract 90-8, in order to develop an eight-lot condominium project consisting of 158 units on 19.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Parkway. 2. This item also includes a proposal by the EastLake Development Company and affected guest builders to change the name of North/South Golf Course Vista Drive to North/South GreensView Drive, and GreensView Road to GreensGate Drive {please see attached exhibit and letter). 3. The Planning Commission and City Council previously certified EIR-86-4 which includes the entire EastLake Greens SPA, including the site in question. As a result, no further environmental review is necessary. 4. The project design was approved by the Design Review Committee on April 23, 1990. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council rename North/South Golf Course Vista Drive to North/South GreensView Drive, and GreensView Road to GreensGate Drive. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision maQ for Fairway Villas, Chula Vista Tract 90-8, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. The following statement shall be placed on the Final Map: "Please be advised that the City of Chula Vista intends to adopt a Growth Management Element, Transportation Phasing Program, and other related growth management implementation programs, which may regulate City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 2 the location and timing of development in the City. The City intends that development of property included in the Final Map will be subject to the provisions of these programs. Owners listed on this map shall be responsible for providing notification to any purchaser or successor in interest to any portion of this property of the City's intent in this regard." 3. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Otay Water District to provide terminal water storage and other major facilities to assure water availability to the project prior to the approval of a final map. 4. RCT shall be paid except as otheFivise modified by the public facilities and financing plan for EastLake Greens. PAD fees shall be guaranteed on park lands established (in accordance with City standards) prior to recordation of the map. 5. The subdivider shall provide written evidence of agreement with the Chula Vista City School District regarding the provision of adequate school facilities for the project prior to the approval of a final map. 6. The project shall comply with the plans approved by the Design Review Committee (DRC-90-24). 7. The amount of any fees applicable to the project shall be those in effect at the time they are collected. 8. All streets within the development shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of the center line 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. 9. Graded access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures as required by the City Engineer. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any lot. 10. The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets as required by the City Engineer. ll. The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District 85-2. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with reapportionment of assessments as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. 12. A paved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 3 13. The developer shall grant access and maintenance easements for all storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of final map. 14. Off-site cumulative transportation impacts shall be mitigated to insignificant levels by participating in the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan. 15. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if traffic on Otay Lakes Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, EastLake Parkway, or East "H" Street exceed the levels of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds. 16. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. 17. 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. 18. Street "A" shall be completed through to its full length with construction of phase one. The following are Code requirements submitted by the Engineering Department: 1. The developer shall pay Eastern Area Development Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permits. The amount of said fees to be paid shall be that in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 2. The developer shall pay Traffic Signal Participation Fees in accordance with City Council Policy prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The developer shall pay all applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to Sewer Connection Fees, prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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 provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Manual of the City of Chula Vista. The following comments have been submitted by the Fire Marshal: 1. Fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and operational prior to the placement of any combustible materials on-site. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 4 2. An all-weather driving surface shall be provided to within 150 ft. of any portion of new construction. 3. Maximum hydrant pressure shall not exceed 150 psi. C. DISCUSSION The EastLake II GDP and the EastLake Greens SPA Plan designate the site for Residential Medium-High and a target yield of 179 units. The developable portion of the property sits well-above the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Parkway, and approximately at-grade with the EastLake Greens golf course which traverses the entire length of the site. A commercial site is located to the west across EastLake Parkway, and the EastLake Business Center is located to the north across Otay Lakes Road. The southerly extension of the property adjoins North Golf Course Vista Drive -- the EastLake Greens loop street -- and GreensView Road. The easterly extension of the property adjoins the terminus of Masters Ridge Road. The project involves a total of 158 one- and two-story townhouse units in four, five and six-unit structures. The street system consists of private drives. A main drive runs the length of the site with access off North Golf Course