HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/09/13 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 13, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of May 24, August 2 and August 9, 1989
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission
on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an
item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five
minutes.
1. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-88-1, Sunbow II
(Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCM-89-7 and PCZ-87-E: Consideration of
a General Development Plan and Planned Community Pre-
Zone for Sunbow II located south of Telegraph Canyon
Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Medical Center -
Rancho del Sur Partnership
3. Consideration of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
EIR-88-1 - Sunbow II (Continued)
4. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-88-1 - Sunbow II
(Continued)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCS-89-12: Consideration of tentative
subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract
89-12 Gold Key Development
6. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-89-5: Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Rancho del Rey II - Rancho del Rey Partnership
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-9, General
Development Plan for EastLake III/Olympic Training
Center
AGENDA -2- September 13, 1989
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-4: Request to establish
a motorcycle sales and service facility at 345 'E'
Street - Thomas A. Horning
OTHER BUSINESS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of September 20, 1989
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989
1. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-88-1, Sunbow II
(Continued)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) PCM-89-7 and PCZ-87-E: Consideration of
a General Development Plan and Planned Community Pre-
Zone for Sunbow II located south of Telegraph Canyon
Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Medical Center -
Rancho del Sur Partnership
3. Consideration of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
EIR-88-1 - Sunbow II (Continued)
4. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-88-1 - Sunbow II
Continued)
A. BACKGROUND
Because of delays in the preparation of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Sunbow II project, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the
General Development Plan and the Pre-Zoning for Sunbow II until
September 27, 1989.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to continue Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 until the meeting
of September 27, 1989.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 1
5. PUBLIC HEA~ING PCS-89-12 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map
for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12 - Gold Key
Development (Continued)
A. BACKGROUND
1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as
Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, proposing to subdivide 2.31
acres located on the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road, east of
Hilltop Drive, into 9 single family lots. The property includes an
existing house at 66 Telegraph Canyon Road and extends easterly
approximately 600 ft.
2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-89-74, 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-89-74.
3. This item was continued from the meeting of August 23, 1989, so that
the Commission could be provided with a soils report which was
missing from the prior packet. The motion (6-0) was to continue the
item but not reopen the public hearing
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-89-74.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative
subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, subject to
the following conditions:
a. The panhandle area shall be reduced to two lots with contoured
grading along the southeasterly boundary subject to staff review
and approval.
b. The dwellings shall be resited and/or the floor plans or lot
lines adjusted in order to provide adequate, usable yard space
for each lot subject to staff review and approval. Sideyards
meeting this requirement shall have a minimum dimension of 15
ft. C&CR's shall be recorded with a city being a party thereto,
prohibiting future building construction within the 15'
sideyard. Said construction may exclude patios with an open
trellis design approved by the City.
City Planning Con~nission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 2
c. Fully automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in the
"panhandle" dwellings subject to approval of the Fire Marshal.
d. 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.
e. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of
street improvements in Telegraph Canyon Road as shown on the
Tentative Map. Said improvements shall include, but not be
limited to asphalt pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and
sidewalk, street lights, sanitary sewer, fire hydrants and
potable water facilities. Required improvements shall be
installed along the entire subdivision frontage and shall extend
to the existing concrete curb easterly of the property.
f. The developer shall dedicate to the City additional right-of-way
along the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road adjacent to the
subdivision as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map.
g. The private access drive off Telegraph Canyon Road shall meet
City standards for intersection sight distance.
h. The developer shall provide a concrete low flow channel in the
tributary water course at the rear of Lots 2 and 3 unless the
City Engineer determines that such a channel is not necessary.
A drainage study shall be submitted to demonstrate the adequacy
of the channel and to demonstrate that the channel is compatible
with upstream improvements.
i. Side slopes in the major drainage channel shall be no steeper
than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical ratio) unless approved by the
City Engineer.
j. Access shall be provided to all storm drain structures including
low flow channels adjacent to back of lots. The form and type
of access is to be approved by the City Engineer.
k. The property owner shall grant an easement to the City to
provide for maintenance of the major Telegraph Canyon Channel.
Said easement shall be granted on the Final Subdivision Map.
1. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to
detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission
of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished
on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and
the Grading Ordinance ()~o. 1797 as amended).
m. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for
all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit
for work requiring said off-site grading.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 3
n. The developer shall grant to the City a street tree planting and
maintenance easement along Telegraph Canyon Road. Said easement
shall extend from the property line to a line 10 feet from the
back of the sidewalk.
o. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon
individual lots for all franchised cable television companies.
p. Plans for the bridge providing access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall
be reviewed by the City Engineer. Said bridge shall be capable
of allowing a lO0-year storm flow to pass without obstructing
said flow.
q. The developer shall provide barriers on the portion of the
exposed sewer line crossing the property subject to review and
approval of the Director of Public Works.
C. DISCUSSION
Existing site characteristics.
The property is an irregularly-shaped site which fronts on Telegraph
Canyon Road and is bounded by single family homes to the south, east and
west, and Hilltop Junior High School to the north. The site and
surrounding areas are zoned R-1. An existing single family dwelling
occupies the westerly portion of the property.
The site has approximately 600 ft. of frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road,
with an average depth of over 100 ft. and a maximum depth of 250 ft. at
the easterly portion of the property. An unimproved drainage way
traverses the length of the property approximately 75 ft. back from the
street frontage. The abutting single family homes to the south and east
are generally elevated well above the site with the exception of two homes
which adjoin the southeasterly extension of the property.
Tentative map.
The tentative map shows 9 lots, 6 with frontage on Telegraph Canyon Road,
and 3 lots on the southeasterly extension of the property served by a
private drive. The drainage channel would be improved and a bridge would
be constructed at the easterly boundary to provide access to the 3
panhandle lots. The average lot size is over 9,000 sq. ft., with only one
lot below 7,000 sq. ft.
The site plan shows the construction of 8 dwellings in addition to the
existing dwelling which will remain on the most westerly lot. The
dwellings are all two-story plans with 3-car garages, with the exception
of two of the "panhandle" dwellings which show 2-car garages. The
dwellings along the street frontage are planned with wider sideyards in
order to compensate for the channel and resulting lack of usable
rearyards. The 3 panhandle lots are served by 5 guest parking spaces.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 4
D. ANALYSIS
All of the lots meet the dimensional requirements of the R-1 zone, and
there are no requested deviations from the underlying R-1 development
standards. Two concerns are with the development of the panhandle area
and the provision of usable yard space.
The panhandle area is the steepest portion of the site and requires
extensive earthwork. This results in a series of manufactured slopes and
retaining walls, and a severely constrained site plan with regard to
access, parking, and the interface with the abutting dwellings to the
south and east. We have recommended that this area be limited to only two
rather three lots, subject to staff review and approval, and including
provision for contoured grading of the southeasterly slopes.
Several of the lots have limited usable yard area. We do not oppose the
substitution of an ample sideyard for rearyard space, but we believe such
an area should provide a minimum dimension of 15 ft. This would require
resiting the dwellings and/or adjustments to the floor plans or lot
lines. We have recommended any adjustments be subject to staff review and
approval with the further intent to retain privacy for adjoining dwellings.
The Commission had several questions of staff regarding issues raised in
two letters from abutting property owners (please see letters attached).
The issues and staff responses are as follows:
1. The existence of fill and/or ground water may adversely effect
drainage and adjoining properties.
The soils report found that all soils encountered on the site are
suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are cleaned of
trash and debris. All findings of the soils report are required to
be incorporated into the grading plan for the project. No
groundwater was observed in three test pits, nor any seepage along
the southerly boundary or southeast portion of the site.
2. Chimney discharge from the proposed dwellings will create a fire
hazard because of the combined effects of the topography and
prevailing winds.
Chimney spark arrestors are required for all dwellings, and represent
almost a 100% deterrent to embers escaping into the atmosphere. For
the occasional ember that does escape, combustibility is maintained
for a distance of approximately 30 ft. As a result, almost all roof
fires resulting from chimney embers originate from the dwelling
itself. According to the Fire Marshal, the existing brush on the
site represents a much greater fire hazard than chimney embers.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 5
3. Adequacy/maintenance of the drainage swale at the rear of lots 2 and
3.
The treatment of this channel is addressed by Condition "h," which
requires a drainage study and improvements if necessary. The 10 ft.
maintenance drive into the main channel at the rear of lot 4 will
provide convenient access to the tributary channel as well.
The Commission also raised concerns regarding flooding downstream from the
project, through Hilltop Park and at First Avenue. The Engineering
Department has provided an exhibit of the flood elevations in the area and
will be prepared to answer any questions at the meeting.
E. FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative
subdivision map for Sun-Up Vista, Chula Vista Tract 89-12, is found to be
in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based
on the following:
1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the
proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such
projects.
2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing
improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to
avoid any serious problems.
3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista
General Plan Elements as follows:
a. Land Use - The proposal as conditioned is consistent with the
General Plan designation of Low-~edium Residential (3-6 du/ac),
and General Plan policies related to grading and landform.
b. Circulation - Telegraph Canyon Road and the private drive shall
be improved in accordance with City Standards. The reduction of
one lot in the panhandle area will improve circulation for those
lots.
c. Housing The project shall provide single family, detached
housing consistent with that in the immediate area.
d. Conservation - The biologic component of the site is not unique
and does not contain threatened or endangered species. There
are no significant impacts with regard to wildlife habitat,
soils or ground water.
e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project shall be required
to pay park acquisition and development fees prior to approval
of a final map.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 6
f. Seismic Safety - No faults or landslides are known to exist on
the project site. the La Nacion Fault Zone, located
approximately 800 feet west of the property, has little
potential as a source for a damaging earthquake.
§. Safety - The project site is within threshold standards for both
police and fire protection, the panhandle dwellings will be
equipped with indoor sprinkler systems in lieu of adequate
access for fire equipment.
h. Noise - The site is not subject to adverse noise impacts.
i. Scenic Highway - The property does not adjoin a scenic route or
gateway.
j. Bicycle Routes - The property does not adjoin a designated bike
route.
k. Public Buildings - The project is subject to the payment of
school impact fees prior to the 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.
5. The general orientation of the dwellings is conducive to passive and
natural heating opportunities. The wide sideyards will allow for
natural cooling to a greater extent than typically found.
WPC 6640P/2659P
pROJECT ARI
DR,
cO0~'
ZONE C
ZONE A~
S TPL ~" LIMIT OF
/' LJLYEP-.T DETAILED STUDY
ZONE B
ZONE A4
ZONE A7
ZONE B m~'
ZONE B
.ZONE
I12
negat,ve declaration
PROJECT NAME: Sun-Up Vista
PROJECT LOCATION: 0.2 Miles east of Hilltop Drive on the south side of
Telegraph Canyon Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: Gold Key Development
4904 North Harbor Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, California 92106
CASE NO: IS-89-74 DATE: August 10, 1989
A. Project Setting
The 2.31 a~re project site is found on rolling terrain astride an existing
improved drainage channel. On site elevation ranges from approximately
145 feet on the northwest to a maximum of 175 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) on the southeastern portion of the site. Telegraph Canyon Road
borders the site on the north and serves as frontage for lots 4 through
9. Average natural slope is approximately 8%; maximum natural slope is
approximately 20% on the southeastern portion of the site.
