HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/06/12 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, June 12, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning
Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's
jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's
presentation may not exceed five minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of March 27 and May 8, 1991
1. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III
2. Report on Amendment #1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area, Preliminary Report and Negative Declaration
IS-91-36
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-04 - Consideration of tentative subdivison
map for East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract
91-04 United Enterprises, Limited
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of June 19, 1991
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991
1. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to Mitigation Monitorim, Program for
EIR-89-10. Rancho del Rey SPA III.
A. BACKGROUND:
A mitigation monitoring program for Rancho del Rey SPA HI was adopted at the same
time as the certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
EIR-89-10 for Rancho del Rey SPA III, on November 14, 1990 by the Planning
Commission, and on January 15, 1991 by Council.
At the Council meeting of January 15, 1991, Council directed the applicant to undertake
studies on the subject of whether air quality could be improved further within the project
and to reduce the water use within the project.
These studies were heard by the Planning Commission at their meetings of May 8, 1991,
and May 22, 1991. On May 22, 1991, the Planning Commission resolved to continue
consideration of the water and air reports until the time Council adopted City-wide
policies on water conservation and improvement of air quality.
Amendments to the Mitigation Monitoring Program were requested by the developer in
meetings with staff in order to:
1. Remove all references to a specific consultant;
2. To correct sections which were inconsistent with the EIR.
Staff further determined that more specific language regarding mitigation for gnatcatcher
habitat, as forwarded by U. S. Fish and Wildlife should be included.
The proposed Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program as
attached and recommend that Council adopt the amended Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Rancho del Rey SPA III.
AMENDED
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RANCHO DEL REY SPA Ill
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL GUIDELINF_~
This miti~alion monitoring program is based on th~ mitigation and monilm'ing pro.'am prepared
for the City of Chula Vista for the Rancho del Rey SPA ltl' Environmental Impact R~ort (EIR)
and em'tiffed by the City Council'tn Sanuary 1991. This comprehensive monitming program is
presented in two parts, the first of which addresses mitigation measures to be monitored by the
City of Chula Vista and the second of which addresses monitoring to be provided by the City's
environmental ~onsultant- The program will serve a dual purpose of verifying implementation
of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and of generating information on the
effectiveness of the ml~igation measures to guide future mitigation programs. The program
includes specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating thc success
of the mitigation
The monitoring program for Rancho del Rey SPA ~I addresses impacts for the following issues:
o Geology and Soils
o Drainage/GroundwaterAVater Quality
o Landform Alteralion/Aesthetics
o Air
o Biology
o Cultural Resources
o Transportation
o Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
o Services and Utilities
A monitoring team has been assembled. Management of the team is the responsibility of the City
of Chula Vista. Monitoring activities will be accomplished by City staff and by environmental
~onsultanu to the City.
PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
Prior to 'any consU'uction activities, meetings should take place between all thc panics involved
to initiate thc monitoring program and to establish the responsibility and authority of the
It is important that tm effective reporting system be established prio~ to any monitoring
It is necessary that all the parties involved have a clear understanding of the mitigation
monitoring ~ ns ~d~_pted and that these mifiga~on measures be distributed to the
participants of the monitoring effo~ Those who would have a complete list of all the mitigetion
measures adol~d by thc City would include appropriete City staff, the City's environmental
consultunt, the project applicant, the applieent's consultants, and the construction crew supervisor.
The Ci~ witl distribute to each monitor a specific list of mitigetion measures thet pcrta~ to their
monitoring tasks and thc epprepriate time frame thet these mitigation measures are anticipated
to be implemen2ct
The followin~ tax~ includes a summary of the project impact. The nex~ ~ection of the tex~
focuses on the m~nitorin~ responsibilkies of the ~i~y of Chula ¥~a staff, followed by a section
descfibin~ ~he pro,ram for wMch the ~y's cnviro~ne~al consul~au~ is ~esponsible. The
mitigation and monitorM~ pro~m included in the Env[romnent~ Impact Report is included as
A~chn~n~ A of ~[s document
MONITORING BY CITY STAFF
Please note that the following section derives from thc Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Rancho del Ray SPA III project.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measur~
I. All fill would consist of approved earth material. The geotechnical consultant would bc
contacted for evaluation of imported fill at least two working days prior to importation.
2. The height, slope ratio, and compaction of all cut-and-f'fl] slopes would conform to
specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, as appropriate. Fill slopes not
conforming to the assumptions stated in the geotechnical recommendations would bc
individually studied prior ~o completion of grading. Cut slopes would be evaluated by
the geotechnical consultant during grading. Grading would be done in accordance with
Chula Vista Grading Ordinance number 1797 as amended by ordinances 1877 and 2128.
3. Stabili--tion fills should be utilized in areas dcemed appropriate by the geotechnical
consultant. The types and specifications of stabilization fills would be determined during
excavation by the geo~echnical consultant.
2
~IO/EOO'Bg~d la'I~IGS Ol NO~ ID:II lO, ! Nn£
4. Subdrai~ would be insralied si the be~ of fils placed in canyons and draws or over
sreas of actual or po~tial seepage. Specific locations would be de~errulned in the field
during ~'ading, with inmfllation being reviewed by ~he ~lo~ical consulumt prior ~o
placement of fill.
To reduco impac~ from ~roundshaklng during a ma~or earthquake, thc project proponent
would sdhere to the Uniform Building Code and the ~ Lam, al Forc~
Requi~r~n~s of the Structural Engineer's Assoclalion of Califom'm.
6. 'Foundations, slabs, footings, and retaining walls would be designed in accordance with
specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, based on the tlq0e of soils
encount~,,d and pertinent smictural considerations.
7. Final ~rading plans and foundations plans for the project si~e would be reviewed and
approved by the geotechnical consulr~mt and the Cily prior ~o construction.
8. Highly expansive soils used as fill would be placed a minimum of 3 feet below finish
gr~__Oe and 15 feet inside of ~l slopes. Bentonite, ff used as fill, would be placed a
minimum of 10 feet below finish gade and 15 feet inside of fill slopes.
9. In a~as that receive fill or seiIlement sensitive improvements, loose topsoil/colluvium,
landslide debris, alluvial deposits, end-dump fills, and undocumented fils not removed
by planned grading operations would be removed to firm natural ~round. The exposed
natural ground would be scarified and properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction prior to placing additional f'lll and/or slruct~res.
10. The outer portion of fill slopes would be composed of compacted granular soil fill ~o
reduc~ the potential surhcial erosion.
11. The si~e would be brought to final subgrade elevalions with sl~'uct~ral fill compacted in
layers. Lifts of fill would be no thicker than will allow for adequsie bonding and
· compaction. Variable lift ~hicknesses woukl not exo~d 6 to 8 inches.
12. Periodic on-site observations would be made by thc soil engineer or en~neering geologist
during ~rading and/or consu'uction to monitor for the presence of groundwater. /3fading
operations on the site would be scheduled to place oversize rock and expansive soils in
the deeper canyon fils and to utilize/ranular mam'ials having a low expansion potential
to cap bnltd|~$ pads and fill slopes.
M~tori~g Agency
The City of Chula Viste Engineering Department would be responsible for verifying implementa-
ion of the l~flti~ation measures associated with the potential geology and soils impacts.
DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/WATER QUALITY
Miti~alion Measures
1. Adhelznce to regulations ~garding stormwatcr discharge set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE~).
Monltortn~ Ai~ncy
The City of Chula Vista Engineering Dc"~artment would be responsible for verifying implementa-
tion of gte mitigation measures associated with the potential groundwn___tcr_/water quality impacts.
LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS
Mitlgnflon Measures
1. Implementation of thc community design guidelines detailed in ~.e SPA rrt plan.
2. Preparation of an overall landscape scheme (refer to p. 4-18 of the ,viii) providing a
comprehensive framework for individual landscape plans. Planting would conform to thc
applicable City of Chula Vista standards for landscape planting. If a rough grading
permit is requested, an erosion conlrol plan would also be necessary (see p. 4-19 of the
EIR). The plan would provide for installation of temporary landscaping on all disturbed
areas not proposed to be landscaped in accordance with approved final landscape plans.
This plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape arc~
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning D~panment and Engineering D~parm~nt would b~ r~ponsibl¢
for v~rifying the implementalion of ~he mitigation measures associa~l wi~h ~he landform
al~iion/aesthetic impacts.
Mitigntion M~sures
'1. Adherence to recommendations made by the 1982 SIP and the fonhcominl~ San Diego
Air Quality Plan regarding local participation in air emission reduction measures.
2. TI~ peoject proponent would facilitate thc use of alternative transportation modes by
promoting public transit usage and carpooling by proj~--t residents through provision of
4
pad-and-ride lots and bicycle facilities, inc.~t,d!ng b/cycle lanes and secure storage
facilities et all public facilities within the project area.
Thc project proponent would provide mass l~ansit accommodations for convenience of
customers (bus shel~) and vehicles (bus turnouts) including a i~'ensit stop ia front of the
r~l~ement community on F~t H Street
4, To avoid creation of air pollution '*hot spots" a~ intersections, mitigation measurcs
recommended in thc Transportation Section would be implemented to t~loce pote~i~ny
~i~ntficant impacts to air quality.
The City of Chula Vista Plaoning and Engineering departments would be responsible for
verifying thc implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the air quality impacts.
CULTURAL RF. SOURCES
bl~ti~tlon Measures
Mitigation measures for cultural resources have been completed; no additional mitigation or
TRANSPORTATION
Miti~at{on Measures
1. Existing + Cumulative Mitigation Measures
a. Prior to occupancy of any units of SPA III, subject to meeting traffic warrants,
sigt~li~. Telegraph Canyon Road and Pasco Lader~.
2. lq. xiating + Cumulative + Phase 1 of SPA ~I Mitigation Measures
a. Open up the south leg of the East H Street/Fast Busincss Park Road intersection
where Phase 1 traffic is assumed to enm- and exit.
Existing + Cumulative + Phase 1 + Phase 2 of SPA fir Mitigation Measures
a. Construct Pasco Ranchero between H Street and Telegraph Canyon RoacL
~IO/900'BgUd IaISIG9 0£ WO~ E~:II IG, S Nn£
b. Extend ~ Su~et to provide a through two.lane road between Pasco del Rey sad
Pasco Ranchero.
c. Place stop sign controls on Pasoo Ladeta ~t Past I Stroct, East ~ Street at Pase, o
Ranchero, and Pasco Ranchero at Telesraph _c~__~yon Road.
Exi~ng + Cumulative + Phases 1, 2, and 3 of SPA HI Mitigation bie~mu~
Signalize Telegraph Canyon Ro~ and Pasco Ranchcro.
$. Compliance with I~CVTPP for current and future updates to maintain ~ptable levels
of ~wico on all affected intersections and roadway sogrnents.
Monitoring Agency
The City of C~ula Vista Planning Department and the City Traffic Engineer wonl~ be responsible
for verifying implementation of the mitigation measures associated with waasportation impacts.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
Mifi~tioa M~asures
1. The project proponent would provide a detailed concept plan for the park acceptable to
City staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
2. Slopes within the park would be 4:1 or less, If slopes are ~ater than this ratio, the
project proponent would be required to provide additional parld~d.
3. The project proponent would enter unto an agreement with thc Sweetwater Union High
School Dis~ct and thc City of Chula Vista to insure public access to the proposed junior
high school's ~creational amenities which would include soccer fields, bs~,ethall coum,
~ tennis ¢OtU~S.
4. The proponent would provide fuudinl for the d/florence in cost betwccn facliities built
to school standards and facilities built to City standards.
5. School recreational facilities available to thc public would be conslructed to C/ty of Chula
Vista _~_.,~Oa,ds and designed in consultation with City staff.
6
'Fo insure adcquate interface be~vcen ~he adjacent ~o~, ~ p~k, ~ ~ ~h~l,
~ p~ wo~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ k wo~ not ~ ~ ~ o~y ~ of ~gs
7. ~ ~ wo~ ~ ~ign~ w pmvi~ ~ua~ vidb~i~ into ~e p~k ~m ~ 2
8. ~ ~ ~c ~1 p~ng lot for ov~ow p~g wo~ ~ ~v~
Monitoring Agency
The Cloy of Chula Vista Eanning Depa,~,~,ent and Pari~ and Recreation Dcpanmem would be
responsible for verifying implementation of the mitigation measures associami with the pm-k
impacta.
sEav c Aso trm. rrms
Mifl~ion Measures
W~r- 1. The applicant shall meet whatever policy regarding water
conservation is adopted by City Council.