Vista Drive and Masters Ridge Road. The main drive as well as short stub drives and three loops provide access to the units, each of which features a two-car garage. Guest parking is provided in bays and along one side of the main drive. Full length driveways for most of the units provide additional guest parking. Open space consists of the major slopes adjacent to Otay Lakes Road, EastLake Parkway and GreensView Road, as well as small passive areas interior to the project. View corridors, some with seating areas, are located along the interface with the golf course. A central recreation area includes a swimming pool, restroom building, paved areas and guest parking. Each unit also has a private fenced yard. The applicant has proposed the following names for the private streets: Street A Greenbriar Drive Street B Baywood Circle Street C Broadmoor Court Street D Palm Valley Circle Street E Somerset Court Street F Indian Palms Court Street G River Oaks Court As noted earlier, this application includes a proposal to rename North/South Golf Course Vista Drive to North/South GreensView Drive, and GreensView Road to GreensGate Drive. The purpose is to simplify the name of the main loop street serving the entire Greens community. Staff has reviewed the changes and has no objections to the request. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 5 As noted in the background portion of this report, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project for site plan and architectural consideration. The Committee reduced the overall yield of the project to provide "windows" through to the golf course. The final plan approval resulted in a yield of 21 units under the target yield established in SPA plan. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Fairway Villas, Chula Vista Tract 90-8, 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 as determined by the site plan approval from the City's Design Review Committee. 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 residential type and density proposed is consistent with the EastLake II GDP and the EastLake Greens SPA Plan. b. Circulation - The street system consists of private streets and drives consistent with City standards. Participation in the East Chula Vista TPP has been required. c. Housing - The project will provide an attached housing product consistent with the overall mix approved for EastLake Greens. d. Conservation The conservation of major land forms and environmentally sensitive areas was addressed by the EastLake I and II GDP's and the EastLake Greens SPA Plan. The project is consistent with those plans. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space The overall park/recreation/open space program has been established by the GDP and SPA. The proposal is consistent with that program. f. Seismic Safety - There are no major geologic constraints on the site. Specific mitigation measures pertaining to grading, soil and slope stability, fill materials and foundation design have or will be incorporated into the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 6 g. Safety - The project will have to show compliance with the City's threshold standards for public services prior to the approval of final maps and the issuance of building permits. h. Noise All dwellings will be designed so as not to exceed interior noise levels of 45 dBA. A 5 ft.-high noise barrier shall be required along portions of the project interface with EastLake Parkway and GreensView Road. i. Scenic Highway Major landscaped open space reservations are proposed along the Otay Lakes Road and EastLake Parkway Scenic routes. j. Bicycle Routes - All of the major streets within EastLake Greens have been designed to accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings No public buildings are planned or proposed within the project boundaries. The project is subject to the payment of Eastern Area Development Impact Fees. 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. 5. To the extent feasible, structures have been sited and sized in a manner to provide for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 7887P/OOllY 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. 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. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Cable Company to insure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agueement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. General Development Plan PROJECT AREA (o) RESIDENTIAL MH / NON - RESIDENT~AL '~ j~-~\ L FAIRWAY VILLAS PCS-90-8 -- "EASTLAKE Cint, i , PLANNED COMMUNITY BY EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT CO. Exhibit 4 \ \ May 31, 1990 Mr. Steve Griffin CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Steve: EastLake Development Company is requesting approval of two backbone street name changes on the Phase I B/C EastLake Greens final map. Requested changes are as follows: Current Name New Street Name Street A: Golf Course GreensView Vista Drive Drive Street D: GreensView Drive GreensGate Drive F. STb4KE DEVELOP~E~ Attached is an Exhibit showing the two backbone roads at issue along with letters from The Fieldstone Company, Lane/Kuhn Pacific Homes, Century American and Davidson Communities stating compliance with this request. Street name changes will be processed with Century American's Tentative Map for unit #19 (Fairway Villas). Thank you for your assistance with this request. Please give me a call should there be any further questions. Sincerely, G~iI Croc~nzi ~ marketing Coordinator cc: Kent Aden EastLake Business Center 900 Lane Avenue Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 92013 (619) 421-O127 FAX (619) 421-1830 / EXHIBIT A \ ~ -- / ,' / / ' May 22, 1990 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Tentative Map 88-3 Unit #19 To Whom It May Concern: Century American has been advised by EastLake Development Company of their intent to change Street "A" from Golf Course Vista Drive to GreensView Drive and Street "D" from GreensView Drive to GreensGate Drive. Century American does not object to above requested name changes but does request notification by EastLake Development Company upon approval. CENTURY AMERICAN Title: ~D~- Date: ~ ~- May 