The project site is underlain by the Bay Point Formation and unnamed
undifferentiated near shore marine sandstone, characterized by poorly
consolidated, fine- to medium-grained fossiliferous sandstone. No faults
or landslides are known to exist on project site, although the La Nacion
Fault Zone is located approximately 800 feet west of the property. The
Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, located some 44 to 68 miles,
respectively, north-northeast of the property have the greatest potential
as a source for damaging earthquakes.
The Olivenhain and Salinas soil series are represented on the project
site. The Olivenhain soil series has developed on marine terraces and
exhibits a loamy texture within a cobbly matrix. The Salinas soil series
exhibits clay loam texture and has a moderate to severe expansive
potential.
Vegetation occurring onsite is a mixture of naturally occurring chaparral
species and native and introduced weedy species.
The site is currently vacant, with uses limited to passive open space
functions and for storm drainage. Existing land uses in the vicinity of
the project include single family residential development to the south,
east and west. School recreation fields are located to the north across
Telegraph Canyon Road Zoning for the site and surrounding residential
areas is R-l.
city of chula vista planning department CI~'OF
environmental review section CHUM
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a subdivision of the 2.31 acre parcel
into 9 separate building lots. Lots 1 through 3 are located across the
concrete channel; access will be provided by a bridge and 20 foot wide
private drive. Lots 4 through 9 will enjoy access from frontage with
Telegraph Canyon Road. Lot 9 will retain an existing two-story single
family residence. Site grading necessary to develop the project site
includes the placement of approximately lO,O00 cubic yards of fill
material. The maximum cut will be 8 feet although the project average is
only 3 feet. Average fill depths are approximately 5 feet with a maximum
of lO feet on lot 2.
Hook-up to utilities will require the extension of gas lines, tie-in to
sewer and water located on Telegraph Canyon Road.
C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans
Current zoning for the project site is R-1. This zone is intended for
single-family residential uses and allows for the construction of one
single-family dwelling per legal lot.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The proposed Sun-Up Vista development is within 1 mile of the nearest
fire station, Station 2 located a 80 E. "J" Street. Response times
for emergency calls would be 5 minutes, which is less than the
required ? minutes necessary to meet Threshold Standards. This area
also would enjoy response from Station 1, located at 447 "F" Street
and Station 3 located at 266 E. Oneida Street.
The proposed driveway for lots 1, 2, and 3 is inadequate for Fire
Department access. The Fire Department allows alternatives for these
situations where indoor sprinkler systems may be used in lieu of
access requirements. The applicant has elected to equip all
dwellings which are greater than 120 feet from the nearest access
point with indoor sprinkler systems.
The project will also require the installation of one additional fire
hydrant.
2. Police
The City of Chula Vista Police Department was contacted and indicated
that service could be provided for the proposed development.
3. Traffic
Access to the proposed project would be off of Telegraph Canyon
Road. The proposed project would impact area streets with the
addition of approximately 80 average daily trips (ADT). The ADT on
Telegraphy Canyon Road would be expected to increase from the
existing 3,720 ADT to 3,800 ADT. The level of service at area
intersections and roadways would not be significantly reduced.
The City Engineer is requiring street improvements along the eastern
half of the project. The distance from the Center Line of Telegraph
Canyon Road to the face of the curb shall be constructed to a full 26
foot width. No parking will be allowed on Telegraph Canyon Road.
4. Park/Recreation
The proposed project is located west of 1-805. Therefore the City of
Chula Vista Threshold Standards do not apply.
5. Drainage
Portions of the proposed project lie within the 100 year flood plane
of the concrete swale which disects the project site. The concrete
swale is adequate to handle runoff from the 100 year storm. All
building sites are above the lO0 year flood level.
6. Sewer
The desired sewer service connection for the project would be through
a connection with a 21 inch sewer main located beneath Telegraph
Canyon Road. The proposed project would be expected to generate
approximately 6,000 gallons per day of liquid wastes. Sewer service
for the site is adequate for the designs of the proposed project.
7. Water
The Sweetwater Authority was contacted in regards to water service.
They indicated that the project was within their service area and
that service could be provided.
8. Schools
The project would increase school enrollment in area schools. The
following table shows the projected increases that may be expected
from this project:
Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elem. Cook 465 465 4.8
Jr. High Hilltop 1378 1506 2.7
Sr. High Hilltop 1478 1508 1.8
Prior to the issuance of building permits, school impact fees of
$1.56 per square foot must be paid. $.69 is divided between the
Elementary and Junior High Schools.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
Biology Pacific Southwest Biological Services was retained to prepare a
biological report of the site. The following discussion is a summary of
the biological report. The biological report is included as ATTACHMENT B.
Natural vegetation on-site consists of a vestigial of native shrubs
including about a dozen Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis); several Toyon
IHeteromeles arbutifolia), Flat-Top Buckwheat (Erio~onum fasciculatum),
Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides); and a lone Elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana). Other native vegetation occurring on site consists of an
assemblage of native weeds attracted to the residential water-runoff. The
primary vegetation on the property consists of invasive, non-native
grasses and non-native weedy species.
The birds utilizing the area for foraging are typical of similar urban
locales with numerous Mourning Doves, House Finches, Starlings, and
Mockingbirds. Two common migrants were seen: Western Wood Peewee and the
Hooded Oriole. The presence of reptile and mammal fauna is presumed to
minimal, due to the isolation of the habitat and urban setting.
Geology - As a result of concerns raised by neighbors, the applicant was
required to provide the City with an evaluation of soil conditions. Dilks
& Associates was contracted to prepare an investigation of soil
suitability for residential construction. This report found that although
large amounts of trash occurred within the top layers of soil material,
all soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they can be
adequately cleaned of trash and debris. The Preliminary Soils
Investigation for: Chula Vista Tract No. 89-12 (Sun-Up Vista) is included
as ATTACHMENT B.
Groundwater - Neighbors also indicated that a naturally occurring spring
was located on the project site. The "Preliminary Soils Report"
investigated this possibility. The report states that "No groundwater was
observed in test pits" and that "groundwater would not be expected to
adversely affect the performance of the structures provided that it does
not rise above the inundation elevation of 150 as shown on the Tentative
Map" (See ATTACHMENT B).
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
No mitigation is necessary to avoid significant impacts.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
The biologic component of the site is not unique and does not contain
threatened or endangered species. Due to the sites isolation and location
in an urban setting, its value as a wildlife habitat is minimal.
Soils - Soils on the site are suitable for construction of the proposed
project.
Groundwater No groundwater was encountered on the proposed project site.
Groundwater would not be expected to adversely affect the development of
the site.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Warren R. Coalson, Zucker Systems Scott Kube, Nasland Engineering
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista
Zoning Ordinance
Threshold Standards
Sun-Up Vista Environmental Initial Study
Dilks & Associates
Preliminary Soil Investigation for Sun-Up Vista
Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Biological Report fo~ Sun-Up Vista
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
~~AL~-VlEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 3/88)
WPC 6586P/O175P
city of chula vista planning department CiTY OF
environmental review section CHUIA VISTA
FOR OFFICE
Case
Fee
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec' d
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE SUN-UP VISTA SUBDIVISION
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 0.2 NILES EAST OF I
HILLTOP DRiIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 575-060-06,07
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPE VACANT AREA INTO A 9 LOT
SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTS; ONE SUCH HOME
EXISTS ON LOT 9 AND WILL REMAIN.
4. Name of Applicant NASLAND ENGINEERING
Address 4740 RUFFNER STREET Phone (619) 292-7770
City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92111
5. Name of Preparer/Agent NASLAND ENGINEERING
Address 4740 RUFFNER STREET Phone (619) 292-7770
City SAN DIEGO State CALIFORNIA Zip 92111
Relation to Applicant
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
-- Rezoning/Prezoning x Tentative Subd. Map __Annexation
--Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
-- Specific Plan -- Tentative Parcel Map -- Redevelopment Agency
-- Cond. Use Permit -- Site Plan & Arch. Review'
Variance Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan -- Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
__Parcel Map -- Setting __ Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
(Rev. 12/82)
- 2 -
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage or acreage 2.31 ACRE
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
0.05 ACRES IS TO BE DEDICATED TO R/W OF TELEGP-~H CANYON ROAD.
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family x Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights 8 TWO STORY MO~ES MAXIMUM
~-~IG~T OF 25 FEET.
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 8 4 bedrooms Total units 8
d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 0.2q
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 0.22
f. Estimated project population 28
g. Estimated sale or rental price range $1q0,000.00
h. Square footage of floor area(s) 1500 TO 1800 SF.
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 13 TO 19%
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 3
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 6%
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use
b. Floor area Height of structure(s)
c. Type of construction used in the structure
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided
f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of
shifts Total
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate__
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings
j. Hours of operation
k. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
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? NONE
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 10~000 C.¥.
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 73,900 SQ. FT.
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut 8 FT.
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill 6 FT.
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (ai[conditioning~ electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) HOME APPLIANCES, HF~ATING
AIR CONDITIONING~ WATER HEATER.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
{sq. ft. or acres)
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. NONE
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?
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: new
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the property? 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? YES, TELEGP~APH CAblYON CREEK
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? YES, TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK FLOWS THROUGH
THE SITE.
- 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. TWO NATURPJ_ TPJNPAZIONAL CHANNELS WITH SMALL CONCRETE
TJqICKLE CH~J~NELS.
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.
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? NONE KNOWN
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. ONE EXISTING HOUSE ON SITE, THE REST OF THE LAND
IS VACANT AND I-~qS A S~LL CONCRETE CHANNEL FLOWING THRU IT.
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North SCHOOL
South RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
East RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE F~qILY ~ES
West RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE F~qILY HOMES
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, how many?) ONE F~IIL¥
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) NO
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7
E. CERTIFICATION
~-~ner/owner in escrow*
o sul tant
HEREBY AFFIRM, that'to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact.and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
-8-
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use ,
designation on site: IOW (~iJF~ ¢~/~i~]~.~q~
North ~lw- ~k~ \~l~oh(, L~
East [~)vV ~(~ n?:EI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~.~
the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is
the
project
compatible
with
Is the project area designated for conservation o~ open space or adjacent
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 i,n the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
/
What is the current pamk acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
.(2AC/lO00 pop.)
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
L
-9-
3. School s
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary ~qz~l ~(o~ ~)c
4. Aesthetics
Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.) ~'~
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity {per year)
Natural Gas (per year)
Water {per day)
6. Remarks: A m~'~
Director o lann~ng~ or Representative
Date
-10~
Case No. ~S ~q-?~
G. E)IGINEERI~,~G DEPARTMENT
1. Drainage
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~P~. -l- e
b. Will the project be subject~to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any ]flooding hazards? ~o
d. Wha~ is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~em~ ~o~ m~o~ ~¢~ro~k ~%o~
e. Are they adequate t6 so,ye ~he pvo~ec~? ~
f. Wha~ is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? p~L ~x 7~ ~, ~,¢r~(e~P~
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~e5
/
2. Transportation
a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project?
~ha~ Js the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
~enerated by tho peo~ect {per day)? ~
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. ~7~c~ (Iq ~7)
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? ~S
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions.
Case No..]]Z~ g~-7~'
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? ~ }(Jo~- ~
Liquefaction?, , ~ ~r~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the
project?
4. Soils ,
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?. ~o~ ~m~-AF~ So;(S r~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?