Sewer - 1. Development of on-site sewage facilities consistent with the 1986 sewer
study to accommodate project flows.
2. Compliance with City Engineering Standards for sewage facilities.
Police - 1. Addition of 4.6 police personnel.
F~'e - 1. Addition of one Fire Inspector.
Schools- 1. Applicant participation in the ]Hello Roos Conup. unity ]:acilitics District is
required. Specifically the projact is located within two MeHo Roos
Districts, Sweetwater Union High School Distr/ct CFD #3 and Chula Vista
City Schools CFD #3.
Mo~itoring Agency
The CiW of Chula Vista Planning Department and ]/ngincering Depa~-;,~nt would be responsible
for vcflfying implementation of thc mitigation mcasurcs associated with-impacts to wa~r, scwcr,
police protection, fire protection, and schools.
~I0/800'~9~ci IZ.I~IE, IB 01 1.10~1-1 i:'~':II liS, ~
MONITORING BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
In ~ldition to thc list of mitigation measures provided, each monitor will have compl/ancc report
fonm with ~a~h m/tigafion measure written on top of the form. The monitors will complete the
r~xa-t form and ~ it with the City following each monitoring activity. The conclusions of these
forms will be compiled inw an interim and final comprehensive construction report m be
subrrdtted to thc City of Chula Vista. This report will describe thc major accomplishments of
thc monitoring pro,ram, summarize problcms cncoun~red in achieving thc goals of thc program,
c'valualc solutions devclopcd to ovcrcomc problems, and provide a list of furore monitoring
pro,rants. In addition, each monitor will be required to fill out and submit a log x~ Thc log
report is.used to record and account for the monitoring activities of thc monitor. Weekly/monthly
status repons will be generated from the dsily logs and compliance reports and will include
supplemental material (I.e., photographs, memoranda, ~elephone logs, and let~rs).
The Mitigation Monitoring Coordinator (MMC) will provide monitoring services for biological
resources with the exception of the impacts associated with the vernal pools which will be
monitored by thc Vernal Pool Mitigation Monitoring Consultant (V~.
BIOLOGY
DIEGAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHERS
Mlfl~,ation - Monitor grading to reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat The applkant
~ define and the MMC shall verify the Dicgan coastal sage scrub areas to be
r~taincd on the final grading plans prior to any clearing, dim~'bing, or
a~fivities OhS/re in areas containing coastal sage scrub. All those areas to be
retained shall be flagged by the applicant and reviewed by the MMC m prevent
e~cwachmcnt. A field map will clearly identify the Dicgan sage scrub mitigation
activity locations.
MonitoHn~ - Thc MMC will r~view the flagging with the construction supervisor. The MMC
will inspect the Diegan scrub areas prior to grading to e~sure thc flag marker~ arc
visible and that thc areas have not been encroached upon. The MMC will inspect
the area during grading once every 1-2 weeks and afl~ grading is completed to
determine whether or not encroachment has occurred.
The MMC will provide the City with a report when the grading is completed.
8
~IO/GOO'BgUd ILI~IGS Oi ~O~d ~: II I5, ~ ND[
Rancho del Rey developers will identify a rite with coastal sage scrub habitat
offsite, and the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and thc California
Department of Fish and Game (CDI~) will determine whether or not the site is
ac~ptable as offslte mitigation. The USFWS and thc CDI~3 will ensure that the
California ~natoatchor population densities meet the required density per acre or
otherwise meet the criteria specified in Cortunent ttg0 and R~sponso to Comment
tVg0 in the Certified EIR*89.10 that states, the applicant shall "acquire and
preserve an off*site area of coastal sage scrub habitat aclmowledF, d by thc U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Chula Vista to equal or to exceed thc
conservation goals" of the other options stated in the EIR.
· The developer would dedicate thc mitigation site to the City of (~ula Vista or any
other appropriate entity approved by the City of Chula Vista. On an int~'im basis,
protection of any resources may be carried out through the imposition of a
conservation easement.
Monitorin,, - The City of Chula Vista Planning Depamnent in consultation with thc U.S, Fish
and WildliCe Service and the California Department of Fish and (lame would
approve the mitigation site.
Reoorting - The MMC would verify that conditions have been met.
Mitil, ation - Areas to be preserved in native open space would be staked by a representative
of the Rancho del Rey survey team and checked by the MMC.
Monitorinn - The MMC would inspect to ensure that no grading activity occurs in the specialty
housing area until after thc gnatcatcher mitigation site has been approved and
acquired. Prior to grading, thc MMC would inspect flagged a~s,s to ensure that
markers are visible and that there is no sign of encroachment. The MMC would
again inspect aftor the grs~i,~g is completed to determine whether or not
encroachment has occurred.
ReDoFtin~ - The MMC will provide the City with a r~pon indicating when the grading for the
specialty housing may begin and, again, at the conclusion of grading activities.
CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND SEWER LATERAL CORRIDORS
Mitteation- The applicant and the construction supervisor will examine thc proposed
construction staging areas m determine whether or not these areas will impact
sensitive biological resources.
9
The MMC will inspect all staging areas to det~,,dne wheh~r or not encroachment
in~o sensitive biological resource areas has ocoured. Periodic lnspocgons will be
conducted to ensure that the stagini area does not expand into sensitive areas.
A sunvnaz3, of the findings regarding construction siaging are, as will be included
in the annual report throughout the conslruction period.
Thc applican! will stake proposed sewer corridor and the MMC ~ll review the
staking for the sewer installation corrldol~ prior to design finalization. These
conidors will be adjusted to avoid sensitive biological resources. Sewer laterals
will also be positioned to minimize impacts to biological resources.
The MMC will inspec~ thc flag,ed corridor j~t prior to ~r~a!ng to del~i-,ane ~
the corridor is positioned in a manner as to avoid sensitive biological resources.
The MMC will provide the C-'i~y with a r~pon indicaiing that ~he sewer laterals
have been implemented according to the specitications of the monitoring biologist.
~- The applicant would monitor and the MMC verify the existing population of
California gnatcatchers on the SPA IH site to determip, e the effect of development
on the gnatcatcher. The open space areas of SPAs I and II would be included in
the study area.
Monitorfn~ - The MMC would survey thc area throughout thc mating and nesting period fi.om
early spring through late summer. The surveys will be population counts of thc
California gnau:awher and will de~rrnine approximar~ territorial boundaries of
each pair. The surveys will be specific ~o the California gnalca~her, but will be
general in approach. NO banding, height, or ~rapping is proposed. De~iled field
no,es will be completed and reasonable assumpiions will be made a~ w whe~er
or not thc same individuals are present before and after construction. No detailed
vegetation analysis, including transects or quadmn~ are propos~ as pan of this
~_~k. A ~eneral vegetation description will be conduc~xt.
~ - The MMC will provide the C'i~y of Chula Vista with reports indicating the e~fects
of development on the gnatcawher population. The report will include the number
of birds and ~heir ~erri~'ies. These repor~ will be incl~_~ in the annual r~on
for a period of five years aider completion of :he project to assess the recover~ of
the California gnatcatcher population. The informalion tapered in this sIvdy will
be shared with the resource agencies to help develop a regional set of guidel~s
for California gnat, archer miligafion plans.
10
REV'g~ETATION
Thc MMC will review McMillln's revegetafion program. ~ ~egemfion ~l~
~v~. ~ ~fion, ~c MMC ~H ~w ~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~n s~
~ ~ ~ ~p~d by ~w~ ~s wi~ coas~ ~gc ~b ~s ~ve
m ~ ~. ~R w~ ~i~ ~d ~ a ~t ~ f~ ~ c~
~ S~ Diego ~el c~ which ~B ~ ~ by ~e MM~. ~e go~n-
~ ~ c~ms clump w~ ~ ~ o~ sp~.
Mo~itorine - The ~,esetation plan will be monitored by tho MMC for a period of five years
to ~nsure the success of the rcvcgetation project The lVIIVIC will conduct field
vis~s quarterly the first year, twice the second year, and once per year for the
following three years.
Re,orr!ne - The MMC wil~ provide the City with rapom documenting thc are~ which have
been revegetated and monitoring the growth of the tevegetated areas. These
reports will continue for a period of five years afar starting thc revegetation
efforts.
ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT
The MbtC will ~quire copies of the following documents which will u~ed in the evaluation of
the biolo~ica~ resourccs mitigation monitoring program:
o RDR SPA HI master grading plan
o RDR SPA HI erosion and sedimentation plan
o RDR SPA HI water management guide]ineJplan
o RDR SPA m landscape and irrigation plan
o RDR SPA HI revegetatJon plan
o RDR SPA III plan for access to open space areas for rnainteaance and fire
protection
o RDR SPA III map of open space trail system and adjacent landscaping
o RDR SPA III tentalive maps
ll
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 1
2. Report on Amendment #1 to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area,
Preliminary Report and Negative Declaration #IS-91-36
A. BAC~
In November 1990, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency adopted the
1,100 acre Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Midway through the
adoption process, a small additional area was identified for inclusion into the
project area. Rather than stop the adoption process for the overall project
area, it was decided to continue and, immediately upon adoption, begin the
process for including this amendment area.
Pursuant to Section 3345 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et, sea_3, the Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") is required to submit the amendment to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations
concerning the amendment and its conformance to the General Plan of the
City of Chula Vista (the "General Plan"). The amendment is in conformance
with the City's General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is being processed
for this area, to change the zoning from Industrial to Commercial. A
resolution of conformance is attached. This, and any other comments by the
Commission, will constitute the report to the Agency on the amendment.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission approve the attached resolution
recommending approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area, and certifying Negative Declaration IS-91-36.
C. DISC~
The amendment area is approximately four (4) acres lying south and west of
the proposed shopping center development on the south side of Palomar
between Industrial and Broadway. This four-acre area consists of the
Metropolitan Transit District Board Trolley Station at Palomar, and a seven
(7) parcel area adjacent to the SDG&E right-of-way. The amendment area
is shown as Exhibit A.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 2
The eight parcels consist of the following acreages and uses:
622-030-09 .17 acres, single family residential
622-030-10 .15 acres, storage
622-030-11 .12 acres, storage
622-030-15 .52 acres, storage
622-030-22 .55 acres, multi-family residential
622-030-23 .21 acres, single family residential
622-030-25 1.03 acres, Jehovah's Witness Church
622-081-27-01 1.17 acres, Palomar Trolley Station
The Trolley Station property is zoned Visitor Commercial. All other
properties in the amendment area are zoned M-51 - Limited Impact
Industrial. MTDB has requested that their Trolley Station be placed in the
Redevelopment Project Area in order to facilitate future development of the
property and/or air rights above the property. The remaining amendment
area is anticipated for inclusion in a shopping center development on the
south side of Palomar with the Trolley Station bordering on the west,
Broadway on the east, and the SDG&E right-of-way on the south. The total
proposed development area is 18.2 acres.
On May 21, 1991, the Redevelopment Agency approved and authorized the
transmittal to taxing agencies and to City recommending bodies, the text of
the first amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, the
Preliminary Report for the amendment and Negative Declaration IS-91-36.
These documents are presented to you for review and recommendation. Your
recommendations and comments will be forwarded to the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency, which will conduct a public hearing on these
documents on June 18 at 6:00 p.m.
In addition to the Montgomery Planning Committee, the Resource
Conservation Committee will review the Negative Declaration. The
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Committee will also review these
documents and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and the
City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 3
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-91-36
Because the amendment area is so small in relation to the larger project area,
environmental review for this project is being accomplished by a mitigated Negative
Declaration. Because of the broad scope of a redevelopment plan, environmental
review of the original project area was handled by a Plan Level EIR. This plan level
document addressed general impacts of implementing a redevelopment project area.
This document noted all impacts as mitigable.
The significant, but mitigable impacts are listed in the Negative Declaration as noise,
traffic circulation and air quality. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant impacts
is stated in the Negative Declaration as follows:
1. Noise Mitigation - The Redevelopment Plan and any associated development
projects in the project area shall be done in conformance with the policies of
the Chula Vista noise element.