22, 1990 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE: Tentative Map 88-3 Unit #13 and Unit #17 To Whom It May Concern: Lane/Kuhn Pacific Homes has been advised by EastLake Development Company of their intent to change Street "A" from Golf Course Vista Drive to GreensView Drive and Street "D" from GreensView Drive to GreensGate Drive. Lane/Kuhn Pacific Homes does not object to above requested name changes but does request notification by EastLake Development Company upon approval. zc - ~ -z ~'L- Date: ~ The Fi¢Idstune Company, 5465 Morehou.qe Drive, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121, (619) 546 80/51 FAX (619) 546-9472 May 30, 1990 City of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 RE: Tentative Map #88-3 Unit 7 and Unit 11 TO Whom it May Concern: The Fieldstone Company has been advised by Eastlake Development Company of their intent to change Street "A" from Golf Course Vist~ Drive to GreensView Drive and Street "D" from GreensView Drive to GreensGate Drive. The Fieldstone Company does not object to above requested name changes but does request notification by Eastlake Development Company upon approval. THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY Title: Project Manager Date: May 30, 1990 cc: Ray Bulthuis H~¥ 29~ Chula VtsiCa, CA 92010 Unit TO Whom It May Concern: Development Company of th-ir intent }o chan~ street "A" from oolf Court. Vista Drive to c~eensvlew Dr~vm and Strm~t ',D" ~rom Ormom~Vi~w Driv~ Co OreensGat0 Drive. Oavld~on Communi~io~ doe~ nO% object t~ above ~qua~d name ohaBg~ but does ~equest Botifi~atton by Ea~t~%ke Davolopment Company ~pO~ approval. ,., '1~30-05-30 14:~0 PAGE = 03 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT iAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Century American Corporation Kowa Bussan USA Inc. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Joint Venture of Above List 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any i~dividual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social 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.)ly/~//~/~/ Signature of applicant/date WPC 0701P b/lLc~Aec A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-39; request to construct a 30-unit apartment complex at 12§0 Third Avenue in the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista Crandall-Williams A. BACKGROUND Crandall-Williams has submitted this request to construct a two-story 30-unit apartment complex on a 1.26 acre parcel at 1250 Third Avenue. Two other projects in the Chula Vista area completed by Crandall Williams are located at 670 F Street and the corner of Beach and Davidson. The 1.26 acre flag-shaped lot is flat and presently developed with 2 single family residences and 2 detached garages. The proposed project will consist of the demolition of the two existing single-family dwelling units (both of which are currently rental units) and garages on the site to build a 30-unit two-story wood framed apartment complex consisting of 18 two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units. The Montgomery Specific Plan designates the area for Mercantile and Office Commercial. All of the project area, except the panhandle driveway entry, is zoned Commercial-Administrative and Professional Office subject to a precise plan (C-O-P) -- the driveway is zoned C-C-P {Central Commercial) subject to a precise plan. The C-O zone allows R-3 multiple-family residential uses through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Such multiple-family uses are subject to the regulations of the R-3 zone. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-44, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44. At the May 29, 1990, meeting of the Resource Conservation Committee (RCC), the Committee voted 4-0 to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44. The RCC also voted 4-0 to support the statement of the Chula Vista School District (included in the Negative Declaration) that developer fees currently allowed by the State are not adequate to provide facilities required to serve this project, and that annexation to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District will be necessary. At the June 6, 1990 meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend against adoption of the Negative Declaration. The concerns that were raised involved the following: l) Water - the rationale of the Sweetwater Authority in asking users to conserve water on a voluntary basis while at the same time continuing to allow hook-ups, 2) Schools the rationale for the Sweetwater Authority City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 2 continuing to enroll high school students in schools which are already over capacity, 3) Checklist if the impacts to schools-water are mitigated, the checklist should indicate that there is a potential impact. All of the above changes and rationales have been included in the Negative Declaration. The Montgomery Planning Committee recommended not to adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-44, and because of their concerns about water shortage, overcrowding of schools, crime {from more children in the area) and sewage {concern that the applicant consider the use of grey water), they did not vote on the project. 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-90-44. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the request, PCC-90-44, to construct a 30-unit apartment complex at 1250 Third Avenue in the Montgomery Community of Chula Vista, subject to the condition that: the developer shall satisfy the requirements of Chula Vista School District which has recommended annexation to a Mello-Roos. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use North R-3 High Density Residential Two-story apartment complex South R-3, C-C-P High Density Residential, Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan - Three-story senior citizen housing project East C-C-P Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan - Apartments West RV-I§ Parks and Recreation - Lauderbach Community Park Existing site characteristics The 1.26 acre flat-shaped lot is flat and presently developed with 2 single family residences and 2 detached garages. The terrain slopes south to north approximately 7 feet, and west to east about 7 feet, with the highest point being located at the southwest corner of the parcel. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 3 Proposed use The proposed project consists of a two-story structure with 30 apartment units, 68 parking spaces (including 17 garages) and a recreation room. The 12 one-bedroom units will range from approximately 650 sq. ft. 700 sq. ft. and 18 two-bedroom units will range from approximately 850-925 sq. ft. Rents for the proposed project will range from $500 for the 1 bedroom to $625 for the 2 bedroom. D. ANALYSIS As stated previously, the General Plan and the Montgomery Specific Plan designate the site for Mercantile and Office Commercial. The project area is zoned Administrative and Professional Office with a precise plan (C-O-P) and Central Commercial with a precise plan {C-C-P). As noted, the C-O zone allows R-3 multiple family residential uses through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and subject to the regulations of the R-3 zone. In this instance, the property is a panhandle lot with minimum frontage on Third Avenue. As a result, it does not represent a good candidate for typical retail and office commercial uses which depend on exposure and convenient access. Also, the residential proposal is compatible with the surrounding area in which the Lauderbach Community Park abuts the property to the west, a two-story apartment complex to the north, a three-story senior citizen housing project to the south, and a church and apartments to the east. In terms of density and development standards, the proposal is consistent with the R-3 regulations with which it must comply. The R-3 zone would allow a density of 33 units, while the project yield is 30 units. The project also complies with all of the R-3 height, bulk, setback and parking standards. With regard to design, the Design Review Committee will be reviewing this proposal at their meeting of June 4, 1990. Staff will report on the results of that meeting at the June 6 hearing. 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 site provides a logical location for multiple-family residential development. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of June 27, 1990 Page 4 2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The site is compatible with the surrounding uses which are high residential and park. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The use will be allowed with a conditional use permit and will be required to comply with all applicable codes prior to the issuance of a building 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. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Montgomery Specific Plan. WPC 7878P/2652P L STUDY AREA BACH PROJECT AREA r LAUDFRBACH C Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92OII (619) 691-5553 April 5. 1990 Ms. Barbara Reid Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92011 Dear Ms. Reid: RE: PCC-90-39 - Park Village Apartments The proposed construction of the 30 unit Park Village Apartments would impact the Sweetwater Union High School District. The nine students expected to be generated by this development would attend Chula Vista High School. which is currently at 108% overall capacity. Castle Park Middle School. currently operatin~ under capacity, will absorb the remaining students. Payment of school fees prior to issuance of building permits will be required. Director of Planning cc: Kate Shurson. Chula Vista City Schools CITY SCHOOL ' ISTRICT 4 EAST"J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 ~ ~ ~ IS AN INDIVIDU~ OF GREAT WORT~ .OAROOFE~TIO. May 24, 1990 JC~E~ D. CUMMINGS, ~.D. ~ARO~ G~ ~TR~K A. ~ JUDY ~H~ENBE~ FPaaKA.~R^NT~,O Rt. L. 0. Crandall 8ox 2306 SUPERINTENDENT 7858 [vanhoe Avenue ~OH, F. VUG,e. PhD. Ladolla, CA 92038 RE:Mitigation of School Impacts - 30 Unit Apartment Project at 1250 Third Avenue, Chula Vista Dear Mr. Cranda11: As m~tigat~on for ~mpacts created by children generated by the above-referenced pro~ect, the Chula Vista C~ty School D~str~ct has ?uested annexation to Community Facilities D~str~ct No. 5. [t ~s understanding that this w~ll be a condition of approval on the C~ty's ndit~onal Use Permit. Out consultant, Tom Meade, has been unable to contact you to date to d~scuss the annexation proceedings. Since we process several p~o~ects together under one annexation, ~t fs ~mpo~tant that work be commenced on your project. This w~11 avoid the costs associated with having ~o annex a s~ngle project and also prevent any delays when you wish to pull building permits. Ne operate on a relatively short t~mel~ne for these annexations, and request that you contact Mr. Reade ~mmediately to make sure you~ p~oject ~s ~ncluded ~n Annexation No. 2. For your ~nformat~on, ! am enclosing cop~es of the F~nanc~al Feasibility Analys~s and Special Tax Report for CFD No. 5, the ex~st~ng distr~ct to which you will annex, in orde~ to ~n~t~ate annexation proceedings, the D~st~ct requires a letter from you requesting annexation to CFD No. 5. A sample lette~ ~s enclosed as Exhibit 1. Along w~th the letter, we need a legal description, title report and copy of the tentatfve/f~nal map. A copy of the flow chart ~nd~cat~ng the steps ~n the annexation process ~s attached as Exhibit 2. The 1989-90 base tax for CFD No. 5 ~s $.1459/square foot. Various types of development are assessed at d~fferent rates depending on studen~ generation estimates. Residential assessments for the d~fferent categories are: Residential Type Factor (% of Base Tax) S~ngle Family 100~ Duplex 90~ Triplex 90~ : Fourplex 90~ Condominium, Townhome 90% Apartment, per unit 60~ Retirement Facility Unit 16.67~ May 24, 1990 Mr. L. D. Crandal) Page 2 Re: Mitigation of School Impacts - 30 Unit Apartment Project at 1250 Third Avenue, Chula Vista Therefore, apartment units are assessed at 60% of .the base rate ($ .1459) per square foot of assessable area. This equates to $ .09 square/foot for apartments, with the assessment period commencing when building permits are obtained for a period not to exceed 25 years. Once the assessment is in place, the initial rate is increased by 2% per year compounding. This assessment will appear on the tax bill for the property. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Meade at 297-8601. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: George Krempl Tom Meade Tom Silva Doug Williams  tu~JUJU°le'"ea ~u. JultllM ¥,D '¥.,LSI^ ¥"IFIH~)J~J j j J ~-~ S.J.N~iN.J.~¥d¥ ~ '~' ~I~DV'I"IIA '~tl~'~/d ~' I I , I "- ~$L~'V[NTH) S~ , CHANGES ~' ' ...... '"~ :~ ~AC~ ~ V ~ ~. ~. '~. .,... ~ < ~.~.~ ..-.. ~ ~ CHANGES ~ ~ ~ ~ _..,~- . · . .... : ~] ~ ., ~'"*~' '~ ' , .... ~o ,~ .. : ~ : .~ Z~ .... ~ ,~ ~R : ~ ~ ST. 0 ~P 505 - CH~ ~STA - POE QSEC 142 m ROS 2667 negative declaration- PROJECT NAME: Park Village Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: 1250 Third Avenue, (APN 619-211-38) PROJECT APPLICANT: L. D. Crandall and D. M. Williams CASE NO: IS-90-44 DATE: May l, 1990 A. Project Setting The proposed project is a 30-unit apartment complex on a 1.26 acre panhandle-shaped lot located at 1250 Third Avenue. The site is presently flat and there are no sensitive plant or animal resources on the site. The site is presently developed with 2 single family residences and 2 detached garages. Surrounding uses include apartments to the north, apartments and a vacant lot to the south, multi-family and commercial uses to the east, and a park to the west. B. Project Description The proposed project will consist of the demolition of the two existing single-family dwelling units and garages on the site to build a 30-unit, two-story wood-framed apartment complex. The complex will consist of 18 two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units. Access to the site will be provided from Third Avenue. Sixty-eight on-site parking spaces will be provided including 17 garages. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The project area is zoned Administrative and Professional Office with a precise plan {C-O-P) and Central Commercial with a precise plan (C-C-P). The C-O zone allows residential uses through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In the Apartment Residential (R-3) zone, residential apartment complexes are permitted with a maximum height restriction of 3-1/2 stories or 45 feet. The proposed project has a maximum height of 3 stories and with conformance to conditions of approval for a conditional use permit, will be compatible with the current zoning, the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the site is High Density Residential which allows 27 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 23.8 units per acre and is therefore compatible with the high-density residential designation. _ city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section.CH~JL~ VJ~--FA -2- D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The threshold/standards policy requires that fire and emergency medical units must be able to respond throughout the City to calls within 5 minutes in 75% of the cases and 7 minutes in 95% of the cases. The project site is located 3/8 of a mile from the nearest fire station, and response time is estimated to be 4 minutes. The installation of at least one public and one private fire hydrant will be required by the Fire Department. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 2. Police The threshold/standards policy requires that police units must be able to respond to emergency calls throughout the City within 5 minutes in 75% of the cases and within 7 minutes in 90% of the cases. The Police Department has indicated that there is no problem providing adequate servicing of the project site. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 3. Traffic The threshold/standards policy requires that a level of service (LOS) "C" be maintained at all intersections, with the exception that LOS "D" may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is estimated to be 19,620. Upon project completion, the ADT would be expected to be 19,860. The estimated LOS would be "A". Both before and after project completion, with implementation of Engineering Department design standards. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the City's policy. 4. Park/Recreation The threshold/standards policy does not apply to land uses of 1-805. However, the park acreage in this area is not sufficient to serve the existing population and it is recommended that the applicant provide some open turfed area on the site. Applicant will be required to pay Park Area Development fees. 5. Drainage The Engineering Department is satisfied that this project will not cause storm water flows and volumes to exceed City Engineering standards. The site is not within a floodplain area and existing drainage infrastructure exists along Third Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project meets the threshold standards. -3- 6. Sewer The threshold/standards policy requires that sewage flows and volume must not exceed City Engineering standards. The proposed project will generate an estimated 375 pounds per day of solid waste and an estimated 5,963 gallons per day of liquid waste which will be served by an 8-inch line on Third Avenue. This line is considered adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project is considered to be compatible with the City's policy. 7. Water The threshold/standards policy requires that adequate water service be available for proposed projects. The Sweetwater Authority was notified of the proposed project and has not identified any constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project. Staff at the Sweetwater Authority, in response to the Montgomery Planning Committee inquiry as to their rationale for asking residents to conserve water and at the same time stating that there are not any constraints to providing adequate water supply for the project, stated the following. There have been four years of a drought situation in Southern California. As this is not expected to continue and the water situation is not severe enough to warrant stoppage of water hook-up, voluntary conservation is the only action the water authority is taking at the moment. If the drought continues, either mandatory conservation or stoppage of water hook-ups could result. 