~-~ .... 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?
Case No.
7. Air Q~ali 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 ~0 X 118.3 =
Hydrocarbons ~o X 18.3 =
NOx {NO2) 60 X 20.0 =
Parti cul ares ¢>~ ~ 1.5 :
Sul fur ~ X .78 :
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~lO ~ Liquid ~ (z~$
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
to the site? ~-/~ ~vuM.~ ~elo~v~ tue~+ o~
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
· 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
Cit}' En~nder 6r'~epres~htative\
-13 -
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? ~ ~ ~
3. Remarks f. /~1-~,~/ v~,.¢ o~ ~,~,~,[ %0,~
-13(a)-
Case No. /£-~ff-7.~//
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 ~_~ ~o
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 Date
Representative
C
CHUI,A VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA92010 · 619 425-9600
BO~D OF ED~A~ON
JOSEPH D. CUMMINGS, ~.D.
SHARON GIL~
~TR~K A. JUDD -
JUDY SCH~BERG
F~NK&~NTI~ April 20, 1989 APR 2 4 1989
SUPERI~ENDE~
~B£RT J. McCAR~ MD.
Mr. Doug Reid
Environmental Review Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Case No: IS-89-74
Applicant: Nasland Engineering
Location: 0.2 Miles East of Hilltop Orive on South
Side of Telegraph Canyon Road
Project: Oevelope Vacant Area Into 9 Lot Subdivision
for SFD
Dear Mr. Reid:
Schools in the Chula Vista City School District are at capacity
and the District has added 19 relocatable classrooms over
the past two years. Students are being bused outside their
attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation.
The District also utilizes busing to help achieve ethnic
balance.
Please be advised that this project is in the Cook School
attendance area, a facility which is currently overcrowded.
A developer fee of 67~ per square foot (69¢ effective June
4, 1989) of habitable living space is currently being charged
to help provide facilities.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson /
Director of Planning
KS:dp
Sourest Biological SeruJces
Post Office Box 985, National City, California 92050 (619) 477e5333
6 June 1989
Mr. Ken E. Green
3045 Rosecrans #205
San Diego, California 92107 PSBS #668
Dear Mr. Green:
A biological survey of your 2.31 acre property on Telegraph Canyon Road east of Hilltop Drive revealed
a heavily disturbed urban field habitat with no significant biological resources. The investigation was conducted
by our biologist, Craig H. Reiser, on June 1, 1989.
The vestigial native shrubs remaining on the site consist of approximately a dozen Jojoba (Simmondsia
chinensis); several Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Flat-Top Buckwheat (Eriogonnm fasciculatum), Broom
Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides); and a lone Elderberry (Sambnctts mex'icana).
Along the concrete llned channel which crosses the property from east to west is a meagre scattering
of native weeds attracted to the residential water- runoff. In the shallow silt above the concrete grow Ragweed
(Ambrosia psilostachya), one Willow Smartweed (Persicaria lapathifolinm), several Mexican Tea plants
(Chenopodium ambrosioides), and a 1' by 5' swathe of Tule Cat-Tail (Typha domingensis) with its diagnostic
narrow flowering stalks. No other native plants were found on site.
The primary vegetation on the property consists of invasive, non-native elements with a predominance
of Castor Bean (Ricilnts commtttds). Other conspicuous weeds include Giant Cane (Arttndo dottcLr), Wild
Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus), Giant Sunflower (Helianthus annuus), Fennel (Foenicuhun vulgare), Peruvian
Pepper (Schb~us molle), and Cocklebur (Xanthittm stnmtarium).
Non-native grasses present are Wild Oat (Arena barbara), Rabbits-foot (Polypogon monspelicnsis) in the
drainage channel, Italian Ryegrass (Lolium mttltiflotllm), Millet Ricegrass (Oryzopsis miliacea), and Red Bromc
(Bromus rubens).
The remaining, largely Eurasian, annual plants on thc site are Yellow Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemnm
coronarium), Australian Saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), Wild Mustard (Brassica gcniculata), Wild Radish
(Raphauus sativus), Horseweed (Conyza canadcnsis), Scarlet Pimpernel (,4nagallis arvcnsis), Bur Clover
(Medicago polymorpha), Curly Dock (Rumer crispu$), Stinking Gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima), Wild Lettuce
(Lactuca scrriola), Indian Sweet Clover (Mclilotus indicus), Cheesewced (Malva parviflora), and the ubiquitous
Russian Thistle (Salsola attstralis).
The birds utilizing the area for foraging are typical of similar urban locales with numerous Mourning
Doves (Zenaida macrourct), a large flock of House Finches (Carpodacus m~ricatms), Starlings (Slltrluts vnlgat~s),
and several Mockingbirds (Mimttspolyglottos) all sighted. Two common migrants were seen: a solitary Western
Wood Peewee (Cotlloplls sordiduhts) and both a male and female Hooded Oriole ([ctetlts cuctdlallts).
Given the isolation of thc habitat and urban setting, the reptile and mmnmal fauna is presumed to be
minimal. House cats were noted roaming the small site and only the common House Mouse (3[its imtscnhts)
and possibly the Norwegian Rat (Ratttts notvcgictts) are expected. In the cement channel thc Common Tree Frog
(Hyla rcgilla) may be occasional.
Mr. Ken Green 2 6 June 1989
PSBS #668
In summary, no sensitive plants or animals were seen, nor are any expected, on the property. Given the
dearth of native resources, no biological recommendations are made for the proposed project which involves no
significant, adverse biological impacts.
Sincerely,
R. Mitchel Beauchamp ~'
Principal Consultant
stl
Enclosed: Vicinity Map
-~ ~ PSBS #608
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP
USGS 7.5' NATIONAL CITY QUADRANGLE
HAY 2 ~ 1989
[APR 2 6 :L9~, qo ~L ~ ~,
PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR:
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-12
(SUN-UP VISTA)
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
DILKS & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Geotechnical Engineering · Distress Analysis · Foundation Design
3918 Hicock Street San Diego CA 92110 (619) 296-0705
~ter H. Dilks. P.E.
Principal Engineer
June 22, 1989
Ken Green
GOLD KEY DEVELOPMENT
4904 North Harbor Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, California 92106
PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR:
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 89-12
(SUN-UP VISTA)
CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Green:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a prelim-
inary soil investigation for the undeveloped property located off
the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road approximately 1000 feet
east of Hilltop Drive in the City of Chula Vista, California.
In general, we encountered loose topsoil over loose to dense
natural soils; loose fill; and loose to moderately dense alluvial
soils throughout the undeveloped area of the property. The loose
fill mound that occurs on proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 contained
abundant amounts of trash; the majority of this available soil
may not be salvageable due to the quantity of trash. It appears
that the loose soils encountered in the other areas of the site
reusable if properly prepared.
are
The accompanying report presents our work, field and'
laboratory test results, and our recommendations for site
preparation and earthwork, single-family residence foundation
design, lateral earth pressures and preliminary pavement design.
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 2
Mr. Ken Green
Gold Key Development
June 22, 1989
It has been our pleasure in providing these services to you.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this
report or if we can be of additional help to you on thio project.
Very truly yours,
OILKS & AssOcIATES
C~onsu I t ing E ng i .n. eero /.~.~ ~'.'~,~/! .
PETER H BILKS, P E "
( 6 ) Green
(2) Nastand
PHD:239NP:attachments
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 3
PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION
For'.
CHULA VISTA TRACE NO. 89-12
(SUN-UP VISTA)
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
To:
MR. KEN GREEN
GOLD KEY DEVELOPMENT
4904 NORTH HARBOR DRIVE, SUITE 202
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9210&
JUNE 1989
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Page
Letter o¢ Transmittal ................ 2
I Title Page ............. ~ ....................... ~. 4
Table of Contents ................... 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................
PURPOSE OF WORK ..................................
SCOPE OF WORK ....................................
FIELD INVESTICATION ..............................
CONDITIONS 7
I CURREN~N~ I~OLOGY .......................... 8
SOILS ...............................
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ............................ 8
GROUNDWATER ..................................... 9
I CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 10
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 10
A. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK ........ lO
i 1. Clearing and Stripping ........... 10
2. Treatment of Loose Soils ......... 10
3. Excavation ....................... 11
i 4. Materials for Fill :.. ............. 11
5. Materials for Backfl!l .... 11
6. Compaction ........................ 11
7. Utility Trenches .................. 12
8. Drainage .......................... 12
8. SLOPE STA8ILITY ........................ 12
C. FOUNDATIONS ............................ 13
1. Conventional Footings ............. 13
2. Spread Footings-__. _ .............. 13
3. Retaining Wail FOOtings ...... t3
4 Slabs-on-Grade 14
5. Lateral Earth Pressure ........... 14
- D. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ........... 14
E. ADDITIONAL WORK ................. 15
1. Foundation ~iJ~ ~eview '. .... 15
2. Site Preparation and Earthwork
Inspection ...................... 15
3. Compaction Testing ................ 15
4. Footing Inspection ................ 15
- 5. Final Reporting ................... 15
UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS ...................... 15
- Site Plan In Pocket
j Appendix A: Field Investigation ............... 17
Logs of Test Pits
Appendix B: Laboratory Testing ................ 18
~ Figures 8-1 8-2 and 8-3
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 5
PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION
FOR
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. B9-12
(SUN-UP VISTA)
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The projsct at Sun-Up Vista will consist of cut and fill
earthwork in order to sight lots for single family hems
prepare
construction. An sxisting ninth lot was previously gradsd and
built on in 1976. We understand that the undsvslopsd lsvsl pad
area of this lot will be split off to provide the ninth lot for
this subdivision.
From information on the Tsntativs Map preparsd by Nasland
Enginssring, it appears at this rims that maximum cuts of about 9
feet will occur at the southeast property corner and maximum
fills of about 12 feet will occur at ths south end of tbs
drivs at the east propsrty boundary. Cut and
proposed
access
fill slopes are proposed at slope ratios of 2 to 1 and 1-1/2 to
I, horizontal to vertical units. Maximum fill slope heights
appear to be about 10 feet at a slope ratio of 1-1/2 to I and
maximum cut slope heights appear to be about 5 feet at a slope
ratio of 2 to 1.
After grading, construction will consist of building nins,
one or two story, concrete slab-on-grade, wood frame and stucco
single family residences and appurtenant improvements, such as
drives and retaining walls. Foundation loads are
access
anticipated to bs 2000 pounds-per-linsal foot or less for load
bearing walls and tO kips or less for column loads.
PURPOSE OF WORK
The purpose of our work was to provide Mr. Ken Green and his
designers with soil design recommendations for earthwork and site
preparation, slope stability, building foundations, lateral earth
prsssurss and prsliminary pavsmsnt dssign for privats streets.
SCOPE OF WORK
In order to accomplish our task, we performed a site
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE &
reconnaissance, excavated and sampled three backhoe test pits,
performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples, performed
research for soils information pertinent to this site, performed
engineering analysis, and prepared this report.
Our work is for the express use of Mr. Ken Green and his
designated consultants. This report pertains to and is valid
only for Sun-Up Vista; we disclaim any obligation to provide,
discuss or update this report for any other parties without
Green's prior written authorization.
Our services consist of opinions and recommendations
rendered in a manner consistent with the level of care and skil!
ordinarily exercised by members of the professions currently
practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality,.