2. The City shall require the preparation of acoustical studies prior to approval
of projects which may expose noise sensitive receptors to noise levels
exceeding regulations set forth in the City Noise Ordinance.
3. Construction permits shall be limited to weekday hours.
4. Construction permits shall specify construction access routing to minimize
truck noise.
5. Construction activity shall be screened from adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
6. All construction equipment operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit shall
be equipped with proper muffler systems.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
1. The Agency or City shall implement the circulation improvements contained
in Table 3.1 of the Southwest Redevelopment EIR (90-08) to the extent
financially feasible.
2. The City of Chula Vista shall maintain a traffic monitoring program to ensure
that threshold standards are not exceeded.
AIR OUAL1TY MITIGATION
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 4
1. The Agency and private developers shall, during cleaning, grading, earth
moving or excavation, control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving
construction roads, or other dust preventative measures, and maintenance of
all equipment to standard.
2. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation, the Agency and private
developers shall seed and water until grass cover is grown, spread soil binders,
wet the area down sufficient to form a crust on the surface with repeated
soakings, and sweep streets in adjacent public thoroughfares.
3. During construction the Agency and private developers shall use water trucks
and sprinkler systems to prevent dust, wet down areas in the late morning and
after work is completed for the day, and use low-sulphur fuel for construction
equipment.
4. The Agency and private developer shall phase and schedule construction
activities to avoid high ozone days.
FISCAL IMPA~_~.'
It is anticipated that development of the area south of Palomar and between Industrial and
Broadway, and including this amendment area, will result in tax increment and sales tax
revenues to the City and Redevelopment Agency of approximately $150,000 per year.
LA/ak
[C:\WP51 \ABBOTT~NEGDEC.SWP]
RESOLUTION NO..
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
/~4ENDMENT NUMBER 1 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MAKING A
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO ITS CONFORMITY
WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, TRANSMITTING THE REPORT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL,
AND CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS #91-36
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a meeting June 12, 1991 to
consider Amendment Number 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest
Redevelopment Project (the "Amendment"), to make a report and recommendation
as to its conformity with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista (the
"General Plan"), and to transmit the report to the Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and to the City Council and;
WHEREAS, proceedings have been initiated for the First Amendment of
the Redevelopment Plan and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33346 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. see.) the Agency
has submitted the Amendment to the Planning Commission for its report and
recommendations concerning the Redevelopment Plan and its conformity to the
General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Amendment and IS
#91-36; and
WHEREAS, the following findings of fact have been made in regard to
the Amendment and its conformity with the General Plan:
1. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the
Amendment is in conformity with the General Plan.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the
location, purpose and extent of any acquisition or disposition
of real property for street, park, public space, or other public
purpose by the Agency for the purposes of carrying out the
Amendment conforms to the General Plan.
3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the
Amendment.
4. This Resolution shall constitute the report and recommendation
of the Planning Commission to the Agency and City Council
pursuant to Section 33346 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA AS FOLLOWS:
~ The above recitals are all true and correct.
~ The Planning Commission hereby certifies Negative
Declaration IS #91-36.
~ lhe Community Development Director will submit the
Amendment and the Planning Commission's report and recommendations to the
Agency and the City Council.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and transmit a copy to the Agency and the City Council
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 12th day of June, 1991, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSIENTIONS:
Shirley Grasser Horton, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
WPC 4718H
THE TEXT OF THE
PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
SO--ST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
May, 1991
Prepared for:
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
619/691-5141
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle Drive, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California
714/541-4585
PREFACE
In November of 1990, the Chnla Vista Redevelopment Agency adopted the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") which established the 1,040 acre Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). Midway through the adoption process,
the Agency identified additional parcels in need of redevelopment. However, rather than
stop the adoption process for the main body of the proposed Project Area and lose the
ability to receive tax increment in December of 1991, the Agency opted to continue with
the boundaries as originally designated. Instead, the Agency directed staff to process an
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to add the additional parcels. If adopted,
Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment Area") would add eight (8) parcels, consisting of
approximately four (4) acres, to the existing Project Area.
The addition of these eight (8) parcels only affects Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and Exhibit B of
the existing Plan. Upon adoption of the proposed First Amendment, the Amendment Area
map shall be added to the Plan as Exhibit A-3. The legal description for the Amefidment
Area sh~ll be added to the Plan as Exhibit B-2, with the legal description of the original
Project Area being relabelled as Exhibit B-1.
1
chula\amcndtxl
Amendment No. 1
That the title page be amended to show the dates of adoption and adopting ordinance
numbers for the original adoption and the First Amendment to the Plan.
Amendment No. 2
Section III (300) PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES be amended to read as follows:
"The boundaries of the Project Area are illustrated on the maps attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A-l, A-2, and A-3. The legal
description of the boundaries of the Project Area is as described in Exhibits
B-1 and B-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
chuh\am~ndI~ 2 5/15/91
FIGURE 1-B
Note: Th
ADA ST.
DOROTHY ST.
EXHIBIT B-~
AMENDMENT ~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CHUL]t VISTA
SOUTHWEST RBDBVBLOI~,ENT PROJECT
A~,ND~NT NUMBER :~
THE ~OUNDARiES OF THE REDEVELOPHENT AREAS ~ I~UST~TBD ON A ~P
ATTA~D H~TO. ~E ~L DESC~ION OF T~ BOUN~ES 0F SAID
~S ~ DES~IDED ~ FO~WS~
~OSE c~TAIN ~ ~TH~ ~E CITY OF ~ ~STA, CO~TY OF S~
BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTHRLY CORNER OF LOT 2 A.~
SHOWN ON WAI.~/ERS SUBDIVISION NAP NO. 729~ RECOI~DS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NO0'00t24°tE~, 196.00 F~ET/ THENCE S89"50tOO'E, 639.14 FEET TO
A POINT ON TH~ EASTERLY L~NE OF SAID LOT; THENCE S00'03v48~tWr
146 · 08 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO A I~OINT ON THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 7150~ PAGE 336r
OFFICIAL I%ECORDS oF SAID COUNTY~ THENCE S80'O8119~lW, 286.71 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE TO A ~OINT ON THE souTHERLY LINE OF
9AID LOT; THENCE N89'50~00"W, 356.53 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
TO THE POINT OF BEGINN~N~-
CONTAININ~ 2.70 ACRES~ MORE OR LESS.
BEGINI~ING AT A POINT AT TIlE MOST SouTHWeSTERLY COI~NER OF LOT 1 AS
SHOWN ON WALMEI~5 SUBDIVISION liAP NO. 729~ RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENC~ N00'03t00"W~ 58?.22 FBET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
TO A POIITT oN THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF mALOMAR ~TREET,
FORMERLY STH STREET~ A~ SHOWN ON.REcoRD OF SURVEY 1710, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY; THENCE N83°27~00"W~ ~36.44 FEET ALONG SAID So0~HERLY
R~GHT-OF-WA¥ LINI~TO ~TS INTF~R~ECTION WiTH T~ENORTHEASTBRLY
OF-WA~ LIN~ OF T~ SAN DIEGO AHDARIZONA I~AILROAD COI~PANY~ THENC~
S18.03t01-E~ 458,12 FBBT ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RI~HT-OF-WAY To
TH]~ BEGI'NNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE soUTHWESTERLY IiAVING A
RADIUS OF ~879.~ F~ET; wHENCE CONTINUING SOIIT~IEI1LY ALONG ~AID
NORTH~ASTI~RLY ~AILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ='tiROUGH A C~NTRAL ANGLE OF
01-49~1~- AN ARC DISTAN=E OF 1860~0 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON--
TAI~GENT LINE, SAID LINE BEING THII WI~STERL¥ PROLONGATION OF THE
soUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1~ RADIAL BEARING ~tROUGH SAID POINT
BEARS N73'46s12"E; THI~NCE S89'§0~00"E' 16.68 FEET ALONG SAID
PROLONGATION TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
5895.65 FI~ET# RADIAL BEARING THROUGHSAIDPOINTBEAR~N73°48~57"E~
THI~NCE' SOU'I~IEI~LY CONTINUING A~&ING SAIO NORTHEAS~I~RLY RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH A cENTRAL ANGLE OF O0.49~26~ AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 84.78 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LIN~, E~ING THE WESTERLY
LINE OF LOT § OF SAID WALMERS SUBDIVISION, RADIAL ~EA~ilNG THROUGH
SAID POINT BEARS N74'35~38~EI THENCE N00'03~00"W' 76.98 FEET ALONG
SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING-
CONTAINING 1.80 ACRES, MOR~0RLESS-
PRELIMINARY REPORT
FOR THE
PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
May, 1991
Prepared for:
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
619/691-5047
Prepared by:
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305
Santa Ana, California 92705
714/541-4585
INTRODUCTION
In November of 1990, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency adopted the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan which established the 1,040 Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
(the "Project Area"). Midway through the adoption process, the Agency identified
additional parcels in need of redevelopment. However, rather than stop the adoption
process for the main body of the proposed Project Area and lose the ability to receive tax
increment in December of 1991, the Agency opted to continue with the boundaries as
originally designated. Instead, the Agency directed staff to process an amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan to add the additional parcels. If adopted, Amendment No. 1 (the
"Amendment Area") would add eight (8) parcels, consisting of approximately four (4)
acres, to the existing Project Area.
Pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (the ULaw"),
this document is the Preliminary Report for Amendment No. 1 to the Southwest
Redevelopment Plan, which must be submitted to each affected taxing agency levying
property taxes within the proposed Amendment Area. This Preliminary Report presents
the following:
A. The reasons for selecting the Amendment Area;
B. A description of the existing physical, social and economic conditions
in the Amendment Area;
C. A preliminary assessment of the proposed method of financing the
redevelopment of the Amendment Area.
D. A description of the specific project or projects now proposed by the
Agency for the Amendment Area in sufficient detail and specificity to
permit a Fiscal Review Committee, if one is created, to review the
potential impacts of Amendment No. 1; and
E. A description of how the Project or projects to be pursued by the
Agency will improve or alleviate the conditions described in Section A
and B above.
\ch uta\ampretpt\im ro ii 5/14/91
SECTION A
REASONS FOR SELECTING THE AMENDMENT AREA
Table 1 summarizes relevant site and land use characteristics for the eight (8) parcels
included in the Amendment Area, while Figures lA and lB show their general location.
All eight (8) parcels are located within the southwestern quadrant of the City known as the
Montgomery Community. They are bounded generally by the trolley tracks on the west;
Palomar Street on the north; Broadway on the east; and the SDG&E right-of-way on the
south. All eight (8) parcels are contiguous with the existing Project Area boundaries.
The Amendment Area includes a number of land use and planning characteristics typical
of the Montgomery Community which impact the economic viability of the area, as well as
the health, safety and welfare of the area residents. It is obvious from analyzing the lot
layouts and the existing land uses that the parcels in the Amendment Area, like many of
those found in the existing Project Area, developed in an unrestricted and unplanned
manner.. This has resulted in a combination of conditions that are classified as blight under
the Community Redevelopment law.
The primary blighting conditions found in the Amendment Area are:
The existence of structures that are aged, obsolete, deteriorated, dilapidated,
of mixed character or shifting uses.
The existing structures show evidence of overcrowding.
The existence of parcels of shape and size inadequate for proper
development.
The existence of lot layouts that are incompatible with topographic or
physical conditions.
The existence of inadequate public improvements and public facilities.
chula\amDrerpt\~c~.a A- t 5/14/91
In order to substantiate these findings of blight within the Amendment Area, a windshield
survey of the eight (8) parcels was conducted. The specific findings on a parcel-by-parcel
basis are as follows:
Parcel 622-030-09
Despite being zoned M52 - Limited Impact Industrial, County records show
that the existing single-family residence was built in 1949. The structure
itself shows signs of external deferred maintenance such as peeling exterior
paint and a well-worn roof. In order to access the lot, the current occupants
must drive through at least three other lots to get to their property. Access is
provided by a badly deteriorated dirt road.
Parcel 622-030-10
Because of the layout of Parcel 622-030-09, this parcel is flag-shaped. Access
to this vacant lot is provided by the deteriorated dirt road described above.
The lot currently contains numerous junk cars and is overgrown with weeds
and vegetation.