8. Schools The proposed project lies within the Chula Vista City School District, which serves children from kindergarten through grade 6. The project will also be serving the Sweetwater Union High School District. The Sweetwater School District has noticed the City that developer fees of $.87/sq. ft. of assessable area must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The Chula Vista School District has indicated that developer fees currently allowed by the State are not adequate to provide facilities required to serve this project, and has indicated that annexation to a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District will be necessary. The projected impacts on area schools are: Current Current Generated School Attendance ~apacity From Project Elementary Lauderbach* 721 767 9 Jr. High Castle Park Middle 1,090 1,456 5.7 Sr. High C.V. Hi9h 1,978 1,836 3 *Students may attend Harborside -4- Attendance Capacity Harborside 693 732 The Montgomery Planning Committee asked for the rationale as to why the Sweetwater Union High School District continues to place people in the already overcrowded schools. Staff of the Sweetwater Union High School District responded that their policy is that projects over 40 units and east of 1-805 may require a Mello-Roos. Projects less than 40 units and west of 1-805 are generally not considered for a Mello Roos. Staff of the Sweetwater Union High School District also stated that the rationale for students from this project attending Chula Vista High School rather than Castle Park High School is that both schools are currently taking additional students even though they are both over-capacity and this project is within the Chula Vista High School attendance boundary. Staff from the Sweetwater Union School District further stated that school enrollment can go as high as 110% over capacity. E. Identification of Environmental Effects There is no substantial evidence, as a result of this initial study, that the proposed project will result in any significant environmental effects. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effect~ Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a soils report, a drainage study, and a grading plan to assure proper development and drainage. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The site is presently developed and does not include any rare or endangered species nor the habitat of a sensitive plant or animal species. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. -5- 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project achieves the long-term goals of the City of Chula Vista and meets the applicable threshold standards. Therefore, the project will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project is occurring on a site which is already developed. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There is no substantial evidence that the project will cause adverse effects to humans and the project will not result in the release of any hazardous substances, a significant increase in ambient noise levels, or a significant increase in vibrations on emissions. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Keith Hawkins, Police Department Steve Griffin, Current Planning Robin Keightley, Advanced Planning Lee McEachern, Planning Intern Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva City of Chula Vista School District: Kate Shurson Applicant's Agent: D. M. Williams -6- 2. Documents State CEQA Guidelines, 1986 Chula Vista General Plan, 1989 Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code General Plan Update, EIR 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 {Rev. 3/88) WPC 7660P ~t ~ FOR OFFICE-USE Case No. INITIAL STUDY ~'~-~?~C,~-~.- Keceipt No. Date Rec'd - City of Chula Vista Accepted b~ Application Form " Project No A. .BACKGROUND 2. PR~ECT LOCATION (Streetaddress-or desc~p~ion) Assessors ook, Page- ' 4. Name'Of Appl ~ant '~_ ~.~~~ .~ ~ City ~ ~/~ State ~ Zip 5. :Name of Preparer/Agent ~.~ City State Zip Relation to Applicant ~ ~ 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the ~n~ironmental Review COordinator a. Permits or approvals required: Genera~ Plan Revision ~Des~gn 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. ~nclosures or documents ~as required by the ~nvironmenta~ Review Coordinator). Location Map ~Arch. ~levations Grading Plan ~ng. Geology Report ~andscape Plans Hydrologica~ Study Site P~an ~ Photos of Site ~ - Biolog~ca~ Study Parce~ Map Setting Archaeologica~ Survey Precise P~an Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific P~an ~mprovement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required -2- B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Land Area: sq. footage ~cl -- , or acreage If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this sectio0 if.project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family _~ .. Townhouse Condominium ~ b. Number of structures and heights. C._ .Numb.er._o~__DD~.sF_- ] _b~droom ~ ~ 2 bedrooms ~ - .... 4 bedrooms. - ~To~l units e. - Net density (DU/total..acres minus a~ .dedication) ~ ~ ' f. Estimated project population ~ ~~ . g- Estimated sale or rental price range i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or strucYtures -- Percent of site in road and paved surface ~ 3. Comp]ere this section if P~oject is c~mmer~ial o~ industrial. ............. ....... b. Floor a~ea Height of structure,s) c. Type of construction used in the structure ~ ~ ~ - orientation to adjoining pro s and streets e. ~umber of on-s~te Par~in~paces PrOVided f. Estimated numbeu.of employees pe~ shift shifts ~/~ Total ~ . ~Umbe~ of g. Estimated n~mbe~ of customers ~per day) and bas~s of estimate~ -3- -h. -£sd~imated range of service area ar~ basis of estimate i. TypeJexte~nt o?~.operations not in enclosed bu~'l~ng Hours of operation~ k. Type of exterior tight'in~ 4. If project is othe~ than resident~a~~al or industr~ complgt~ thi s_ sectio~ _ ~-~-~ a. .Type of project ~--- b. Type of facilities prov~de~~-'~ ...... ~- c. Square %eet of eac~osed ~truct~--. _ d. Heigh.t of struc~re{s) - ~xim~ ...... e. --Ultimate occupancy load of project f. __ ~umber ~f on-site parkin~ s-~O-~p~i~ g. Square feet of road and paved surfa~ ...... C. PR~ECT CHA~CTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of-any~i~ pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) i'd~tify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated (If yes, complete the following:) Excluding trenches to be ba~kfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? /Ck/~-/q, I,, 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 ~LI Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill __'~J~,l Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used lair conditioning, electrical appliance, heisting equipment, etc.) 