This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express
or implied.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance
and excavating, logging and sampling three backhoe test pits at
the approximate locations shown on Figure I, Site Plan. The
backhoe test pits were excavated on June 9, 198g, with a Kubota
KH-41 equipped with an 18-inch wide bucket. Disturbed soil
samples were obtained at periodic intervals and returned to our
laboratory for further examination and testing. Finalized boring
logs are contained in the attached Appendix A, and laboratory
test results are contained in the attached Appendix 8.
The final boring logs represent our interpretation of the
information contained on the field logs and on the laboratory
test results. We can only infer that subsurface soil conditions
in unexplored areas are similar to those found in the test pits.
- CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is about a 2.3 acre group of undeveloped
parcels located along the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road
about 1000 feet east of Hilltop Drive in the City of Chula Vista,
California.
The property is bounded along the north by Telegraph Canyon
Road, along the east by existing residential property of
- Telegraph Knolls, Map No. 3665, along the south by residential
property of Hobart Knolls, Maps 3170 and 3560, and on the west by
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 7
a residential structure of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 104.
The majority of the site consists of loose fill dumped over
loose alluvial soils. A flowing drainage channel bisects the
eastern portion of the property and trends westerly along the
rear of proposed Lots 5 through 9.
Vegetation generally consists of heavy brush in the lower
areas of the property and grass of the knoll at the southeast
corner. A large pepper tree is present at approximately the
northeast property corner.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
The soils encountered at the site consist of silty to clayey
sands with some clays present. Loose fill generally occurs to an
elevation of about 144 feet, with alluvium and slopewash present
below this elevation. The knoll and flatland in the vicinity of
proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 consists of naturally occurring topsoils
over formational soils.
Map Sheet 29, "Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and
OLay Mesa Ouadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area,
California," published by the California Division of Mines and
Geology, shows that the geologic units at the site are
undifferentiated alluvium and slopewash in the lower areas and
undifferentiated Bay Point Formation and unnamed, nearshore
marine sandstone. The soils encountered in our test pits
substantiate this geology.
Map Sheet 29 shows that the property is approximately 800
feet west of the inferred west edge of the La Nacion Fault Zone.
Our test pits did not reveal faulting or other geologic hazards
on this property.
No faults or landslides are known to exist on this site.
The fault zones we consider to have the most potential as a
source of damaging earthquakes that could affect the site are the
Elsinore and San 3acinito Faults, located some 44 and 68 miles,
respectively, north-northeast of the property We believe it is -
reasonable to expect that the structures will be subjected to at
least moderate earthquake shaking during their service life. The
possibility of ground offset through the property during a
seismic event is remote.
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Existing fill soil characteristics range from clays to
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 8
silty, clayey sands.
Our Test Pit 2 indicates that the loose fill mound in the
vicinity of proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 contains large quantities of
trash and concrete debris. Trash consisted of paper, old pieces
of rusted rebar and wire, pieces of garden hose and broken glass.
Concrete debris encountered consisted of a 24"x15" thick chunk,
old pieces of curbing, fence post footing with part of the metal
post embedded, and 6 to 8 inch diameter pieces of 4 inch thick
slab. The soils intermixed with the trash and debris would be
suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they could be
adequately cleaned.
The fills encountered in Test Pit 1 were generally free of
trash and debris. Surface trash observed consisted of old tires
and empty cans. We anticipate that surface trash will be removed
during clearing and grubbing operations.
The alluvial soils encountered consisted of silty to clayey
sands, loose to about 4 feet below their top surfaces underneath
the fill.
The entire depth topsoils the upper 3 of
of
and
about
feet
formational soils below the topsoils are reasonably dry and
porous.
All soils encountered are suitable for reuse as compacted
fill provided they can be adequately cleaned of trash and debris.
Laboratory testing at this time indicates that the soils will
range From non to moderately expansive (0 to & percent swell);
the expansivity of the soils may change due to the mixing effect
excavation and recompaction will have.
GROUNDWATER
The concrete lined drainage channel traversing east to west
across the site contained flowing water approximately 2 inches
deep during our field work. The unlined channel traversing
northerly along the west edge of proposed Lots 2 and 3 was dry at
the time of our field work, however, we suspect flow to occur
during the rainy season.
No groundwater was observed in our test pits at the time of
excavation; however, the upper zone of alluvial soil encountered
in Test Pit 2 had a fairly high moisture content. Wet soil
conditions or groundwater may be encountered at the deeper
excavations along the channel during grading; however, we do not
believe that groundwater wil! adversely affect the performance of
the structures provided it does not rise above the inundation
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 9
elevation of 150 feet as shown on the Tentative Map.
We did not note seepage in the existing slopes along the
southern boundary of the property nor along the lower portions of
the knoll in the southeast portion of the property. It is our
opinion that naturally occurring seepage will not be a problem at
this project.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field explorations, evaluation of the
laboratory test results, engineering analysis, and on our general
experience in the soil engineering field, it is our opinion that
the site is suitable for construction of the proposed project
provided the recommendations that follow are incorporated into
the design of the project and implemented during construction.
RECOHNENDATIONS
A. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
1. Q!~Kiog_~D¢_~Ki~iDg: All existing vegetation within
the limits of grading should be removed in their entirety prior
to earthwork. All cleared and stripped vegetation and debris
must be disposed of off the property at a legal dump site.
a. Eil!: All loose fill should be excavated and
cleaned of all trash and debris prior to reuse as properly
compacted fill. The general extent of loose fill appears to
extend from the concrete lined channel northerly to Telegraph
Canyon Road and appears to occur down to an elevation of about
144 feet. We believe that it is prudent to anticipate locally
deeper areas and areas of higher debris concentration than those
encountered in our test pits.
b. ~!!uYia!__5~i!~: The alluvial soils encountered
be]ow the fill are generally loose within the upper 2 to 3 feet,
and are not suitable in their present condition to adequately
support additional fill or structure loads without detrimental
settlements. We recommend that these soils be excavated,
appropriately moisturized, and be replaced as properly compacted
fill prior to adding new fill.
c. The
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE lO
topsoil and upper 2 to 3 feet of natural soil below the topsoil
are generally dry and porous, making them unsuitable for building
loads or additional fill in their present condition. We
recommend that in areas where planned' cuts will be less than 5
feet deep, the remaining soils to a depth of at least 5 feet
below original ground surface be overexcavated, appropriately
moisturized, and replaced as properly compacted fill. Likewise,
planned fill areas should be overexoavated to a depth of 5 feet
below original ground surface, appropriately moisturized, and
replaced as properly compacted fill prior to placing additional
fill or structures.
The surfaces of all approved undercut or overexcavated areas
should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, appropriately
moisturized, and properly compacted prior to refilling.
3. ~lG!~!iSD: It is our opinion that the required
excavations may be accomplished using conventional excavating
equipment. All excavation work should be performed by an
experienced excavating contractor.
4. U~Ei~!~__£g~__E!!!: It is our opinion that all
existing soils present on the property re-
will
be
suitable
for
use as compacted fill provided the trash and debris can be
adequately cleaned from the existing fills. Existing on-site
soils used as fill should not contain rocks, hard lumps or rigid
pieces larger than 4 inches in maximum dimension and should not
contain more than 15 percent, by weight, of material larger than
2-1/2 inches. No organic or biodegradable material should be
incorporated in the fill.
Imported fill material should be a non-expansive granular
index of 15 or less and should meet the
soil
with
plasticity
a
size and cleanliness requirements given in the previous
paragraph.
5. U~i~!~___~9~___~i!!: Soils generated from
excavations are suitable for use as backfill material when
properly compacted, provided they meet the size and cleanliness
requirements as specified in Item 4.
6. Com~i~D: It is our opinion that all fill and backfill
should be compacted to a
minimum
degree
of
compaction
(relative
compaction) of at least 92 percent of that soils' maximum dry
density as determined in accordance with ASTM Standard Test
Method D1557-78. All fill and backfill soils should be spread
and properly compacted in lift thicknesses appropriate to the
type of compaction equipment used. All soil used as fill or
backfill must be brought to a uniform moisture content ranging
between optimum moisture content (OMC) and OMC + 3% prior to
compaction.
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 11
7. Q~i!i~Z__I~oGb~: It is our opinion that all utility
trenches should be excavated with a minimum fal] of 1/4 inch-per-
foot away from the structures for a minimum distance of 5 feet
outside the building footprint to help reduce the potential for
water to pond in low areas of the trenches below the home or near
foundations. Utility trench backfill should be placed and
compacted in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of
compaction equipment used and should be compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 92 percent at OMC.
8. Q~io~g~: Finish grade surfaces adjacent to foundations
and surface improvements should have positive gradients on the
order of 5 percent, plus or minus 2 percent, away from the
structures to help reduce the potential for ponding to occur
adjacent to foundations and other improvements. Raingutters and
downspouts should be installed on all structures to help control
roof runoff. Downdrain outlets should be equipped to discharge
flow at least 5 feet away from foundations. Yard surface
gradients should be maintained to help collect runoff and channel
it to City approved drainage facilities. No free drainage should
be directed over the tops of slopes.
B. SLOPE STABILITY
1. I~eQSaSZ__Q~D~!~U~[iQD_~!ge~: Construction cut slopes
in existing loose fill and alluvial soils should not be steeper
than 1/2 to 1 (Horizontal to vertical) and should not exceed 12
feet in vertical height.
Construction cuts in the natural ground in the southeast
portion of the site for retaining wall cuts may be vertical up to
heights of ~0 feet.
Some localized sloughing or ravelling may occur on the
exposed slope faces. The stability of temporary construction
slopes will also depend heavily on equipment loadings and
materials storage along the tops of the slopes. In general, no
loads should be allowed at the top of temporary slopes within a
horizontal distance equal to the vertical depth of cut.
2. E~E~B~D[_-~!Q~¢~: We have performed slope stability
analysis for the proposed cut and fill slopes by the 3anbu method
using the following parameters: Phi angle of 25 degrees; cohesion
intercept of 200 psf; and in-place tota] soil density of 125 pcf.
The results of those analysis indicate that the proposed slopes
have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 for static
conditions at slope ratios of both 1-1/2 and 2 to I for vertical
heights of up to 12 feet. Stability analysis require using
parameters selected from a range of possible values. There is a
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE
finite possibility that slopes having calculated factors of
safety, as indicated, could become unstable. In our opinion, the
probability of slopes becoming unstable is very low provided the
status-quo of the slopes remain unchanged after construction.
Fill slopes, especially those constructed at inclinations
steeper than 2 to t, are particularly susceptible to shallow
slope sloughing in periods of rainfall, heavy irrigation, or
overirrigation, and upslope surface runoff. Periodic slope
maintenance may be required, including rebuilding the outer 4
feet or so of slope surface. The potential for sloughing of fill
slopes can be reduced by overbuilding the slopes at least 4 feet
and back the desired face. To lesser
cutting
to
slope
a
degree,
the potential for sloughing can be reduced by backrolling the
slope faces at 3 to 4 foot intervals.
C. FOUNDATIONS
At this time, it appears that the foundation bearing soils
to moderately expansive soils (6 · swell).
may
range
up
therefore, the foundation recommendation that follow are based on
6 · expansive soil.