Parcel 622-030-11
This parcel is currently being used to store old tractors, diesel trucks, and
other miscellaneous equipment. It contains a small, badly deteriorated
office. Access is provided by the dirt road mentioned previously.
Parcel 622-030-15
This flag-shaped parcel currently contains miscellaneous equipment and
other items, as well as a trailer unit which is obviously being used as a
primary residence. In addition, a wood structure of undeterminable use was
being built at the time of the windshield survey.
Parcel 622-030-22
This irregularly-shaped parcel contains a number of mixed uses. On a
portion of the lot sits an 864 square foot residential structure which contains
at least three (3) distinct dwelling units. Just north of the residential units, a
portion of the lot is being used as a construction storage yard. Finally, the
dirt access road which provides access to four (4) other parcels west of 622-
030-22 transverses the middle of the lot. The exterior of the structure is in
obvious need of maintenance such as painting and landscaping.
A-3 5/14/9l
chula\amprerpt\s~c~-a
Parcel 622-030-23
Though zoned M52 - Limited Impact Industrial, this parcel contains a
single-family residence. The structure is obviously dated in terms of design
and construction, but appears to be in relatively fair condition. The parcel
itself is L-shaped with access coming off the dirt road mentioned previously.
Parcel 622-030-25
This parcel contains a church. The structure is in need of some maintenance
(e.g. paint, facade replacement, roofing, landscaping, etc). Most of this oddly
shaped lot is devoted to parking for the church. The parking lot needs to be
re-paved.
Parcel 622-081-27
This triangular-shaped lot contains the MTDB Palomar Street Trolley
Station. This station is one of the main sources of public mass transit to this
important commercial sector of the City of Chula Vista. The lay-out of this
lot in relation to surrounding parcels makes access difficult and limits its
integration into the commercial trade area.
Figures lA and lB illustrate the illogical shape and layout of the eight (8) parcels in the
Amendment Area. The current configuration of the lots make it difficult for the City to
provide needed infrastructure such as an adequate vehicular and pedestrian access, storm
drainage, and street lights. Moreover, the current mix of land uses presents health and
safety risks to the people living in the existing non-conforming residential units.
If approved, a recent proposal for a new commercial center on the eight (8) parcels which
surround the Amendment Area would further isolate this area. This would make it even
more difficult for both the private and public sectors to redevelop the Amendment Area
without the extraordinary planning and financial resources of redevelopment. It is the
Agency's desire to ingergrate the eight (8) parcels which comprise the Amendment Area
into this proposed development known as the Palomar Trolley Center. This project is
being developed by Pacific Scene, Inc.
Chula\amprerpt \~.~ a A-4 5/14/91
o o
o d
In summary, the areas included in the proposed Amendment Area contain pervasive
detrimental physical characteristics which require the tools provided by the Community
Redevelopment Law to remedy. Private enterprise acting alone has not and cannot
remedy these problems. If problem conditions are not resolved through redevelopment,
the problems will increasingly impact the quality of life and economic environment of the
Montgomery Community and the City of Chula Vista.
The authority set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law would enable the
implementation of redevelopment in the Amendment Area by:
0 Addressing current economic stagnation within the Amendment Area
by providing funding sources for rehabilitation of existing uses and the
consolidation and redevelopment of obsolete sized and configured
parcels.
0 Addressing and correcting the problem of inadequate, insufficient and
deteriorated infrastructure. Funding through the Agency can correct.
existing problems and suppress further deterioration of the circulation
system, storm drains, sewers, waterlines and utilities while funding the
construction of new facilities where none exist.
0 Arresting the economic blight of the Amendment Area and
eliminating such factors as deteriorated structures, visual blight, and
mixed incompatible uses.
A-5 5/14/91
SECTION B
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT AREA
Regional Location
The Amendment Area is located within the City of Chula Vista, approximately eight (8)
miles southeast of the City of San Diego's downtown and approximately seven (7) miles
north of the international border with Mexico. This MTDB Palomar Street trolley stop is
one of the major transportation routes to the entire Montgomery Area. Regional access is
also provided via Interstate 5.
Project Area Characteristics
The Amendment Area consists of approximately four (4) acres and includes multi-family,
single-family, and light industrial uses. Figure 2 provides an aerial view of the Amendment
Area and shows its pivotal location in the social and economic fabric of Harborside "B"
sub-community of the Montgomery Area. Exhibit A to this Report are the maps for the
Amendment Area.
Urbanization
Figure 2 also illustrates that the Amendment Area is an integral part of an urbanized area.
As discussed in Section A, the Amendment Area is also characterized by lots of irregular
shape, inadequate for proper usefulness and development, and laid out without regard for
the physical characteristics of the group and surrounding conditions. As such, all of the
eight (8) parcels in the Amendment Area are considered urbanized pursuant to Section
33320.1 of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
~ Figure 2.1.3
~ . ,ooo. 2ooo. Aerial Photo
A. D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
BLIGHTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Redevelopment Law identifies two categories which define blight: structural blight and
economic blight. The Redevelopment Law also states that a blighted area is characterized
by one or more specific conditions which cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization
of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social or economic
burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated
by private enterprise acting alone.
The following is a summary of the blighting conditions found in the Amendment Area on a
parcel-by-parcel basis, and is meant to augment the information found on pages A-3 and
A-4 of Section A of this Report.
Parcel 602-030-09
Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of
uses.
The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
Parcel 622-030-10
The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
The sub-dividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size
for proper usefulness and development.
chula\amprcrpt\~cl~o B-2 5/14/91
Parcel 622-030-11
Defective design and character of physical construction.
Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of
uses.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
parcel 622-030-15
The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
Inadequate provision of ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces, and recreation.
Parcel 622-030-22
High density of population and overcrowding.
The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
The sub-dividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size
for proper usefulness and development.
Parcel 622-030-25
Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character, or shifting of
uses.
The existence of inadequate public improvements.
- The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
chula\amprerpt\~ect~ g-3 5/14/91
Parcel 622-081-27
The sub-dividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size
for proper usefulness and development.
The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions.
For additional land use information refer to Table 1 in Section A of this Report.
chula\amprerpt \secl t~ B-4 5/14/91
SECTION C
PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE AMENDMENT AREA
The primary source of financing for the redevelopment of the Amendment Area is tax
increment revenue. According to the San Diego County Auditor-Controller's Base Year
Assessment Roll Report prepared in April of this year, the current assessed value of the
Amendment Area is $243,334. Pacific Scene's projected value for the Trolley Center upon
completion is approximately $23,000,000. Dividing this value by the total number of acres
in the project site yields a per-acre value of $126,374. Only seven (7) of the eight (8)
parcels (the MTDB parcel is not assessable) are included in the 18.2 acres project site and
their total area equals 2.75 acres. Multiplying 2.75 by $126,374 yields a total projected
value for these parcels of approximately $3,475,275.
Given these current and projected values, the redevelopment of these parcels will increase
the assessed valuation of the Amendment Area by approximately $3,231,941. This 'in turn
will generate $32,319 in tax increment. Pursuant to the pass-through agreements with
various taxing agencies regarding the Project Area, the Agency will receive annually
approximately 70 percent, or $22,623, of this tax increment revenue. These funds will be
used by the Agency to facilitate the redevelopment of the Amendment Area.
To the extent the funds generated by the redevelopment of the Amendment Area are
insufficient to cover the Agency's financial participation in the proposed Trolley Center
Project, the Agency could utilize tax increment revenues generated by the existing project
Area. Table 2 gives the projected tax increment revenues for the Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area. If these projections are accurate there will be sufficient
revenues to fund any manner of participation the Agency deems warranted.
C-1 5/~4/9~
8% AV Growth Rate RSG, Inc. lO-Sep-90
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency TABLE C-2 '
Tax Increment Projections
Southwest Redevetop~nt Project
Fiscal Annual AV Net I Estimated 2% Adjusted CumulativeiLow & Mod I Estin~ated C~lative
Year Incr~ntali Gross Tax Inflation Gross Tax Annual I Housing )Redevelol~nt Annual
Valuation I Incre~nt Pass-thru Increment Total [ Fund I Funds Total
BASE YEAR 197,156,623
1991-92 212,929,153 15,772,530 157,725 31,466 126,259 126,259 25,252 101,007 101,007
1992-93 229,963,485 32,806,862 328,069 63,562 264,507 390,766 52,901 211,606 312,613
1993-94 246,360,564 51,203,941 512,039 96,299 415,740 806,506 83,148 332,592 645,205
1994-95 268,229,409 71,072,786 710,728 129,691 581,037 1,387,543 116,20/ 464,829 1,110,034
1995-96 289,687,762 92,531,139 925,311 163,751 761,560 2,149,103 152,312 609,248 1.719,282
1996-97 312,862,783 119,531,335 1,195,313 198,493 996,821 3,145,924 199,364 797,457 2,516,739
199/-98 342,022,994 148,882,805 1,488.828 233,929 1,254,899 4,400,823 250,980 1,003.920 3,520,658
1998-99 373,722,583 180,783,216 1,807,832 270,073 1,537,759 5,938,582 307,552 1,230,207 4,750,865
1999-00 408,175,026 215,446,522 2,154,465 306,941 .1,847,524 7,786,106 369,505 1,478,019 6,228,885
2000-01 445,611,396 253,104,298 2,531,043 344,546 2,186,497 9,972,603 437,299 1,749,198 7,978,082
2001-02 486,281,795 294,007,173 2,940,072 382,903 2,557,169 12,529,771 511,434 2,045,735 I0,023,817
2002-03 530,456,900 338,426,378 3,384,264 422,027 2,962,236 15,492,008 592,447 2,369,789 12,393,606
2003-04 578,429,641 386,655,424 3,866,554 461,934 3,404,620 18,896,628 680,924 2,723,696 15,117,302
2004-05 630,517,010 439,011,913 4,390,119 502,639 3,887,480 22,784,108 777,496 3,109,984 18,227,286
2005-06 687,062,019 495,839,498 4,958,395 544,158 4,414,237 27,198,345 882,847 3,531;390 21,758,676
2006-07 748,435,811 557,509,996 5,575,100 586,507 4,988,593 32,186,937 997,719 3,990,874 25,749,550
2007-08 815,039,948 624,425,673 6,244,257 629,704 5,614,553 37,801,490 1.122,911 4,491,642 30,241,19'
2008-09 887,308,880 697,021,722 6,970,217 673,764 6,296,453 44,097,943 1,259,291 5,037,163 35,278,35~
B009-10 965,712,613 775,768,929 7,757,689 718,706 7,038,984 51,136,927 1,407,797 5,631,187 40,909,542
2010-11 1.050,759,596 861,176,559 6,611,766 764,546 7,847,220 58,984,147 1,569,444 6,277.776 47,187,318
2011~12 1,142,999,836 953,795,478 9,537,955 811,303 8,726,652 67,710,799 1,745,330 6,981,321 54,168,639
2012-13 1,243,028,270 1,054,221,525 10,542,215 858,995 9,683,220 77,394,019 1,936,644 7,746,576 61,915,215
2013-14 1,351,488,399 1,163,099,148 11,630,991 907,641 10,723,350 88,117,369 2,144,670 8,578,680 70,493,895
2014-15 1,469,076,233 1,281,125,351 12,811,254 957,260 11,853,993 99,971.362 2,370.799 9,483,195 79,977,090
2015-16 1,596,544,532 1,409,053,937 14,090,539 1,007,872 13,082,668 113,054,030 2,616,534 10,466,134 90,443,224
2016-17 1,734,707,405 1,547,700,111 15,477,001 1,059,495 14,417,506 127,471,536 2,883,501 11,534,005 101,977,228
2017-18 1,884,445,272 1,697,945,445 16,979,454 1,112,151 15,867,303 143,338,839 3,173,461 12,693,842 114,671,071
2018-19 2,046,710,234 1,860,743,246 18,607,432 1,165,861 17,441,572 160,780,410 3,488,314 13,953,257 128,624,328
2019-20 2,222,531,858 2,037,124,352 20,371,244 1,220,644 19,150,599 179,931,010 3,830,120 15,320,480 143,944,808
2020-21 2,413,023,453 2,228,203,403 22,282,034 1,276,523 21,005,511 200,936,521 4,201,102 )6,804.409 160,749,217
2021-22 2,619,388,829 2,422,232,206 24,222,322 1,333,520 22,888,802 223,825,323 4,577,760 18,311,042 179,060,258
2022-23 2,828,939,935 2,631,783,312 26,317,833 1,391,656 24,926,177 248,751,500 4,985,235 19,940,941 199,001,200
2023-24 3,055,255,130 2,858,098,507 28,580,985 1,450,956 27,130,029 275,881,529 5.426,006 21,704,023 220,705,223
2024-25 3,299,675,540 3,102,518,917 31,025,189 1,511,441 29,513,748 305,395,277 5,g02,750 23,610,998 244,316,222
2025-26 3,563,649,583 3,366,492,960 33,664,930 1,573,136 32,091,794 337,487,070 6,418,359 25,673,435 269,989,656
2026-27 3,848,741,550 3,651,584,927 36,515,849 1,636,065 34,879,784 372,366,855 6,975,957 27,903,827 297,893,484
2027-28 4.156,640,874 3,959.484,251 39,594,843 1,700,252 37,894,590 410,261,445 7,578,918 30,315,672 328,209.156
2028-29 4,489,172,144 4,292,015,521 42,920,155 1,765,724 41,154,431 451,415,876 8,230,886 32,923,545 361,132,701
2059-30 4,848,305,915 4,651,149,292 46,511,493 1,832,504 44,678,989 496,094,865 8,935,798 35,743,191 396,875,892
2030-31 5,236,170,388 5,039,013,765 50,390,138 1,900,621 48,489,517 544,584,382 g,697,903 38,791,614 435,667,505
/TIHODEL C~utative Totals: 33,999,262 108,916,876
NPV e 5% 9,718,443 128,257,998 25,651,600 102,606,398
SECTION D AND E
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY THE
AGENCY AND HOW THESE PROJECTS WILL ALLEVIATE
CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS A AND B
As discussed briefly in Sections A and C of this Report, the Redevelopment
Agency intends to financially participate in the development of shopping
center or other project on the site. The probable form of this assistance
will be in the area of land assemblage for the project site. Figure 3 is a
conceptual site plan for a shopping center.