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that !~ part of the project Isq. ft. or acres) ~__-~/~ ~ ~__~)~,j~ [~-~f~-'~), 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type pf these jobs. ~~._F.~O~j 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by 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 t? the following: new streets; street'widening; extension of gas, e~ectri~ and sewer ..... lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property~ (If yes, please attach) · Has a Soils Report on the project site been made~ {I~ yes, please attach) ' ' 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? ~)0 (If yes, please explain in detail.) a.Is there Qny surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? -5- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward ...a-domestic water supply, lake, res~'rvoir or bay? ~---I~ouYd-dPa-irtage--frq~m the ~ ~u~e~]O~-]~l tJ~ e. DeScribe ~1 drai~nage facilities to be provided ~nd their 3. ~ise: ' or from points of access which may impact the surroundi~-~F . adjacent l ond uses? 4. Biology a. IS the P~jeet~-~-~a~i~mai~'~a~[~l~ natural state? b. Zndtc~te ~ype, size and quantity of, trees ~tn%si~ ~nd which Jif :ny) wii: ~e ~emoved 9X the project, l,;~q,~o~4 5. Pas~ Use lOf t~e-La.d a,. Are there any known historical re~-~ces-166~{eE~- pr°~e6{ S~te? '~'~; b. Have there been any hazardou~ 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. -6- b. Describe all structures and land uses Currently existing on adjacent property. ~" South /-~/~c/ West ~/<. 7. Social a. Are there any residents Qo__~jte2_..~I_f so,_bow.many?)_ ~}.~ . b. Are there'any current employment oPportunities on site? {If so, .__ how many and what Mpe?) Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation the proposed project. E. CERTIFICATION or Owne~/o~e/~ ~n escrow~ Consultant or Agent HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT,' A ' or DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN O ERS. IP INTERESTS ON APPLICATIONS ~qUIRL DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ICOMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor' of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Board~Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No..~ If yes, please indicate person(s) is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, Ith!.s..and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other [political subdivision, or any other group or combination actin~g asyunit."~ {NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) '~ignatufe of~pp ii'ant/date WPC 0701P ~ ' r~nc or ~ype name or applicant ~tLVD N~S ALAMITOS 3OO SILVAS ST AWAII AV I AV~_---: -_-_' :OCHRA~ ~V .E MAY ~AITLAND MATHER CENTER ,- - Conditional Use Permit Application 1250 Third Avenue ._' ............ Cran~al'l-Williams Development The Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow construction of an apartment development ih the CO zone as provided for in the zoning ordinance. The proposed project is in conformance with all of the requirements of the R-3 zone as provided for in the ordinance. In addition to the required parking an additional 13 parking spaces have been provided for on-site guest parking because, of the lack of street parking for this parcel. The following findings can be made by the Zoning Administrator for this development: 1. The site-is zoned CO and would accomodate approximately a 30,000 square foot commercial office building with parking for 100 cars. Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance a CUP would allow development of the site under the provis- ions of the R-3 zone. The proposed residential use is a more appropriate use than commercial office as the site is adjacent to a city park and surrounded by other residen- tial uses. This will lessen the impact of development and contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. 2. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. In fact the development of a residential project will improve what is now an under utilized site next to the park. 3. The proposed project, as evidenced by the accompanying exhibits, conforms with all of the regulations and conditions of the Municpal Code for such use. 4. The granting of this Conditional Use permit is in accordance with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Case No...~"5o CITY DATA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..... - -t..LzCumrem~ Zoning_on site: C~-~-~ ~-~-~ --_- ..... :'-:'- -- - -' -. ]-' Nomth -. __ . '::-.- :'-:'z' 7 ::::_:....-:_ Sou~ -'. -. - ~) .... .... -: - . -. .... ._ --:-'- ...... :-~--.. ~. ~ .... West... ~. /~ --: -Does- the ~oj~: co~form_t~ the-c~r~en[ -' ~ '- - :2.. General_Plan land_use North ~f~ ~' ~es . West ~S ~ ~.-the P~o~ect c~mpatible ~th the-General P~n:band. Use Diagram? is 't~e -~o~ect- ar6a designated ~r-c~n~v~n _or Ope~ spac~ or adjacent to ap.:amea. ~o designated? - ~_ _ - _ . . . . .~.s the project located a~acent ~to-any scenic rou~s~ ~ - {I[ye~, d~scr-ibe the de~i'gn ~cbm~que~. being_ used t~ p~otect om enhance _~he scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? /~ ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) ~'~-- ~l'F~ ~-'/~-~-" 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 _C.apaci ty From Project ~Elementary 0%.~ ~x>~ -7 ~_ I -7~,~' Jr. High ?-.-,~s~z< ~?,c 109o i~ ~ 7 Sr. High ~' ~ /~_~_ ~ ..~ 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance_~romnearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? {If so, please describe.} ~ 5. Energy Consumptio~ Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following so~ces: .~ Electricity {per year).~ Natural Gas (per year) ~ - Water (per day) I~o~/~<~,~/~ . 6. ~e~arks: /or Representative D'irect°r~ng Date -lO- . z ...... Case No. G..ENGI"EERING DEPARTMENT - -; ] ' , . 