1. QQUW~O~igD~!___EgQ%iD9~: An allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2000 pounds-per-square foot (psf) may be used in the
design of conventional, continuous strip footings at least 12
inches wide founded at least 18 inches below level pad grade for
single or two-story structures placed on properly compacted fill
or competent natural ground. All strip footings should be
continuously reinforced with two number 5 reinforcing bars (5/8
inch diameter), one placed 3 inches up from the bottom of the
footing and the second placed 12 inches above the lower bar.
2. ~E~Q__EQg~iDg~: An allowable soil bearing pressure of
2000 psf may be used in the design of spread footings at least 18
inches square founded a minimum of 18 inches below level pad
grade. Spread footings should contain a reinforcing mat of two
number 5 bars each way placed 3 inches above the bottom of the
footing in both directions.
pressure of 3000 psf may be used in the design of retaining wall
footings founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent
grade in competent natural soil or properly compacted fill.
Footing widths and reinforcing steel should be in accordance with
the structural engineers design specifications.
The allowable soil bearing pressures given are for combined
dead plus live load and may be increased by one-third to
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 13
accommodate transient forces from wind and seismic loads. The
reinforcing specified is to help protect against moderately
expansive soils and to help span local irregularities, and is not
in lieu of what may be required by the project structural
engineer.
No bearing foundation should be located closer than 10 feet
From the top of slopes measured horizontally from the slope side
of the foundation at the bearing level (10 feet to daylite).
4. ~!~zQDz~9~: Concrete floor slabs-on-grade should be
designed in accordance with the anticipated use and loading of
the slab. As a minimum, we recommend that floor slabs be a
minimum of 4 inches thick, net, and be nominally reinforced with
a steel area ratio of 0.0014. The slab steel should be
maintained at the slab midheight. All slab-on-grade floors
should be placed on a 4 inch thick clean sand bedding that is in
turn underlain by a 10 mil thick visqueen moisture barrier.
The appropriate active case equivalent fluid pressure
I acting retaining walls be selected from the
on
may
fol loNing
table:
I BACKSLOPE ACTIVE PRESSURE
~ 1-1/2 to 1 85
2 to 1 60
J Level 45
The above table is for unrestrained, unsurcharged wall
J_ conditions only.
A passive case equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf in
j conjunction with a concrete-to-soil coefficient of friction of
0.25 may be used in lateral load resistance design. ~ minimum of
10 feet of soil must occur horizontally on the passive side in
order to develop full passive resistance. We recommend that the
Foot be ignored in calculating passive resistance.
top
D. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
Based on an estimated R-value of 20 for the on-site soils
and a minimum R-value o¢ &O for' class III decomposed granite base
material, the private driveways at the site should be 3-1/2
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE 14
inches of asphalt paving over & inches of compacted base. The
top 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 95 percent prior to placing base.
Likewise, base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95
percent relative compaction prior to placing asphalt paving.
Me suggest that R-value testing be performed on the actual
pavement subgrade soils when they become apparent. Revisions in
base and pavement thickness can be made at that time.
E. ADDITIONAL ~ORK
It is our opinion that the following additional work be
performed during the remaining design phase and during the
construction phase of this project. This additional work is not
part of the original scope of this soil investigation and will
incur additional expense on a time-and-materials basis. The
client should budget their costs accordingly.
It is opinion that the
1.
our
foundation plans be reviewed to verify conformance to the
recommendations of this report.
that an experienced sol] engineering firm continuously observe
the site preparation and earthwork operations at the site.
3. Com~Q~lQD_Z~[iDg: We recommend that all fill and
backfill deeper than 12 inches be placed and compacted under the
of experienced soil engineering firm and that
observation
an
compaction tests be performed to verify conformance with the
recommendations of this report and the City of Chula Mista
grading ordinance.
4. Foo~iDg__!DeB~GkiQD: It is our opinion that all footing
excavations be examined by an experienced soil engineering firm
to verify conformance to the plans and specifications and to
check for adverse soil conditions.
5. EiDa!_B~BeE~iDg: It is our opinion that a final as-built
report be prepared and issued that presents the results of
inspections and compaction testing.
UNCERTAINITY AND LIMITATIONS
Our opinions and recommendations are based on information
89-094 SUN-UP UISTA PAGE 15
obtained from the field reconnaissance, test pits, laboratory
test results, engineering analysis and on our experience in the
geotechnical field. The recommendations presented are based on
the assumption that the overall soil conditions will not be
substantially different from those found during our field
investigation. If variations or adverse soil conditions are
encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction
differs from that presently planned, the soils engineering firm
must be consulted for further recommendations.
California, including San Diego County, is an area of high
seismic risk. It is generally considered economically unfeasible
to build a totally earthquake-resistent project; it is therefore
reasonable to expect that a large or nearby earthquake can cause
damage at the site.
Soil inspection services allow observation and testing of
only a very small percentage of work performed at a site.
Contractual arrangements with the respective contractors should
contain the provisions that they are responsible for performing
all soils-related work in accordance with the project
specifications. Inspection by the geotechnical engineer during
and construction does not relieve the respective
site
preparation
contractors of their primary responsibility to perform all work
in accordance with the contract specifications. A copy of this
report should be made a part of the project specifications and
contract documents.
89-094 SUN-UP VISTA PAGE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
GERMINIA~qO F. TUBAO
~GELES M. TUBAO
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
C-ERMINIAJ~O F. TUBAO
A~WGELES M. TUBAO
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust,, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x If yes, please indicate person{s)
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or. combination~ actif~ng~s a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)~/~xx~~ . ,I}f}
e/of~ ap p l icant/dal:e {L /
WPC 0701P .B~IR A. wFJNOLL, FOR /N~NSLJ~NID ENGINEERING
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative residential subdivision map
and design guidelines for Rancho del Rey SPA II, Chula
Vista Tract 89-b - Rancho del Rey Partnership
I. BACKGROUND
This proposed 567 unit subdivision for Rancho del Rey SPA II encompasses
an area of 376 acres and represents the second phase of the overall E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. That specific plan was approved by the City
Council in 1985. Rancho del Rey SPA I Plan and tentative maps were
approved by the City Council in December of 1987. Included in this
consideration are the Rancho del Rey SPA II design guidelines which were
submitted to the Planning Commission with the Rancho del Rey SPA II
plans. Attached are draft design guidelines for your consideration.
Please insert these in your SPA II binders.
This tentative map is located east of Interstate 805 and Ridgeback Road.
It is located at the northwesterly edge of Rancho del Rey Parkway and
provides the closing loop to the SPA I circulation system. On July 19,
1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval and on August 15, 1989,
the City Council approved the Rancho del Rey SPA II General Development
Plan, Sectional Plan Area Plan, the Public Facilities Plan and Financing
Analysis and the Planned Community Development Regulations.
II. RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt a motion recommending approval to the City Council of the
Rancho del Rey SPA II Design Guidelines.
B. Based upon the findings contained in this report, adopt a motion
recommending that the City Council approve the subdivision map for
Rancho del Rey SPA II subject to the following conditions:
1. a. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of
full street improvements for all public, and private
streets, if any, shown on the Tentative Map within the
subdivision boundary; and for the construction of necessary
off-site improvements to construct Rancho del Rey Parkway
as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
b. 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.
c. All streets shall conform to the City's Street Design
Standards Policy.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 2
2. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and
maintenance easements along all public streets as shown on the
Tentative Map. The width of said easements shall be as outlined
in the City's Street Design Standards Policy.
3. No direct access for residential driveways will be allowed to
Rancho del Rey Parkway.
4. The developer shall grant easements for all off-site public
storm drains and sewers prior to approval of the Final Map.
Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater than pipe
size, but in no case, less than 10 feet.
5. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in
accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, the San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and
the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula
Vista. All design shall conform to City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual Standard Drawings, and Street Design
Standards Policy.
6. Sewers serving 10 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%.
7. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as
party of the grading plans.
8. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in
accordance with City Standards.
9. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to
detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission
of improvement and gradin~ plans. Design shall be accomplished
on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and
the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended). The developer
shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all
drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual.
lO. The developer shall provide notarized letters of permission for
all off-site grading.
ll. The location of equestrian crossings on Rancho del Rey Parkway
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
12. 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.
13. The location of any street entries to the park site shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 3
14. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building
permits for any units in the subject subdivision if any one of
the following occur:
a. The public facilities monitoring program in the Public
Facilities Plan indicates that facilities are operating
beyond the identified level of service.
b. Traffic volumes on East "H" Street exceeds 56,500 vehicles
per day measured immediately easterly of Hidden Vista Drive.
c. Regional building permits exceed thresholds identified in
the Public Facilities Plan.
d. Traffic volumes, levels of service, utilities and/or
services exceed the adopted City threshold standards.
15. The property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a
district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways
along streets within and adjacent to the subject property.
16. An improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be
provided to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be
designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by
the City Engineer.
17. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain
structures including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access
shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear
yard of any residential lot.
18. 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.
19. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California
Coordinate System - Zone VI (1983).
20. All vertical curves and intersection sight distance requirements
shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design
Manual.
21. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon
individual lots for all franchised cable television companies.
22. The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment
District 87-1. The developer shall be responsible for all costs
associated with reapportionment of assessments as a result of
subdivision of lands within the project boundary.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 4
23. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
wherein he holds the City harmless from any liability for
erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from
this project.
24. For a specific unit within the SPA boundary, improvements
considered off-site of that unit may be required to facilitate
development of that unit. Said improvements shall be guaranteed
prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map for said unit.
25. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be
provided at the interim end of any streets having a length
greater than 150 feet, measured from the center line of the
nearest intersecting street, except as approved by the City
Engineer.
26. The developer shall be responsible for repayment of construction
costs for the Rice Canyon Sewer in accordance with Resolution
11574 until such time as repayment in accordance with said
resolution is completed.
27. All grading and improvements shall be done in conformance with
the Rancho del Rey SPA II design guidelines.
28. The developer shall submit a study to the City indicating that
the downstream sewer systems are adequate for the
project-generated flows. Said study shall include actual flows
plus Rancho del Rey SPA I and SPA II projected flows. Subject
study shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any
Final Map approval.
29. Underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal
standards shall be installed at the intersection of Ridgeback
Road and East "H" Street. Mast arms, signal head and associated
equipment shall not be installed unless approved by the City
Engineer.
30. Interconnect conduit, pull boxes and pullrope shall be installed
to connect Ridgeback Road/East "H" Street to Hidden Vista
Drive/East "H" Street and Del Rey Boulevard/East "H" Street.
31. Striping plans shall be provided for Ridgeback Road and Rancho
del Rey Parkway. Striping plans shall be approved in
conjunction with improvement plans for said streets.
32. Rancho del Rey Parkway shall be improved to provide for left
turn pockets at the intersection with Ridgeback Road.
33. If private streets are proposed, those streets with controlled
access devices, such as gates, shall contain the following
features:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 5
a. Gates shall be 150 feet away from the extension of the
intersecting street curb line, except upon approval by the
City Engineer.
b. A turnaround shall be provided at the location of the
gate. The size and location of said turnaround and gate
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
c. The border between public street and private street shall
be delineated through the use of distinctive pavement.
d. Provisions shall be made for emergency vehicle access.
34. On-street parking shall conform to the requirements as outlined
in the City's Street Design Standard Policy.