The proposed project is a large community shopping center incorporating a
total of 198,200 gross square feet of building space which will cover
approximately 25% of the total site area. Including seven (7) of the eight
(8) Amendment Area parcels (excluding the Palomar Trolley Station)., the
project .site consists of approximately 18.2 acres (729,800 square feet).
Improvements shall include major stores an smaller retail shops, possibly two
fast-food restaurants, sidewalks and extensive landscaping.
As Figure 3 illustrates, the eastern portion of the center would be built on
seven (7) of the eight (8) parcels in the Amendment Area. Figure 3 also shows
how crucial the integration of the MTDB Palomar Trolley Station is to the
economic viability of the project, as well as to the minimization of
environmental impacts associated with vehicular traffic. Area residents will
have the option of traveling to the center via the trolley, bus, bicycle, or
on foot. In addition, integration of the Amendment parcels bordering the
SDG&E right-of-way will allow access to the center off Broadway and a third
access off Palomar near its intersection with roadway. These two additional
accesses will relieve traffic congestion along Palomar Street.
4A-28
D/E-1
Without with nine parcels in the Amendment Area included in the project site
for the center, it would not be possible to transform this corner into an
integrated economic center and transportation hub for the entire Montgomery
Area. The seven (7) contiguous parcels which lie east of MTDB Trolley Station
provide sufficient depth and breath to the project site to allow sufficient
parking for large commercial spaces, making easier to attract two anchor
tenants to the center as opposed to one. From a leasing standpoint, this is a
more desirable configuration because of the consumer synergy created by two
anchors.
From the discussion above, it becomes obvious that the addition of the
Amendment Area to the center site will create a development with greater
economic potential and fewer environmental impacts. It is equally apparent
that the Amendment Area~s integration into the center site will simulant~ously
remove all the conditions of blight described in Sections A and B of this
Report. The condition of the existing structures, the lot layout and shapes,
and the need for public infrastructure improvements will be remedied by adding
these parcels to the center site. Other projects suitable for redevelopment
of the site may be considered by the Redevelopment Agency.
WPC 4715H
4A-30
D/E-2
, : MITIGATED
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area Boundary
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Palomar St. between Broadway and Industrial Blvd,
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 622-081-27, 622-030-10, 622-030-23, 622-030-11,
622-030-22, 622-030-15, 622-030-25, 622-030-09
PROJECT APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-91-36 DATE: April 26, 1991
A. Project Settinq
The proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
consists' ~f approximately four acres contiguous to the 1,040-acre
Southwest Redevelopment Area approved by the Redevelopment Agency in
November of 1990. The Southwest Redevelopment EIR (EIR-90-8) analyzed the
potential environmental impacts associated with the creation of this large
redevelopment area within the City (see .Exhibit A). This initial study
analyzes the impacts associated with amending the boundaries of the
Southwest Redevelopment Project Area to include eight parcels to the south
and west of the redevelopment area (see Exhibit B). The SWRDA is
identified by the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed above and visually
represented in Exhibit "A".
The proposed Southwest Redevelopment Area (SWRDA) amendment is located
within the Harborside "B" subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan.
North and east of the proposed SWRDA amendment is vacant and disturbed
land slated for the Palomar Trolley Center project. An SDG&E open space
utility easement exists to the south and a mixed commercial development,
including a restaurant and convenience store, exists to the east of the
amendment area.
The proposed project site currently consists of disturbed open space, four
single family residential units (two of which are vacant), one church, and
three automotive repair businesses. These uses will all be relocated with
the proposed project. There are no known sensitive plant, animal or
cultural resources within the proposed project site. However, further
environmental review would be required for any specific development
proposals within the amendment area. This environmental review analyzes a
change to the redevelopment boundaries only.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Southwest
Redevelopment project area to include the addition of approximately four
acres to the south and west of the redevelopment area. Ultimately, this
city of chula vista planning department (ii,Y OF
environmental review section [HUL ,VISTA
-2-
project area may be included as part of the Palomar Trolley Center site.
The proposed Palomar Trolley Center project is currently undergoing
environmental review (EIR-91-02) to analyze impacts associated with the
construction of the proposed 198,000 sq. ft. commercial center on
approximately 18 acres of land. This environmental review pertains only
to analyzing the environmental impacts associated with an amendment to the
SWRDA to include eight additional parcels within the redevelopment area.
C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans
The Montgomery Specific Plan indicates that the land uses within the study
area are Research and Limited Industrial, I[P (Limited Industrial with a
Precise Plan), and S94 (Special Study Area). The proposed project is an
amendment to an approved, redevelopment project area, rather than a
specific development proposal, therefore, it is consistent with the
General Plan, the Montgomery Specific Plan and the underlying zoning.
Specific development proposals within this boundary amendment area would
be subject to separate environmental and land use compatability review.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of
the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City
of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be
met, since the nearest fire station is I mile away and would be
associated with a 3 minute response time. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
Additionally, the Fire Department has indicated that an adequate
level of service will be provided without an increase in equipment or
personnel.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to 84% of Priority ! calls within 7 minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority ! calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3
aches/I,000 population in the eastern territories of the City. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. However,
compliance is predicated upon the inapplicability of the threshold to
the proposed project in that the threshold applies to areas east of
1-805 only.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will
provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects
will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently
with planned growth and that water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
8. Schools
The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a
12 to 15 month development forecast and request an evaluation of
their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The
Districts~ replies should address the following:
1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed.
2. Ability to absorb forecast growth in affected facilities.
-4-
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected
new facilities.
4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to
communicate to the City and GMOC.
The growth forecast and school district response letters shall be
provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review.
The goal of the threshold is to ensure that the Chula Vista City
School District and Sweetwater Union High School District have the
necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students in new
development areas in a timely manner.
Instead of a project level conformance review by staff, this
threshold policy is subject to an annual City-wide conformance review
by the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Therefore, th proposed
project complies with this threshold standards policy.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed project could have one or more significant environmental
effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented
mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a level of less than
significant.
The project as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially
significant environmental effects and the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set forth in
Section "F" of this document, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (see Exhibit C).
The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A
discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the
proposed project follows.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Parks
As previously noted, the City's threshold standard applies to the area
east of 1-805 and is, therefore, not directly applicable to the proposed
project area; however, the standard established by the General Plan is
applicable. The City's Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
establishes a local park (neighborhood and community parks) standard ratio
of 4 acres of local park land for every 1,000 persons served. Based on
this standard, and the Montgomery population of approximately 25,000, the
local park requirement for the Montgomery Specific Plan Area is 100
acres. According to the Montgomery Specific Plan, the only existing
public park in Montgomery is the 3.9-acre Lauderbach Community Center,
thus indicating that there is a profound shortage of local parks for the
community. Since the Montgomery Specific Plan indicates that there is a
serious deficiency of local park land in the Montgomery community and
since Montgomery is already substantially developed and has little vacant
land remaining, little opportunity for the development of parks exists.
However, in terms of the City's threshold/standards for parks and
recreation facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated to result
from the proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Area Project.
Police Services
As previously noted, the proposed project will comply with City's
threshold standard policy for police service. However, additional calls
which may occur as a result of the adjacent Palomar Trolley Center project
proposal , as well as other recently approved projects in the vicinity,
will incrementally increase the total caseload. Any increase in caseload
would have a cumulative effect on police response time, thereby
potentially impacting the City's threshold standard for police services.
However, given the small scale of the proposed boundary adjustment
relative to the overall Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, police
service is not anticipated to be adversely impacted and is therefore, the
boundary adjustment is deemed be less than significant.
Schools
The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has indicated its
concern regarding the indirect, cumulative impacts of the proposed
amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Area Project.
The contention is that Chula Vista High School will be significantly
impacted by the addition of new students. Payment of the districts
portion of $ 0.26 per square foot is not adequate to mitigate these
impacts. Therefore, SUHSD requests annexation to the districts Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District No. 5 as a means to mitigate the
anticipation increase in student enrollment. Should the City find that
the annexation is inconsistent with the goals of the Redevelopment Agency,
the SUHSD suggests that the revenue/sharing agreement, which consists of
revenues from the southwest development area, would have to be revised to
include those additional costs to the district which would have been
accommodated by community facilities district No. 5.
However, the City does not currently have in place, a mechanism to require
payment of any fees over and above State mandated fees.
Social Displacement
The proposed amendment to the SWRDA may result in the eventual
displacement of four single-family residences (two are unoccupied), as
well as a church and several automobile and related repair businesses. As
-6-
such, the proposed project will create an incremental contribution to the
loss of housing stock within the City, as well as the displacement of
commercial and institutional uses, however, this is not deemed to be a
significant impact. Two of the existing single family homes are currently
vacant and the other impacted uses will be relocated in accordance with
the requirements of redevelopment law.
Growth Inducement
The proposed project will expand the boundaries of the approved Southwest
Redevelopment Project Area to include eight new parcels. Inclusion of
these parcels within a redevelopment area may result in development and
redevelopment in a more rapid pace than would occur if the parcels were
not in a redevelopment area. Development will occur in conformance with
the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Montgomery Specific Plan,
therefore, potential growth inducement impacts are not deemed to be
significant.
Water
The development of the proposed project is not expected to affect the
City's threshold standards for water. However, as a condition of
approval, as part of the City's drought response policy, development of
the proposed project would include participation in a no net increa~se in
water consumption, an in-lieu-of fee offset program, or any. other
comparable water conservation program that the City of Chula Vista
Building Department has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
SIGNIFICAJ~T, BUT MITIGABL£ IMPACTS
Noise
Potential noise impacts are anticipated with the proposed project due to
the associated potential for increased vehicular traffic through the
expansion of the SWRDA. Additionally, short term noise impacts are
expected during the construction phase of the project.
Expansion of the SWRDA will potentially result in the development of
vacant or underutilized land which will increase the number of trips on
roadways in the project vicinity. This may result in an increase in
ambient noise levels within the SWRDA. Potentially significant noise
impacts will require mitigation, as set forth in Section F of this
document, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set
forth in Exhibit C.