1. Draina9e .. _ .a.~ Is.th~ projec% site within a floo~ p(ain? b.. Will th~-p~oject be subject to any existing floodinghazards? c. - Will,_~p_~ject crea~ any floo~ing hazards? d. ._What is the location and description of existing on-site -~ge facilities? _. ~o~ ~.~ e. ~:~re~th~y adequate to serve the project? . , . , -, ~,~ ,~ J~ ..... g.: Are ~ey adequate to serve the project? .,U~ _ 2~-' TPAnsportation ~ ~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be ~ generated ~-~~-~a~ ..... t~-~ c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Be fore After L.O.S. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project~ ~_~) If not, explain briefly. ~ - _ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? ~0 If so, specify the general nature of the ~essary actions. - ll Case No. 3. G_eol ogy_ a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards?~ Landslide or slippage? ~ ~ ~ ~!~-~__ b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? m ~ -. 4 Soi]J a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? u~~ b. J~-~e~,v~at are--these-adverse soil conditions? ~ c. Is a soils report necessary?., ~ ..... 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12- .. Case No. 7. ~ir Quality -'- If there .is an~ diKect or ,indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: _. Total Vehicle .... Factor .S_.P.. o 11 uti on Hydrocarbons i ~0'-~ ~ .... ]~:~ ~_~ .... Part~] ares .... I~ X 1.5 Sulfur . __. --- I~o X -.'78 ...... ~o.~ 8. ~e Generation 'How much sOlid and liquid' (Sewa~e~ ~s~ wil~ be ~enerated by the proposed Pr6je~s p6F"~'~? .... i~ ~ .What]-is~ the local:ion-an~ ~Jze of e~isti~ sewer lines to the site? ~~9~_r adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impac~ If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible 'S-i~nificant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area. Remarks/necessary mitigation measures - 13 - .. Case No. H. FIRE DEPAR~iENT - l. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is '~time? -~ , the Fire 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? ~ ' Marsha~ - u -~ 7{, Date -13(a)- Case No. H-l, P_ARKS_,& RECR~EATT~ON DEPARTMENT J~roje-ct? - u] ~ ' Neighborhood ~ ~ . 3. Does th~"~>~j~t exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds Parks and Recreation Director or Representative Date CHUI..A ( .STA CITY SCHOOL _ ISTRiCT 84 EAST J' STREET · CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARDOFEDUC&TION April 9, 1990 PATR~K & JUDD JUDY~HULENBERG F~krAR~T~NG NS. Barbara Reid Planning Department supER~mm~m City of Chula Vista ~O~F. VUG~.~.O. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 APE I 2 1990, RE: Case No. PCC-90-39 / Case No. Applicant: Crandall-~illfams Location: 1250 Third Avenue APN: 619-211-38 P~oposed Pro3ec~: 30 Unit Apartment Buildings Dea~ Ns. Reid: This is to advise 'You tha~ the project at 1250 Third Avenue is located within the Chula V~sta City School District which serves children f.rom K~ndergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established attendance_area boundaries and ~ransportatJon services. Lauderbach'~chool is the closest existing facility to the above-referenced project. However, the District Js unable at this time to advise the City of Chula V~sta or potential homeowners which school children from this subdivision will attend. Schoo]s in this area are at or near capacity and students may be required to a~tend schools in other locations ~n the District. Should this be the case, the District provides transportation as set forth in Board Policy #3542 (copy attached). School assignments may also be based on individual pupil needs, special programs, or the District's ~ntegration goals. It is also possible children from this pro~ect may attend a new school constructed at some future date. Please be advised that developer fees currently allowed by the State are ~nadequate to provide facilities required to serve this project. The D~str~ct would be glad to discuss alternative financing mechanisms, ~nclud~ng but not l~m~ted to, formation of or annexation to a Hel]o-Roos Community Facilities District. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this off~¢e. Sincerely, Kate Shurson D~rec~or of Planning KS:dp cc: D. H. ~]liams L. D. Crandall Tom Si]va £nc]osure - ...... CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT-- BOARD POLICY =3542 /~uthorized Minimum Distaaces for Bus Traosportalion The following-are the minimum distaaces children ia different grades must live-from school tO have bus tran,~portaQon provided: Grade Distaace .... -Kindergarten ,-~ ~ _' - - ' - 3-/4 mile G~ade i - ' " 1 mile Grades'2~3 ' ' 1¼ mile Grade-~ 4-6 -" ~ 1½ n~le- ' .... For reasons of safety, the Superintendent or designee may make individual exc~p/ions to ~hese dfstances .... ..... ~ : -~ ~-- _~. .. :- LEGAL REFERENCE: POLICY ADOPTED: 7-1-60 Reviewed a=d readop[ed: 2-11-63 AMENDED: 6-1-76 Sweetwater Union High Schoc l District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92011 (619) 691-$553 . ~ Hs. Barbara Reid Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 9201! Dear ~s. Reid: RE: PCC-90-39 - Park Village Apartments The proposed Construction of the 30 unit Park Village Apartments would impact the Sweetwater Union High School District. The nine students expected to be generated by this development would attend Chula Vista High School. which is Currently at 108% overall capacity. Castle Park Middle School. currently operating under capacitv, will absorb the remaining students. Payment of school fees Prior to issuance of building Permits will be required. Cordially. Thomas Silva Director of Plannin~ cc: Kate Shurson. Chula Vista City Schools CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT' APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS IWHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING ~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, Boardq,jComissions, Comittees 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, soc-6-6-1~T 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 actin? as funit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) /~ ~ ~-'~ Signature of~a~pp)~t/date . A-110 ~ype name of applicant