35. Rancho del Rey Parkway shall be widened 5 feet along the park
lot frontage to provide for on-street parking.
36. The minimum distance between centerlines of intersections shall
conform to the City's Street Design Standards Policy unless the
developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that no left turn conflicts or stacking problem will
arise as a result of the proposed intersection configuration.
37. Ridgeback Road shall conform to design standards for a Class 2
collector street (52 feet of roadway wi thin 72 feet of
right-of-way).
38. Any private streets, if proposed, shall meet City standards ~or
public streets.
39. Storm drains located within private streets, if any, shall be
private except as approved by the City Engineer.
40. Curb openings for driveways shall be a minimum of 8 feet from
any curb return and 3 feet from any obstruction unless this
requirements is waived by the City Engineer.
41. No parking will be allowed along Rancho del Rey Parkway except
at locations approved by the City Engineer.
42. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of
improvements for 1-805 to East "H" Street to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer as required by the Facilities Financing Plan
for Rancho del Rey SPA II.
43. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City
wherein he agrees to be in compliance with the most current
Transportation Phasing Plan and all subsequent revisions as
updated (improvements as projected in the Eastern Territories
Development Impact Fee System).
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 6
44. The owner shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all
plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision
Ordinances and Subdivision Manual.
Planning Department Conditions:
1. Copies of the proposed CC&R's for SPA II shall be on file with
the City.
2. PAD fees shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted
Public Facilities Financing Plan for Rancho del Rey. RCT fees
and DIF fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable
regulations. PAD fees shall be guaranteed until such time as
the City waives said fees.
3. The neighborhood park shall be a minimum five acre lot. Design
and development of the park shall be subject to the approval of
the City's Director of Parks and Recreation and to a master plan
as adopted by the City Council.
4. Prior to recordation of the final maps or the approval of the
neighborhood park design, the details of the trail system shall
be submitted for the approval of the Director of Planning. The
trail system shall be a minimum of eight feet in width in
addition to the sidewalk adjacent to any public right-of-way.
5. A low and moderate income housing program with an estimated
established goal of 5% low and 5% moderate shall be implemented
subject to the approval of the City's Housing Coordinator.
Computation of the satisfaction of this condition shall include
the entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. A 1% deviation
from the 5% goals shall be permitted with the approval of the
City's Housing Coordinator.
6. Development of all parcels shall be in accordance with the
Rancho del Rey SPA II plan, Public Facilities Plan and Financial
Analysis, design guidelines, and PC development regulations.
7. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements with an open
space area shall be the responsibility of the Rancho del Rey
Open Space Maintenance District if not covered by homeowner's
association maintenance.
8. The developer shall agree to include the subdivisions in the
Mello-Roos public facilities district or an acceptable
alternative financing program subject to the approval of both
the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater High School districts.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 7
9. The developer shall install street trees in accordance with
Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the
Rancho del Rey SPA II design guidelines.
lO. Frontage on all lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet at the
right-of-way line except as approved by the City Engineer. This
condition does not apply to flag lots, as defined in the
Municipal Code. Corner lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in
width.
ll. Fencing detail shall be provided for all lots which back onto
the thorn mint reserve area. Landscape treatment and buffer for
the thorn mint shall be submitted to the City Landscape
Architect and the City Environmental Coordinator for review and
approval. Landscaping should provide an appropriate transition
from the street scene to the thorn mint as well as a street
scene which is consistent with the remainder of the landscaping
along the public rights-of-way.
12. All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-way shall
maintain a minimum width so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping
treatment behind the back of sidewalk.
13. Conceptual landscape plan, together with a water management
plan, shall be provided prior to City Council approval of the
tentative map and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Landscape Architect.
14. Tentative Map and issuance of any permits shall be subject to
the provisions of the Growth Management Element.
15. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water District
with regard to the provision of terminal water storage and other
major facilities to assure water availability to the project
prior to the approval of a Final Map.
16. Water pipe shall be placed within the project to accommodate
reclaimed water use on site in accordance with plans approved by
the Otay Water District and the City Engineer.
EIR Mitigation Measures - Planning
1. Regarding soils and geology, most of the required excavations
can be made by conventional heavy grading equipment; however,
some ripping of cemented beds may be needed. The geotechnical
report identifies detailed grading and earthwork
recommendations. The geotechnical consultant shall monitor
grading to confirm that field conditions are consistent with the
conditions predicted by the preliminary investigations.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 8
2. Regarding biology, impacts to wildlife and plant communities are
partially mitigated through the preservation of open space
within the SPA II area, reve§etation of cut and fill slopes and
revegetation of sewer main disturbances. Impacts to the black
tail gnat catcher are significant and unmitigated. Impacts to
cactus wren would be mitigated through retention of two-thirds
of the population and open space. Specific measures shall be
taken to mitigate impacts to the cactus wren li.e.,
transplanting coast cholla) and the San Diego thorn mint
population (i.e., fence preservation area).
3. Regarding archeology, the loss of W-3432 shall be mitigated
through the implementation of a compensatory mitigation
program. This will involve additional field study and research
on sites in the project area; primarily additional sampling of a
site within SPA III, SDi-960/961 as appropriate, supplemented by
a research project that would focus upon the archeological
resources within a two mile radius of the project. The results
of this research shall be submitted to the City of Chula Vista,
the San Diego State University Clearing House and the Museum of
Man.
4. Existing roadway conditions in the project area which include
segments of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are inadequate
and future traffic increases associated with the project will
require modifications to the circulation system in the study
area. The recommended mitigation measures shall be phased and
based on the amount of construction completed on the project.
All streets internal to the project shall be designed according
to the classifications provided in the project description and
will meet City standards. Mitigation measures have been tied to
coordinate with phased development as follows:
Mitigations: Commercial - 0 acres
Industrial - 0 acres
Residential - 0 DUs
° The segment of Otay Lakes Road between Camino del Cerro
Grande and Ridgeback Road shall be widened to 4 lanes
(currently being constructed).
° East "H" Street between the 1-805 northbound off-ramp and
Hidden Vista Road shall be restriped for 3 eastbound lanes.
° The East "H" Street/I-805 southbound, on/off ramps
intersection shall be signalized. The existing southbound
1-805 to eastbound East "H" Street loop ramp shall be
reconfigured to pass through the signalized intersection
with dual right turn lanes. The eastbound approach to this
intersection shall be reconfigured to provide 3 lanes.
These improvements to the 1-805/East "H" Street interchange
should alleviate forecasted traffic impacts at the
interchange through 1991.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 9
Mitigations: Commercial - .82 acres
Industrial - 4.76 acres
Residential - 0 DUs
° No improvements recommended.
Mitigations: Commercial - {.82 + 1.66 = 2.48 acres)
Industrial (4.76 + 9.52 : 14.28 acres)
Residential - {0 + 952 DUs)
° The following intersections with East "H" Street shall be
signalized: Road B, East Business Park Road, and Road C
{Paseo Ranchero).
° If the East "H" Street/Buena Vista Way intersection is not
signalized prior to this year, it will be done at this time.
Mitigations: Commercial - {2.48 + 1.66 = 4.14 acres)
Industrial - (14.28 + 9.52 = 23.8 acres)
Residential - (952 + 619 = 1,571 DUs)
° The intersection of East "H" Street/Ridgeback Road shall be
signalized.
° The intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Road A (Avenida Del
Rey) shall be signalized.
Mitigation: Commercial - {4.14 + 1.66 : 5.8 acres)
Industrial - (23.8 + 9.52 = 33.32 acres)
Residential - {1,571 + 320 = 1,891 DUs)
° The eastbound approach to the East "H" Street/I-805
northbound off-ramp intersection shall be reconfigured to
provide 3 through lanes. East "H" Street shall be widened
from 3 to 4 lanes between the 1-805 northbound off-ramp and
the westerly Terra Nova Plaza driveway. A right turn
acceleration lane for vehicles exiting the westerly Terra
Nova Plaza driveway shall be provided.
° Reconfigure the East "H" Street/I-805 southbound
on/off-ramp intersection to provide dual left turns for the
westbound approach.
Mitigation: Commercial - (5.8 + .82 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial - (33.32 + 1.15 = 34.47 acres)
Residential - (1,891 + 487 = 2,378 DUs)
° No improvements recommended.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page l0
Mitigation: Commercial - (6.62 + 0 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial - (34.47 + 2.38 : 36.85 acres)
Residential - (2,378 + 140 = 2,518 DUs)
° No improvements recommended.
5. Monitoring/Reportin9 Program
City staff shall ensure that the recommendations contained in
the Transportation section of the SEIR regarding road
modifications are incorporated into the tentative map.
6. Analysis of Significance
Assuming several road widening actions and intersection geometry
changes were completed as outlined in the Mitigation Measures
section, then no significant impacts to circulation would occur.
7. Development of on-site water facilities shall be provided as
outlined in the OWD Master Plan Update to provide adequate
infrastructure to water distribution. To ensure year round
water supply, the applicant shall be required to work with OWD
to increase water storage facilities.
8. In compliance with the threshold standards, the City shall
review the projected sewage flows and volumes for compliance
with City engineering standards.
9. The impacts associated with the existing 69 KV line shall be
mitigated by relocation and partial undergrounding.
C. DISCUSSION
General Lottin9 of the Area
The Rancho del Rey SPA II area comprises 567 dwelling units on 376 acres.
Within that area there is a five acre neighborhood park, 168 acres of open
space and a six acre community facility site which is proposed for use as
a day care facility and church site.
The residential lotting pattern is broken down as follows:
1. Estate Lots - The estate lots are located generally north of Rancho
del Rey Parkway. There are 211 lots in this category with 63 lots
under 12,000 sq. ft., 113 between 12,000 and 18,000 sq. ft., and 35
lots larger than 18,000 sq. ft. The averages by subarea are as
follows:
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page ll
° R-la : 14,400 sq. ft. with a pad size of 9,600 sq. ft.
° R-lb = 18,200 sq. ft. with a pad size of 12,000 sq. ft.
° R-lc : 14,400 sq. ft. with a pad size of 9,600 sq. ft.
2. Conventional Lots - The conventional lots are located south of Rancho
del Rey Parkway and represent a continuation of the lot pattern in
SPA I. The conventional lots start 5,000 sq. ft. with the
predominant lot size over 7,000 sq. ft. Out of the 356 conventional
lots, approximately 125 are under 7,000 sq. ft. leaving 231 in excess
of 7,000 sq. ft.
The average lot size by subarea are as follows:
° R-2a : lO,O00 sq. ft. with a pad size of 7,000 sq. ft.
° R-2b = 8,600 sq. ft. with a pad size of 6,000 sq. ft.
° R-2c : 7,000 sq. ft. with a pad size of 5,000 sq. ft.
3. Community Facilities - The community facility lots {Lots 413 and 414)
are located on the south side of Rancho del Rey Parkway at the
intersection of Ridgeback Road. There are two lots within the six
acre area and the purpose of these lots is to create sites for a
daycare center, which would be located at the southwesterly portion
of this territory, and a church site. The actual uses are regulated
by the PC development regulations and only include community serving
uses. Development of this site will be determined during the site
plan approval process.