Traffic Circulation
The proposed project may result in potential traffic impacts due to the
increase in vehicular traffic expected from an expansion of the SWRDA. A
traffic study was conducted for the Southwest Redevelopment Project by BSI
Consultants (September 20, 1990). The conclusion of the Traffic Study was
that the creation of the Southwest Redevelopment Area would result in
significant, but mitigable traffic impacts. The proposed amendment to the
redevelopment area would, therefore result in an incremental increase.in
vehicular traffic in the project area.
Potential traffic impacts will be mitigated through the measures set forth
in Section F of this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit C).
Air Quality
The proposed project is located within the San Diego Air Basin, which is a
non-attainment area for ozone. Because the amendment to the redevelopment
area will result in an increase in vehicular traffic, there will be a
cumulative air quality impact. Air quality impacts will result from the
further degradation of air quality within the project area. Short-term
air quality impacts will result during the construction phase, but these
will be short term and temporary. Mitigation of potential air quality
impacts is discussed in Section F of this document, as well as, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit C).
F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have- been
required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than
significant.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and
have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Exhibit C).
Noise Mitiqation
The following project specific noise mitigation will be required for the
proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant noise impacts
to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be
made conditions of project approval:
l. The Redevelopment Plan amendment and any associated development
projects shall be in conformance with the goals, objectives and
policies contained in the Chula Vista Noise Element.
2. The City shall require the preparation of acoustical studies prior to
the approval of projects which may expose noise-sensitive receptors
to noise levels exceeding regulations set forth in the City Noise
Ordinance, and detailed mitigation measures to ensure that conditions
within the Noise Ordinance are met.
-8-
3. The City shall issue construction permits limited to weekday hours
with the least noise sensitivity to reduce short-term construction
noise intrusions.
4. Construction permits shall specify construction access routing to
minimize construction truck traffic past existing residential,
hotel/motel or other noise sensitive uses.
5. Construction activities shall be screened from adjacent
noi~se-sensitive land uses using fencing.
6. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000
feet of a dwelling unit, shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained muffler exhaust systems.
Traffic Mitiqation
The following project specific traffic mitigation will be required for the
proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant traffic
impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures
will be made conditions of project approval:
1. The Agency or City shall implement the circulation improvements
contained in Table 3-1 of the Southwest Redevelopment EIR (90-08) to
the extent financially feasible.
2. The City of Chula Vista shall maintain a traffic monitoring program
to insure that the threshold standards are not exceeded.
Air Quality Mitiqation
The following project specific air quality mitigation will be required for
the proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant noise
impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures
will be made conditions of project approval:
1. The Agency and private developers shall, during cleaning, grading,
earth moving or excavation:
control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction
roads, or other dust preventive measures, as defined.
maintain equipment in proper tune.
2. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation, the Agency and
private developers shall:
seed and water until grass cover is grown.
spread soil binders.
- wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the
-surface with repeated soakings as necessary to maintain the
crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind.
- street sweeping should be carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares.
3. During construction, the Agency and private developers shall:
use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving
the site.
wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed
for the day.
use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction
equipment.
4. The Agency and private developers shall phase and schedule
construction activities to avoid high ozone days.
G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant 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 proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
will not degrade the quality of life or curtail the diversity of the
immediate and surrounding area. No sensitive plant, animal, or
cultural resources were identified in the initial study, therefore,
there will not be a degradation of these resources associated with
the proposed project.
-10-
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project A~ea
will achieve both short and long-term environmental goals. The
proposed boundary amendment, in conjunction with the existing
redevelopment project, will help to alleviate conditions of urban
blight and provide a redevelopment funding mechanism by which
positive environmental benefits such as facility improvements may
result within the amendment area.
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.
Although the proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area may result in cumulative noise, traffic and air quality
impacts, these impacts will be mitigated through compliance to the
Mitigation Monitoring Program developed for the project. The site is
located within an area which is already disturbed and urbanized and
that has experienced a degree of underutilization.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
There will not be any adverse environmental effects as a result of
the proposed amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area
that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The
proposed amendment to the existing Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area would upgrade the commercial, industrial, and residential
properties, improve rights-of-way within the project area and provide
funding for rehabilitation of existing buildings. There may be a
positive aesthetic improvement through the installation or renovation
of streets, utilities and other infrastructure within the
redevelopment amendment area.
H. Consultation
i. Individuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula Vista: Rick Carpenter, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Lance Abbott
City of Chula Vista
Community Development Specialist
2. Documents
Title 19 (Zoning) Chula Vista Municipal Code
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista, Policy: Threshold/Standards and Growth
Management Oversight Committee, as amended November 30, 1989.
Environmental Impact Report, EIR-90-8, for Southwest Redevelopment
Area Project
Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-4M, for the Palomar Trolley Center
3. Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial
Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments
received during the public review period for the Negative
Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental ~eview
of this project is available from the Chula Vista Pl.anning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
E~REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
WPC 9217P
EXHIBIT C
Mitiqation Monitorinq Proqram
Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area Boundary
IS-91-36
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area Amendment project, in order to comply with AB 3180. This
legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation
measures are implemented on mitigated negative declarations, such as IS-91-36.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant or significant
impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for the Southwest Redevelopment
Project Area Amendment ensures mitigation for the following potentially
significant impacts:
Noise
Traffic/circulation
Air Quality
Noise Mitiqation
The following project specific noise mitigation will be required fop the
proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant noise impacts to
a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be made
conditions of project approval:
1. The Redevelopment Plan and its associated specific projects shall be in
conformance with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the
Chula Vista Noise Element.
2. The City shall require the preparation of acoustical studies prior to the
approval of projects which may expose noise-sensitive receptors to noise
levels exceeding regulations set forth in the City Noise Ordinance, and
detail mitigation measures to ensure that conditions within the Noise
Ordinance are met.
3. The City shall issue construction permits limited to weekday hours with
the least noise sensitivity to reduce short-term construction noise
intrusions.
4. Construction permits shall specify construction access routing to
minimize construction truck traffic past existing residential,
hotel/motel or other noise sensitive uses.
5. Construction activities shall be screened from adjacent noise-sensitive
land uses using fencing.
6. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet
of a dwelling unit, shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained muffler exhaust systems.
Traffic Mitiqation
The following project specific traffic mitigation will be required for the
proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant traffic impacts
to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be made
conditions of project approval:
1. The Agency or City shall implement the circulation improvements contained
in Table 3-1 of the Southwest Redevelopment EIR (90-08) to the extent
financially feasible.
2. The City of Chula Vista shall maintain a traffic monitoring program to
insure that the threshold standards are not exceeded.
Air Quality Mitiqation
The following project specific air quality mitigation will be required for the
proposed project, in order to reduce potentially significant air quality
impacts to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures will
be made conditions of project approval:
1. The Agency and private developers shall, during cleaning, grading, earth
moving or excavation:
- control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction
roads, or other dust preventive measures, as defined.
maintain equipment in proper tune.
2. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation, the Agency and
private developers shall:
seed and water until grass cover is grown.
spread soil binders.
wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface
with repeated soakings as necessary to maintain the crust and
prevent dust pick up by the wind.
street sweeping should be carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares.
3. During construction, the Agency and private developers shall:
use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the
site.
wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for
the day.
use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment.
4. The Agency and private developers shall phase and schedule construction
activities to avoid high ozone days.
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARI~IENT
I. Current Zoning on site: ~_1~ ) '~c~Y~(~t6',~l
North ~ / ~-~ '
South ~q~c ( ~
East ~c.r' ~ C~k~
West Fc~~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use ·
est
Is the project compatible with %he General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? lV~ ~- ~C~-E.'~ o~e'A/tS~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? <D
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~o,~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~
9
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 ementary ~ ~Y~4.
Jr. High C~t~ i,O~O 1~
Sr.
High
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due tobulk, form, texture or color? (If
please describe.)
so~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) ~/~
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Director o~ Planning or Representative Date
- lO-
Case No. ~-
G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards?
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities?
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~ ,?~.~ ~A-,~ 'fi" ~r_~' ~1~:~-~
g. ~J~hey aJ~ate to serve the project? (~, ~ ~J"~
2. Transportation ~/A ~¢ ~.
a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project.
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips ~ be
generated by the project {per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T.
L.O.S.
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets?
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
- ll -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction? ~u~r~-~-J ~ ~ ~'.~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? ~ ..~ ,~J~ ~ ~ ~t ~
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. ~at is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No. ~{-~
7. Air Quality ~/~
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
CO X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) X 20.0 =
Particulates X 1.5 :
Sulfur X .78 :
8. Waste Generation ~
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid Liquid
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site?
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
or Representativ~ Date/
Case No.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? / ~ -
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? k~..
3. Remarks
Fire Marshal
-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 ~:~
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase~
Neighborhood ~ -
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or --
Representative Date
Sweetwater Union High School Distric[
April 23, 1991
Ms. Maryanne Miller
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Ms. Miller:
Re: IS-91-36 - Propose Trolly Center Amendment to Southwest RDA
Recently the district responded to a notice on the proposed
Trolly Center Development. Our position remains the same. All
the terms and conditions of the Southwest RDA Agreement be. tween
the city and the agency should be extended to all parcels within
this project. A copy of our recent letter is enclosed for your
files.
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
Sweetwater Union High School Distric[
Janaury 24, 1991
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Ms. Miller:
Re: Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Report
Palomar Trolley Center
I am in receipt of the above subject notice, and I appreciate the
opportunity to respond. The proposed center will affect the
district in the following two ways:
1. The incorporation of the tax increment financing on
properties not presently within the redevelopment area will
limit future tax revenues to the district.
2. The project will add employment opportunities to the South
Bay, and a proportion of these new jobs will result in
additional households. Using a recent study prepared to
analyze this issue, it can be estimated that approximately
50 new students will be the impact of this project.
In regard to the first issueF the district and the redevelopment
agency have reached an agreement as to how revenues from the
Southwest Redevelopment Area will be shared. To mitigate the
limit of revenue to the district caused by the Trolley Center's
inclusion into the redevelopment agency, I am requesting that the
same terms and conditions of that agreement apply to the new
properties.
In addressing the second issue, the report should note that the
project is located in the Castle Park Middle and Chula Vista High
School attendance areas. The following table illustrates the
current enrollment and facility status at those schools.
Page 2
Ms. Mary Ann Miller
Palomar Trolley Center
Proposed Palomar Trolley Center
Affected Secondary Schools '
lg90 CBEOS Permanent Number of Unhoused
School Enrollment Site Relocatables Students
CPM ' 1218 1456 0 <238>
CVH 1919 1356 16 83
(480 Students)
As you can see, Chula Vista High School will be significantly
impacted by the addition of new students. Payment of the
district's portion of $0.26 per square foot is not adequate to
mitigate these impacts. Therefore, I am requesting tha.t this
project be annexed to the district's Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District No. 5 as a means to mitigate the increased
student enrollment. Should the city find that this annexation is
inconsistent with the goals of the redevelopment agency, then the
aforementioned revenue/sharing agreement will have to be revised
to include those additional costs to the district which would .have
been accommodated by Community Facilities District No. 5.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to respond to this project.
If you have any questions, please call me at 691-5553.
Cordial ly,
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Lance Abbott, Chula Vista-Community Development
Mike Mezey, Cotton Beland Associates, Inc.
Thomas Meade, District Consultant
Kate Shurson, Chula Vista Elementary School District
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-91-04 - Consideration of tentative subdivision
map for East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-04
- United Enterprises, Limited
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as
East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-04, in order to subdivide
3.3 acres at the northeast corner of East Palomar Street and Nolan
Avenue into 13 single family lots.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-91-35, 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-91-35.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no
significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-91-35.