4. Parks and Recreation - There is a five acre neighborhood park {Lot Q)
located on the south side of Rancho del Rey Parkway between subareas
R-2a and R-2b. This park will be connected by the trail system which
extends from the Community of Bonita to the Rice Canyon trail
system. The design and development of this park will be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Council.
5. Open Space - The open space lots within SPA II represent
approximately 168 acres. Of the 168 acres that are open space,
approximately 40 acres will be graded. The open space area is evenly
divided between the estate and conventional lots and generally
includes naturally steep topography sloping either towards Rice
Canyon or towards the Community of Bonita. Also included in open
space is the thorn mint preserve area (Lot "M" - 40.7 acres) located
north of Rancho del Rey Parkway between areas R-lb and R-lc.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 12
Phasing
The Rancho del Rey subdivision is divided into two phases with various
units provided within each phase. Phase 1 includes both conventional and
estate housing and is the furthest easterly portion of the subdivision.
It will generally be an extension of SPA I. Phase 2 includes both estate
and conventional units as well as the five acre neighborhood park and the
six acre community facility site. Phase 2 would close the loop of Rancho
del Rey Parkway and provide access through Rid§eback Road. The phases are
also governed by the SPA II Public Facilities Plan and there are several
conditions in this report that control the issuance of permits and the
provision of facilities by phase.
Street Names
The applicant has submitted a list of street names which is being reviewed
by the various City departments. Final approval of the street names is
required by the Planning Commission; therefore, the names will be
resubmitted at a later date for your consideration.
Low and Moderate Income Housing
The housing element of the Chula Vista General Plan requires that each
project over 50 units in size provide at least 10% of the total dwelling
units for low and moderate income families. A condition was placed on the
Rancho del Rey SPA II plan that the subdivision map contain a condition
requiring compliance with that requirement. Because this condition is
being placed in the middle of implementation of the overall E1 Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan, the condition which is contained in the subdivision map
(Condition #5 Planning) refers to the entire specific plan and permits
compliance with that housing requirement taking into consideration
possible past implementation. The details of the Rancho del Rey program
regarding location of affordable units, qualification of buyers, maximum
housing costs, and monitoring will be formalized in a program approved by
the City Housing Coordinator prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Circulation and Street Improvements
Approval of this subdivision involves a variety of on-site and off-site
street improvements. The on-site street improvements are listed in the
conditions of approval. These streets are consistent with the circulation
element of the General Plan and conform to the City standards for
streets. The off-site street improvements are documented in the Rancho
del Rey SPA II Public Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis and are tied
to phases of development. The Public Facilities Plan and Financing
Analysis also includes the phased implementation of on-site improvements.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 13
Other Required Facilities and Fees
This map also provides sites for a park and a community facility complex.
Provisions have been made within the Rancho del Rey SPA II Public
Facilities Plan and Financing Analysis to tie this subdivision map to SPA
I and the improvements and facilities required both on- and off-site to
solve certain Citywide facility deficiencies. SPA I includes sites for a
fire station and fire training facility, a library, an elementary school,
and a community park. The Rancho del Rey public facilities plan provides
either for improvement of those facilities or in-lieu fees commensurate
with the need generated by these projects.
Design Guidelines
The design guidelines for SPA II include standards and criteria for
community features such as circulation, grading, entries, fencing, and
improved edges with the canyon interface and community facility/park
interfaces. It also includes general development guidelines for
architecture, signing, lighting, and parking.
The majority of the design guidelines encompasses landscape design.
Landscape zones are proposed which promote drought tolerant/naturalized
landscaping as the predominant landscape theme. Other features of the
landscape design program include slope erosion control, natural open space
enhancement, irrigation standards, fuel modification landscaping and
streetscape landscaping. The revised design guidelines have been included
in the Planning Commission review packet and would replace those presently
in your SPA II binder.
D. FINDINGS
1. Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, tentative
subdivision map for Rancho del Rey SPA II, Tract 89-5 is found to be
consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan as adopted by the Chula
Vista City Council based on the following findings.
a. Land Use Element
The E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan designates this area for
estate and conventional housing as depicted in the subdivision
map. The unit totals, the type of housing, and the open space
system are consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
and, therefore, consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan.
b. Circulation Element
All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve
the subdivision are consistent with the circulation element of
Chula Vista General Plan and the circulation proposed within the
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Those facilities will either
be constructed or in-lieu fees paid in accordance with the
Rancho del Rey SPA II Public Facilities Plan and Financing
Analysis.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 14
c. Housing Element
A low and moderate income housing program with an established
goal of 5% low and 5% moderate will be implemented subject to
the approval of the City's Housing Coordinator. Computation of
the satisfaction of this condition will include the entire E1
Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area.
d. Parks and Recreation Element
The subdivision will provide a five acre neighborhood park site
in accordance with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. In
addition to that, this park will be connected by a series of
trails that will connect the existing Bonita equestrian trail
system to the Rice Canyon trail system.
e. Public Facilities Element
This project is obligated in the conditions of approval to
provide all on-site and off-site facilities necessary to serve
this project. In addition to that, there are other regional
facilities which this project {together with SPA-I) is
contributing to including a public library site, fire station
site, and fire training facility site. The subdivision is also
contributing to the Otay Water District's improvement
requirements to provide terminal water storage for this project
as well as other major projects in the eastern territories.
f. Open Space and Conservation Element
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and
policies of this element. The open space and significant plant
or animal resources that were identified in the E1 Rancho del
Rey Specific Plan and refined in the EIR for Rancho del Rey SPA
II are proposed either for preservation or mitigation consistent
with that environmental impact report. OUt of the 376 acres
within SPA II, 168 acres (or 44.6%) remain as open space and
only 40 acres of that will be graded.
g. Safety Element
The project site is considered a seismically active area,
although there are no known active faults on or adjacent to the
property. Fire protection facilities and services needed to
serve the project have been reviewed by the Fire Department.
Other emergency service agencies have reviewed the project
subdivision for conformance with safety policy. The project
will increase the need for additional police and fire personnel,
however, the City is planning to meet that need with additional
revenues provided by this project. A fire station is proposed
within Rancho del Rey SPA-I.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 15
h. Noise Element
Noise mitigation measures included in the environmental impact
report adequately address noise policy of the General Plan. All
dwelling units within the project will be required to be
designed so as not to exceed the interior noise level of 45
dBA. Additionally all exterior private open space will be
shielded by a combination of earth, berm, wall, and/or buildings
to achieve a 65 dBA noise level for outside private areas.
W?C 6693P
MONffORING/REPORTING PROGRAM
RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA
(SPA) II PLAN
SCH ~88100~21
Prepared for:
The City of Chula Vista
Environmental Review Coordinator
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Prepared by:
P&D Technologies, Inc.
t~01 West "A' Street
Suite 2500
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 232-~t~66
3uly 1989
INTRODUCTION
Recent California legislation (AB 3180) requires the adoption of a mitigation or
reporting program in conjunction with approval of projects for which a Negative
Declaration or Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and
mitigation measures were recommended in connection with significant impacts.
The purpose of the law is to establish a reporting or monitoring program to assure
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
The following monitoring program is recommended as part of the Supplemental EIR
(SEIR) which addresses the proposed Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
II project. The EIR discusses the development of approximately 3?0 acres located
within the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area. The plan includes residential
development) community facilities and park and open space uses located northeast
of the intersection of East H Street and Ridgeback Road, and the extension of an
existing borrow site which is located along the eastern edge of SPA II in the
vincinity of Rancho Del Rey Parkway. The Rancho del Rey SPA II Plan proposes
the construction of 56? single-family dwelling units (DU) of low to medium density
(i.e., 208 DU at 0-2 dwelling units/acres (DU/ac) and 359 DU at 2-# DU/ac) on
approximately 192 acres. SPA II also includes a community facilities site (6.1
acres); neighborhood park (6.5 acres); four open space areas (total 158.3 acres)~ and
major circulation routes (12.9) acres. Implementation of SPA II would not require
any residential density transfers or rezone. The approval of SPA II will include the
SPA II Plans a tentative map~ a Public Facilities Financing Plan, Design Guidelines
and a Development Agreement.
The following text is divided into eleven issue areas analyzed in the EIR. Each
issue contains four sections. Section A describes the potential impacts associated
with implementation of the project. Section B lists the mitigation measures
recommended to reduce potential impacts. Section C is the monitoring/reporting
program and Section D presents an analysis of significance for each issue area
after mitigation.
-1-
SOIL5 AND ¢~OLOGY
A. Potential Impacts
Development o! the proposed project wood involve mass grading of ridge-
tops and filling of canyons and side slopes. The Otay Formation is expected
to be the primary unit exposed ~(ter grading. Although traces of the La
Nation Fault cross the western portion of the site, they are not considered
active.
B. Mitigation Measures
Mo~t of the required excavations can be made by conventional heavy grading
equipment) however, some ripping of cemented beds may he needed. The
geotechnicai report identifies detailed grading and earthwork recommen-
dations. The geotechnlcai consultant wood monitor grading to confirm that
field conditions are consistent with the ~onditions predicted by the pre-
iiminar y investigations.
C. Monitoring/Reporting Program
City Engineering staff wood ensure that the recommendations contained in
the geotechnicai investigation report are incorporated as conditions on the
Tentative Maps~ Final Maps, and project grading plans. It is the responsibility
of the soils engineer to visit the site during grading to assure that grading
operations conform to the geotechnicai recommendations contained in the
report and that field conditions are consistent with the conditions predicted
by the preliminary investigations. A letter of authorization for the geotech-
nical review must be submitted prior to grading plan approval.
D. Analysis of Significance
Gompressible alluvium, colluvium and expansive bentonitic soils are unsatis-
factory for development without remedial treatment. This is regarded as a
significant~ mitigable impact. Traces of the La Nacion Fault zone cross or
underlie the site~ surface fault rupture and ground shaking have been
identified as remote but potentially significant impacts.
-2-
DRA INA (~/GROUND WATE R/WATER QUALIFY
A. Potential Impacts
The proposed project would result in additional impervious surface area which
would increase surface water runoff rates. Development of the site would
result in a change in the type and amount of contaminants contained in
surface runoff. This represents a cumulative impact to local water quality.
B. Mitigation Measures
On-site improvements, induding natural and improved channels with dosed
conduit~ would mitigate drainage impacts. No mitigation is proposed for
potential water quality impacts since flows would not drain into a domestic
water supply.
C. Monitoring]Reporting Program
City Engineering staff would ensure that recommended erosion control
measures are incorporated as conditions on the Tentative Maps, Final Maps
and project grading plans. 13uilding permit issuance must be conditioned on
the incorporation of these mitigation measures into the tentative map and
final map.
D. Analysis of 5il~nificance
Adequate on-site drainage facilities and improvements will be developed in
conjunction with the project, and no significant impacts are anticipated.
Storm water flows and volumes would not exceed City Engineering standards
and are in conformance with the Threshold standard.
LANDFOR M/AESTI~TIC~
A. Potential Impacts
Development of SPA II would significantly alter landforms on-site. Grading
would be primarily confined to the ridge-top areas, with the major canyon
-3-
areas retained as open space. The degree of visual alteration is consistent
with what was anticipated when the spedfic plan was approved.
B. Mit1 ~ation Meascres
Grading associated with the project would be in conformance with the
general grading slope bank standards set forth in the SPA 11 Plan. Implemen-
tation of the comm~ity design guidelines would reduce impacts to below a
level of slgrfificance. They indude landscaping, fendng design, community
signing, lighting and parking design/street furnit~'e.