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 East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-04,
subject to the following conditions:
a. Any fencing or walls shall maintain a minimum 10 ft. setback
from the common drives, and the area between the fence/wall and
drive shall be landscaped and property maintained. Fencing
greater than 3.5 ft. high shall maintain the same setback from
the common drives as the dwelling without the prior written
permission of the Zoning Administrator. These restrictions
shall be reflected in the CC&R's for each of the affected lots
(lot #'s 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12).
b. The CC&R's shall specify the responsibility of the property
owners to maintain the common drives, the landscaping adjacent
to the common drives and in and around the guest parking areas,
and the down-slopes along the easterly boundary of lot #"s 1!
and 13.
c. Landscape and irrigation construction drawings, including a
fencing plan for the areas adjacent to the common drives, shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Architect prior
to the issuance of any building permits.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 2
d. The final screening design for the guest parking areas should
include a hard, permanent visual barrier (such as a decorative
fence) in conjunction with shrub groupings and other plant
materials. The plantable islands shall provide a minimum 4 ft.
plantable area within the planter.
e. The common driveways shall be treated with enriched paving at
their entrances subject to review and approval of the City
Landscape Architect.
f. The development of the panhandle lots are subject to compliance
with the City's panhandle lot standards (CVMC 19.22.150).
g. The CC&R's for the project shall be submitted for review and
approval and shall be recorded concurrently with the final
map. The CC&R's shall contain a prohibition against T.V. and
radio antennas and garage conversions. THe CC&R's shall name
the City as a party to the CC&R's insofar as the City shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the
provisions of the CC&R's relating to areas of public concern
such as, but not limited to, the maintenance of common areas
and the adherence to other ordinance regulations of the City.
h. The "hammerhead" design turn areas shall be posted "No parking
fire lane" subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal.
i. The amount of any fees applicable to the project, including but
not limited to PAD, DIF and RCT fees, shall be those in effect
at the time they are collected.
j. The approval of a final map by the city Council will require
compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
k. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full
street improvements for all public streets shown on the
Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary in conformance
with the current Chula Vista Design Standards according to the
following classifications:
CLASSIFICATION
East Palomar Street Class I Collector
{except that the
roadway width,
centerline to
curbline, shall be
32 feet)
Nolan Avenue Residential
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 3
Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt
concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk,
sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights,
signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements.
1. Prior to Final Map approval the developer shall grant to the
City a landscaped buffer area easements along all public
streets. The width of said easements shall be as outlined in
the City's Street Design Standards Policy.
m. Prior to Final Map approval the developer shall dedicate
additional right of way along the frontage of the property as
follows:
- East Palomar Street - to provide a half width street of 42
feet
Nolan Avenue - to provide a half width street of 28 feet.
n. The developer shall be responsible for the installation of the
following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
1) A 100 watt street light at the north property line on
Nolan Avenue.
2) Two 250 watt street lights on East Palomar Street.
3) Replace two existing 100 watt with 250 watt street lights
on the south side of Palomar Street.
o. The drainage system across lots 11 and 13 shall be maintained
by the owners of said lots. Provisions shall be included in
the CC&R~s which shall be approved prior to approval of the
Final Map.
p. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as
part of the grading plans.
q. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as
approved by the City Engineer. Lots shall be so graded as to
drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage
shall not be permitted to flow over slopes.
r. Prior to approval of the Final Map the developer shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
downstream sewer system is capable of handling the additional
sewage flow to be generated by the project. The developer
shall also enter into an agreement with the City whereby the
owner agrees to participate in funding of the necessary
facilities to provide downstream sewer capacity for those
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 4
segments already working over design capacity or which this
development causes to exceed City design standards. This
agreement shall be executed by the developer prior to Final Map
approval.
s. lhe developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
wherein the City is held harmless from any liability for
erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from
this project.
t. On the condition that the 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 development/applicant shall enter into an
agreement, 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 of
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by
the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City
Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees
with regard to this subdivision.
u. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California
System - Zone VI.
v. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State and
Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The
developer shall be responsible for providing all required
testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as
required by the City Engineer.
w. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television
companies ("Cable Company") equal opportunity to place conduit
to and provide cable television service for each lot with the
subdivision. The developer shall enter into an agreement with
all participating Cable Companies which shall provide, in part,
that upon receiving written notice from the City that said
Cable Company is in violation of the terms and conditions of
the franchise granted to said Cable Company, or any other terms
and conditions regulating Cable Company in the City of Chula
Vista, as same may from time to time be amended, Developer
shall suspend Cable Company's access to said conduit until City
otherwise notifies Developer. Said agreement shall be approved
by the City Attorney prior to Final Map approval.
x. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the developer shall submit
a copy of the Final Map in a digital format such as (DXF)
graphic file. This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the
Final Map shall be based on accurate coordinate geometry
calculations and shall be submitted on 5-1/2 HD floppy disk
prior to the approval of the Final Map.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 5
y. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code as they exist at the time of
issuance of the building permit. Preparation of the Final Map
and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Ordinances and Subdivision Manual.
z. The developer shall grant access and parking easements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer to the subsequent owners of
panhandle lots 4, 5, 6, 7, g, 10, 11 and 12. These easements
shall be granted on the final map in accordance with Section
18.20.150 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Church; Single family dwellings
South R-1 Single family dwellings
East R-1 Single family dwellings
West R-1 Single family dwellings
Existing site characteristics.
The site is presently vacant and measures approximately 220~ x 660~ (3.3
acres), with the longer dimension representing the frontage on East
Palomar Street. The property slopes gently down from west to east, with
the exception of some larger manufactured slopes along the easterly
boundary. The site adjoins single family dwellings and a church.
Tentative map.
The proposal is to subdivide the property into 13 single family lots
which range in size from 7,000 sq. ft. to 12,350 sq. ft. The map shows
eight lots along East Palomar, and five lots to the north or rear -- four
of which are panhandle lots. Access is concentrated on the common access
drives so that only two individual driveways directly access East Palomar.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the underlying R-1
zone lot standards, and subsequent development of the panhandle lots will
be required to meet the City's panhandle lot standards (CVMC 19.22.150).
We have recommended several conditions of approval which will address the
appearance in and around the common drives, and help ensure the
maintenance of the larger down slopes which will remain along the
easterly boundary of the property.
D. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for East Palomar Estates, Chula Vista Tract 91-04, is
found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General
Plan based on the following:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 6
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The project density of 3.9 du/ac is consistent with
Residential Low Medium {3-6 du/ac) General Plan designation for
the site.
b. Circulation - The streets and common drives serving the project
are designed to City standards.
c. Housing The project will provide single-family detached
housing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
d. Conservation - The site is previously disturbed and not known to
contain any natural resources.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will be required
to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to approval
of a final map.
f. Seismic Safety - There are no known faults within the immediate
vicinity of the site.
g. Safety - The site is within the threshold standards with respect
to response time for fire and police.
h. Noise The project will not create nor be impacted by noise
beyond the City's standards.
i. Scenic Highway - The site does not adjoin a Scenic Highway.
j. Bicycle Routes Palomar Street is a designated Bike Route and
will be improved to those standards.
k. Public Buildings - The project is subject to RCT and DIF fees at
issuance of building permits.
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.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of June 12, 1991 Page 7
5. The size and configuration of the site and resulting street pattern
do not allow for the optimum siting of all the lots for passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities without reducing the
density below that allowed under the existing zoning.
WPC 9389P/OO11Y
PROJECT~
LOCATION
STREET
I
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: East Palomar Estates, 13-Lot Tentative Tract Map
PROJECI LOCATION: North side of East Palomar Street, south of Nolan Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 620-050-35
PROJECT APPLICANT: United Enterprises, Limited
7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 621, La Mesa, CA 92041
CASE NO: IS-91-35 DATE: April 18, 1991
A. Project Se£tinq
The 3.3 acre site is mostly flat, and is surrounded by R-1 single-family
development with average lot sizes of approximately 7000 sq. ft. East
Palomar Street fprms the southern border, Nolan Avenue forms the western
border, and residences occur along the northern and southern borders.
With the exception of a few grasses, the site is absent of vegetation.
Trails criss-cross the site and they appear to collect trash, and other
unwanted items, such as vehicle parts and shopping carts.
B. Pro'ect Descri tion
The project proposes 13 single-family residences: 10 of the lots are
between 7000-8000 sq. ft.; 1 lot is between 8000-9000 sq. ft.; and 2 lots
are over 10,000 sq. ft. The residences are 2-story, Mediterranean style,
and the landscape plan includes numerous tree, shrub, vine and groundcover
species. Existing 5 and 6 foot high fences would continue to form the
border between the adjacent residences to the north and east. The project
also proposes widening of Nolan Avenue and East Palomar Street to meet
City standards.
C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans
The R-1-7 zone requires 70 percent of the lots to be a minimum of 7000 sq.
ft., and 20 and 10 percent of the lots to be a minimum of 6000 and 5000
sq. ft., respectively. The project is well above the minimum zoning
requirement. The General Plan designation is Low-Medium , 3-6 dwelling
units per acre. The project's gross density of 3.9 dwelling units per
acre and net density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre are within this
designation. The Project's 4 panhandle lots conform to the requirement
that no more than 4 lots may be served, and to driveway and )arking
requirements.
city of chula vista pi.arming department CI~OF
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of
the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City
of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be
met, since the nearest fire station is approximately 1/2 mile away
and would be associated with a three-minute response time. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and
maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority 2 calls of ? minutes or less. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3
acres/I,000 population. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Policy.
5. Drainage
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will
provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
6. Sewer
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes
shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects
will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
7. Water
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage,
treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently
with planned growth and that water quality standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
E. )dentification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed project could have one or more significant environmental
effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented
specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a level of less
than significant.
The project, as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially
significant environmental effects previously identified, and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures
have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
attached as Addendum "A".
The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant
and are required to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. A
discussion of each of these potentially significant impacts from the
proposed projects follows.
Water
Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of approval, the
applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or
participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-site program the
City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have been
required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than
significant.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and
have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum "A").
The applicant must pay the City-required fee for water consumption
offsets. The fee amount has not yet been established. Payment would
reduce the impact to a level below significant, because the money would be
used to reduce water consumption at a different location (to be chosen by
the City} by the same amount projected to be used by the Project.
G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant 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 enwronment, 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 is surrounded by urban development on all sides, and
is absent of biological, historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, it
is found that the project will not have a significant impact on these
resources.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The 13-unit single-family residential project is in conformance with
the General Plan, and will fulfill development of this site as
envisioned by the City. It is found that the project will not
achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental 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 13-unit single-family residential project is an infill project
urban development surrounds the site on all sides). The limited
nature of proposed development coupled with the fact that it is a
project which fills in an area surrounded by developments which have
already contributed significantly to cumulative impacts, results in
the finding that this project will not contribute to cumulative
impacts.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The project will develop 13 residential units, which is compatible
with surrounding development. It is found that no substantial direct
or indirect, adverse effects will occur to humans.
H. Consulta~n
1. ~ndividuals and Orqanizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering
John Lippitt, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Robert Spriggs, Western Communities Associates
2. Documents
,"Report of Soil Investigation - 13-Lot Subdivision" 1991
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.
E.VIRO,ME EVIEW ODRDI,ATDR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
WPC 9157P
THE CITr
ottlci~l hadley. Th~ tol1~ng information must b~ d[acloaed;
1. ~lt the n~mes of sll persons hn~ng ~ fm~nc'~.I inter,st in th~ contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, materM1 supplier.
2. If ~ny per,on identified pursuant to (1) ~bovc is'~ corporation or parmarship, l~t th~ namc~ of ~11
individuals o~lng marc thnn 10~ of thc sh~rcs in th= corporation at ownln$ ~ny p=rm~rship
inter,st tn tho p~rtncrship.
ROBERT C. SPRIGGS
DOUGLAS K. BR~DAGE .......... -
3. If any per,on Idantifled oursuant to (!) above is non.profit organization or ~ trust, llst thc
oF lay per~o~ s~n~ a~ director ~ tho n~n.profit orgsn{zallon or as trustee or bcnc~icla~ or
ttustOr O~ t~6 t~st.
~ES NOT ~LY ....
H~v~ you had mor~ than S2~0 worth of business transacted ~th ~ny ~mb~: or ~he Ci~, staff,
Boards, Commissions, CommtU~cs and Counci! within the p~st ~elvc monlhs? Yes ~
No Z , It yes, please indic~tc p~rson(s}: (SEE AIIAC~) ,_, ---. _
5. Please identi~ e=ch and cveu person, Including ~ny agents, employees, consultants or Independent
comrectors who you h~vc assianed to represent you ~efore the Cl~ In this metter.
~N A~ES ~E.R.B. ENGINEERING).., -
~6~ERT C. S~RIGG~ (WE~E~ CO~!~IES ASSOCIATES) __
6. H~vc you ~nd/or your officers or ~gcnts, in the aggregate) contribu~d more th~n $1,000 to
Councilm~mb=r tn Ih: current or preceding =lee{ion period? Y~s __ No ,x Ity=s, stala wh]ch
Councllm~mbcr(,):
~ is a~n~ ~: M,,y t~t.t~uat, tim,, ~o.p~r~rd, t~, Joln~ v~n.,r~, ~s~ocinHo.~, ~ )~J~;~. ~t~rnaf o~a.t~a~t~.,
or any other ~u~ or combz~attoa acHn~ o~ a ~oltt.' ~ gS ASSOCIATES
I~STE~ CO ~ ? ~
June 5, 1991
'Robert C, rig~ ,
,
~int or ~ muU~ at' cantractor/apphc:mt
FOR OFFICE
Case No.
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE 13 lot tentative tract map
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description)North side of East
Palomar Street, between Nolan and Park
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 620-050-35
3. BRIEF pROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a 13 lot subdivision with qross
acreage of 3.3Xacre. The existing zoning is R-1
(Residential) ·
4. Name of Applicant United Enterprises, Limited, (Calif. Limited Ptnsp
Address 7777 Alvarado Road Ste. 621 Phone (619)697-4877
City La Mesa State CA 7. ip 92041
5. Name of Preparer/Agent ERB ENGINEERING, INC.
Address 13260 Poway Road Phone 1619)278-1744
City Poway State CA Zip 92064
Relation to Applicant Consultant
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning X Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan x 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
X Grading Plan Concept Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
"Parcel Map Setting "Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan X Tentative Subd. Map 'Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
90-55
2
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 1437.48 or acreage 3.3 Acres
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
Nolan Avenue East Palomar Street Widening = 0.8 acres
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family × Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights 13 single family units,
dwelling heights per city code.
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms X 4 bedrooms X Total units 13
d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 3.9 DU/Acre
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 5.2 DU/Acre
f. Estimated project population 48 persons (basedon 3.7persons 1:er unit).
g. Estimated sale or rental price range unknown
h. Square footage of floor area(s) unknown
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures per code
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided per code
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 24%
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
/
d.
Describe
major access points to the,~ctures and the
orientation to adjoining pr operas and streets
e. Number of p~g
on-site spaces provided
employees per shift , Number of
f. Estimated numb,9~"of
shifts J Total
g. Est~ed number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings~J
j. Hours of operation J
k. Type of exterior lightin~ J
4. If project is other than residentia ,~co~ercial or industrial
complete this section. J ~(p~
a. Type of project
b. Type of faciliti~rovided
c. Square re. enclosed structures
d. Height~structure(s) - maximum _
e. Ul~t~iiiate occupancy load of project
f.~umber of on-site parking spaces to be provided
~. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
None
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated yes
{If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated? 10~000±
h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? Balanced cut/fill
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 3.0 A.C
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 10 feet (Lot 13)
Average depth of cut 3
Maximum depth of fill 4
Average depth of fill 2
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Normal s±n~le fam±ly res±dent±al
appliance use. Gas and electrlca£ ener~ supply as well
as solar water heat is anticipated.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) None - The entire site has been disturbed.
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. All construction trades associated
with residential and roadway construction.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? No
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 10 x 13 = 130 ADT
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Street improvements involve widening of Nolan Avenue &
East Palomar St. All utilities are presently fronting the
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING project site.
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? No
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? No
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a.. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? No
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? yes
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
No
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Drainage easements and storm drains will be provided
as required.
3. Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? No
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
No
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. None
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? None
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? None
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. The project site has existing zoning R-1
Residential. The project site at present is surrounded by
sinqle family dwellinq. The site has no structures.
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Residential Single Family
South x
East X
West x
?. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) None
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) None
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
This is an in fill project. All surrounding properties are presently
built-out.
- ? -
E. CERTIFICATION
or
Owner/owner in escrow*
Consultant or
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: 11/26/90
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
Case ~. :~s-q I-8 ~-
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zontn9 on site:
North
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
~. General Plan land use ~:~j-t~e~L~w, ~"~-~ ~esignation on site:
East ~ ~ ~c
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or a~acent
to an area so designated?
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, describe the design techniques b~ing 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 currente~p.a~k acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? .
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(gAC/IO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to,provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
E1 e~entary ~J~x[-
4. Aesthetics
~es the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, tex~re or color? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources: /
Electricity (per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Di re'ct-or ot~/~ I anning- or Representati ve Date
Case No.
G. ~NGINEERING D£PARI~IENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
b. Will the projQct be subject'to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any]flooding hazards? ~m
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
~rainage facilities? ~r~ J~. t~"~ ~+~r~ ~;m ~,J
e. Are they adequate to serve ihe project? ~]r.~r,JJA ' J~,~
f. What is the location and descriptio6 bf existing off-site
drainage facilities? I~'~ ~.~ i~+ t~J ~ ~
g. ~e they adequ~e to serve the project? L'r ~ ~..,~
2. Transportation ~sJ ~,s ~ss~. ~/~'~ ~ (~'~
a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~r
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)?
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. ~ ~(~)
L.O.S. A A
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project?y_~
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? ¥~
If so, specify the general nature of the n~cessary actions.
~ ~-V.~- ~0- ~-
Case No.
3. ,.Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? L(~mo..~m,
Liquefaction?, Ub~o~.~;~s ~ ~ ~;
Landslide or slippage? ~mm~q.
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project? ~ ~~e~ ~.~ ~ ~~_
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? U~kn,~, ~:~ ~e~ ~o~
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions?
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. ~at is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?
6. Uoise
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?
Case N0.
7. Air Q,',al i ty
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 ~o X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons ~o X 18.3 : ~.~
NOx (NO2 ) ~ ~o X 20.0
Particulates ~)~ ~ 1.5 =
Sulfur ~o X .78 = t ol
8. ~{e Generation
How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~{ ~. Liquid ~0 ~1,
J¢hat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? ~m~ ~ ~ ~T~ ~. ~[~;~ ~.
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
.. 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
{Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures ~- ~
- t3 -
Case No.. [~ ~, _?~----
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? 1/2 Hi]e. Three ~linutes.
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? Yes.
3. Remarks Fire hydrants, Five ,~pl]aratus ttlt'I~;Irotlnds and ~:i]'e f'low h~ve
~'ire t,,arsh2'l bate
-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 ~
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~.~h~ ~
Community parks \~ ~,
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
L. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of lggO - AB 3158)
It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for
'any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on
wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption"
shall be prepared for this project.
It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact
wildlife, individually or cumulatively and therefore fees in
accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game Code
shall be paid to the County Clerk.
Sweetwater Union Hiqh School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE:
PLANNING DEPARrl'MENT
March 6, 1991
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
£n~Ironmental Review Coordinator
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 91glO
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: East Palomar Estates 13 lot Subdivision
IS-gl-35 - United Enterprises
The above subject project will significantly impact the
Sweetwater Union High School District's operations. It has been
found that the payment of the district's share of $1.58 per square
foot of habitable space does not meet the needs created by new
development. In fact, this project's impact of four students
would cost the district $49,232 in permanent facility costs. If
the dwelling unit area for each unit is at or above 4,300 square
feet, then the collection of fees would mitigate the project's
impact.
It is doubtful that this subdivision would comprise a housing
mix of that size; therefore, I am requesting that this project's
impact to the district be mttlgataed by its annexation into
Community Facilities District No. 5. Please advise the applicant
of our concern so that discussions for the processing of this
request may begin.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Silva
cc: Thomas Meade
Kate Shurson
CHULA VL°WA ELEMENTARY SCHO J DISTRICT
84 EAST "J' STREET * CHULAVIST~ CALIFORNIA 92010 * 619425-9600
EACH CHILD ~ AN INDIVIDUAL OF GI~,AT WORTH
~ARD OF
February 27, 1991
GREG · SAN~V~
Ms. Barbara Reid
SU~£~ES~ Environmental Section
city of Chula vista
~Nr.~.~.v. 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: IS-91-35 / FA-521 / DP-826
Applicant: United Enterprises Limited
Location: ~orth side of East Palomar, between ~olan
and Park
Project: East Palomar Estates/Proposed 13 Lot
subdivision
Dear Ms. Reid:
This is to advise you that the East Palomar Estates project,
located on the north side of East Palomar, between Nolan and
Park, is within the Chula vista Elementary School District
which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 4 - 5
percent over the past several years, and this is projected
to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being
utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District
also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to
accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
Currently, a developer fee of $1.58 per square foot of
assessable area ($ .70 for Chula Vista Elementary School
District, $ .88 for Sweetwater Union High School District)
is assessed for new residential construction and
additions/remodels of over 500 square feet.
Since developer fees currently allowed under State law
provide approximately twenty-five percent of the facilities
costs to house new students, the District encourages
developer part~c~pat~o in alternative financing mechanisms
to help assure that facilities will be available to serve
children generated by new construction. We are currently
utilizing Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one
method to help fund this shortfall. Participation in a CFD
is in lieu of developer fees, with school mitigation paid by
the homeowner in the form of a special tax. Residential
projects of 20 units or more west of the 1-805, and all new
development east of the 1-805, are recommended for
participation/annexation in a CFD. Other smaller projects
are also g~ven the opportunity to mitigate school impacts
through annexation in lieu of fees.
February 27, 1991
Ms. Barbara Reid
Page 2
RE: East Palomar Eatates/Proposed 13 Lot subdivision
The subject project, is located in the Palomar School
attendance area. This sch~l is presently o~rating at
ca. city, and an alternative financing mech~ism, such as
partici~tion in or annexation to a Community Facilities
Distri~ is reco~nded. If you are interested in annexing
to C~ No. 5, please let us know as s~n as ~ssible, and we
will fo~ard o~ ~nexation criteria to you.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Sh~son
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: United Enterprises Limited
ERB Engineering, Inc.
P.O.
San Diego~ Ca
DouBlas D. Reid Ma~ch 3,1991/ ~~7 /
Environmental Review Coordinator
P. 0. Box 1087~~'
Chula Vista, Ca 9201~
Dear Sir:
I have reviewed the project description on file at the
Chula Vista Planning Dept. known as Palomar Estates.
Some of that acreage boarders my property. While
would welcome single family homes built upon the acreage
in question, I do have some concerns.
Thirteen (1~) homes on 3.~ acres allows a higher density
than currently exists in the surrounding community and
may adversly affect the property values of the
neighboring homes. The existing homes have one third
(1/5) acre lots and are valued from $1~0,000 to over
$~OO, OO0.
The probable visual impact of decreasing or totally
obliterating the view of Mexico from the upper windows
will devalue my property as well as the properties
either side of mine.
The plans call for hammerhead type parking. TwO of
which abut my land. The lights of vehicles and noise
from the parking areas will impact on the quality of
life of at least three (3) families
The water problems are serious and will continue long
into the future. One way to help alleviate the
shortages is to curtail high density building in all
areas for the good of all people.
REC_NED
Apr~ 4, 1991
Irene $. White
P.0. Box 6000
San Diego, CA 92166
Dear Ha.
! am the builder of the 13 homes that is proposed for East ?alomar
Street.
The City of Chu[a Vista has £orwarded your letter regarding some
concerns that you might have. It would be my pleasure to meet with
you and discuss these issues.
I think that you should know that the size lots are well within the
existing zoning and that the sales price of the homes will be in
excess of $215,000.00.
With regards to the privacy factor, we are making every attempt to
minimize the future development's presence to your property. This
will be done with heavy emphasis on privacy fencing and landscape
planting.
Please call me at (619) 697-4877 if you would like to review in
more detail oul landscaping and architectural plans.
Yours sincere/
WESTERN C0I,~12 TIES ASSOCIATES
Robert iggs
RCS:ck
ce: Douglas D. Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator~
MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attn: Doug Reid APR3 0 199]
NOTICE
OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
{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 wi th 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 si.gnificant environmental
impact, roP~-6~6cts 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 Millerat (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: 620-050-35
PROJECT LOCATION: North side of East Palomar, south of Nolan Ave.
Proposed construction of 13 single family
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: residential lots.
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Chula Vista Planning Commission
INITIAL STUDY NO. IS 91-35
DATE: 4/26/91 ~ nE
D2PUTy