C. Monitoring/ Reportinl~ Program
Ali grading plans will be reviewed by City staff to assure consistency with
the recommendations listed below:
o Visual significant slope banks would be preserved in their natural state
by clustering development.
o The natural character of the hillside would be retained where practical.
o A variety of housing, padding techniques, grading techniques, lot sizes,
site design, density, arrangement, and spacing of homes and develop-
merits would be required.
o Innovative architectural, landscaping, circulation, and site design would
be required.
o Safety against unstable slopes or slopes subiect to erosion and deterio-
ration would be provided.
Final approval must be granted by the City Coundl. Construction permits
will be issued only after completion o! the design review and approval by City
staff and the City CounCil. The recommendations regarding grading would be
incorporated and verified in the design review stage.
D. Analysis of Significance
While the SPA II Plan is consistent with the adopted specific plan in terms of
landform and visual character~ the project would result in significant visual
impacts. The visual impacts associated with the cut and fill slopes would be
mitigated by adherence to the SPA II design guidelines. Implementation of
these guidelines in the construction of the project would reduce visual
impacts to below a level of significance.
BIOI. OGY
Potential Impacts
Development of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant
loss of sensitive spedes. Impacts to the cactus wren would be adverse but
not significant because approximately two-thirds of the cactus wren popu-
lation is preserved in open space. Development df the project would result in
significant impacts to the black-tailed gnatcatcher. The project design has
been modified to preserve the San Diego thornmint site. There would be no
impacts to the snake cholla transplant area in Rice Canyon.
B. Mitigation Measures
Impacts to wildlife and plant communities are partially mitigated through the
preservation of open space within the SPA II area, revegetation of cut and fill
slopes and revegetation of sewer main disturbances. Impacts to the black-
tailed gnatcatcher are significant and unmitigated. Impacts to the cactus
wren would be mitigated through retention of two-thirds of the population in
open space. Specific measures would be taken to mitigate impacts to the
cactus wren (ia., transplanting coast cholla) and the San Diego thornmint
population (i.e., fenced preservation area).
C. Monitoring/Reporting Program
Building permit issuance must be conditioned on the incorporation of recom-
mended mitigation measures into project design plans.
-5-
o Prior to the initiation of on=site grading activities) a qualified biologist
would clearly define the buffer habitat to be avoided during grading. A
meeting would also take place between a representative of City staff,
the grading contractor and the biologist to clarify the areas to be
avoided during grading and review methods to reduce on-site grading
impacts. Periodic inspection wood occur to ensure that construction
activities do not affect vegetation within the marked area. The City
staff representative and/or biologist would have the power to halt
grading operations if there is evidence that these operations have not
stayed within designated boundaries.
o ^ City staff representative and/or biologist wood ensure through
periodic inspection, that the fenced thornmint preservation area remains
intact and that any damage to the fence is quickly repaired.
o A qualified biologist would be retained to implement the revegetation of
cut and fill slopes, sewer main disturbances and the transplanting of
coast cholla to mitigate impacts to cactus wren. The revegetation
program and transplanting wood be monitored periodically to ensure
satisfactory replacement of disturbed habitat. Should it be identified at
any time that the mitigation is failing, a review will be conducted to
determine cause and resolution proposed {replanting or another site
selected). ^ written status report wood be submitted annually for three
years. ^ detailed monitoring schedule (quarterly for the first year, and
annually for the following two years) must be adopted as part of the
revegetation and transplanting program. The revegetation and trans-
planting plan must he approved as a condition of the tentative map.
D. Ami)sis of $il~ificance
Implementation of the proposed proiect wood result in a significant un-
mitigated impact to the black-tailed gnatcatcher. Impacts to the cactus
wren and the San Diego thornmint would be adverse, but reduced to below a
level of significance through adherence to recommended mitigation
-6-
ARCHAEOLOGY
A. Potential Impacts
Field investigations at the archaeological site V/-3~32 demonstrated that the
site has been destroyed by grading for a water pipeline setup for water
transport to the development project in SPA L Due to the disturbance~ an
evaluation of significance as required by CEQA cannot be performed due to
the elimination of cultural materials. Because there is no means to prove
that the site was insignificant~ it is assumed that the site was significant.
B. Mitigation Measures
The loss of W-3#32 would be mitigated through the implementation of a
compensatory mitigation program. This will involve additional field study
and research on sites in the project areal primarily additional sampling of a
site within SPA III, SDi-960/961 as appropriate, supplemented by a research
project that would focus upon the archaeological resources within a two-mile
radius of the project. The results of this research would be submitted to the
City of Chula Vista, the San Diego State University Clearinghouse and the
Museum of Man.
C. Monitoring/Reporting Program
Building permit issuance would be conditioned upon implementation of the
recommended mitigation program by a qualified archaeologist. City staff
would ensure prior to building permit issuance, that the compensatory
mitigation program for site SDi-960/961 with SPA III has been implemented
and that the results from the testing and evaluation are submitted to the City
of Chula Vista, the San Diego State University Clearinghouse and the Museum
of Man.
-7-
D. Anat)'sis of SiRnificance
The impacts which have occurred to Site W-3432 would be mitigated to below
a level of significance through implementation of the compensatory miti-
gation program for a cultural resource site within SPA III. The applicant has
agreed to this mitigation measure and a condition will be placed on the
tentative map.
TitAN SPORTATION/ACCE$S
The average daily traffic generated by SPA I and SPA II combined is 33,364
which is 4,388 ADT greater than calculated under SPA I only. Although the
additional traffic generated from the project would result in congestion if
distributed to existing streetS, street improvements would be undertaken as
part of the project and the Threshold policy for traffic would be maintained.
The future traffic volumes on East H Street were calculated to be within the
Threshold ADT determined by the City (i.e.,)6,500 ADT east of the
intersection of East H Street and Hidden Vista Road) and no significant
impacts are expected.
B. Miti ation Measures
Existing roadway conditions in the project area which include segments of
Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are inadequate and future traffic
increases associated with the project would require modifications to the
circulation system in the study area. The applicant has agreed to implement
these measures. The recommended mitigation measures would be phased and
based on the amount of construction completed on the project. It should be
noted that some of the mitigations recommended would be constructed prior
to the estimated time of need. All streets internal to the project would be
designed according to the classifications provided in the project description
and would meet City standards. Depending on the mixture of land uses and
intensity the traffic mitigation measures would vary. Mitigation measures
have been tied to coordinate with phased development. The project has been
anticipated to be developed in seven phases. The land uses and intensity are
listed below along with the associated mitigation measure for each phase of
development.
In addition, the developer must enter into an agreement comparable to the
development agreement for SPA I which establishes a limit on building
permits based on a maximum traffic volume of 56,500 ADT or at a level that
exceeds the City's Threshold Policy.
Mitigations: Commercial - 0 acres
Industrial - 0 acres
Residential - 0 DUs
o The segment of Otay Lakes Road between Camino del Cerro Grande and
Ridgeback Road would be widened to ti lanes (currently being constructed).
o East H Street between the 1-805 northbound off-ramp and Hidden Vista Road
would be restriped for 3 eastbound lanes.
o The East H Street/l-805 southbound, on/off-ramps intersection would be
signalized. The existing southbound 1-805 to eastbound East H Street loop
ramp would be reconfigured to pass through the signalized intersection with
dual right turn lanes. The eastbound approach to this intersection would be
reconfigured to provide 3 lanes. These improvements to the 1-805/East H
Street interchange should alleviate forecasted traffic impacts at the inter-
change through 1991.
Mitigations: Commercial - .$2 acres
Industrial - ti.76 acres
Residential - 0 DUs
o No improvements recommended.
-9-
Mitigations: Commerdal - (5.8 + .g2 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial - (33.32 + 1.15 = 3t~.#7 acres)
Residential - (l~g?l + ~g? = 2~37S DUs)
o No improvements recommended.
Mitigations: Commercial - (6.62 + 0 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial - (3~.~7 * 2.3~ - 36. gSacres)
Residential - (2~37~ + 1#0 = 2~18 DUs)
o No improvements recommended.
C. Monitorin~/Reportin~ Pro,ram
City staff would ensure that the recommendations ~ntalned in the Transpor-
tation section of the SEIR re§ardin§ road modifications are incorporated into
the tentative map.
D. Anal)sis of Significance
Assurnin§ several road widening actions and intersection §eometry chart§es
were completed as outlined in the Miti§ation Measures section, then no
significant impacts tn circulation would occur.
LAND USE/ClOIStRAL PLAN/ZONING
A. Potential Impacts
The Rancho del Rey SPA II Plan~ as proposed, is in conformance with the land
use policies and plans of the City of Chula Vista, the El Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan and with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity of the
project site; development of SPA ri would not result in significant land use
impacts.
-11-
B. Mitigation Measures
Because implementation of the SPA II Plan would not result in significant
land use impacts, no mitigation measures are required.
C. Monitoring/Reportin~ Program
No mitigation measures are necessary and a monitoring/reporting program is
not required.
D. Analysis of Significance
No significant land use impacts are expected to occur with the implemen-
tation of the SPA II Plan.
COMMUNITY SOCIAL FACTORS
A. Potential Impacts
No potential adverse impacts regarding Commmity social factors are as-
sodated with the development of the proposed plan. Impacts to population,
housing and employment are consistent with the El Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan.
B. Mitigation Measures
Because no significant sodal impacts would be associated with the proposed
project no mitigation measures are necessary.
C. Monitoring/Reportinl~ Program
No mitigation measles are necessary and a monitoring/reporting program is
not required.
-12-
Mitil~ations: Commercial - (5.8 + .82 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial (33.32 + 1.13 = 3#.t~7 acres)
Residential - (1,891 + t~87 = 2,378 DUs)
o No improvements recommended.
Mitisations: Commerdal - (6.62 + 0 = 6.62 acres)
Industrial - (3t~.#7 + 2.38 - 36.83acres)
Residential - (2,375 + 1#0 = 2,5I$ DUs)
o No improvements recommended.
C. Monitorinff/Re~orting Pro,am
City staff would ensure that the recommendations contained in the Transpor-
tation section of the SEIR regarding road modifications are incorporated into
the tentative map.
D. Anal}sis of Significance
Assuming several road widening actions and intersection geometry changes
were completed as outlined in the Mitigation Measures section, then no
significant impacts to circulation would occur.
LAND USE/GEI~RAL PLAN/ZONING
A. Potential Impacts
The Rancho del Rey SPA II Plan, as proposed, is in conformance with the land
use policies and plans of the City of Chula Vista, the t~1 Rancho del Rey
Specific Plan and with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity of the
proiect site; development of SPA 1I would not result in significant land use
impacts.
D. Analysis of Significance
No sigBificant commmity social impacts would result.
COMMUNITY TAX STRUCTURE.
A. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Rancho del Rey SPA II would result in a net
fiscal benefit of approximately $32,000 annually to the City of Chula Vista;
therefore, no adverse impacts would result to the community tax structure.
B. Mitigation Measures
Because no adverse fiscal impacts are associated with the proposed project
no mitigation measures are necessary.
C. Monitoring/Reporting Program
No mitigation measures are necessary and a monitoring/reporting program is
not required.
D. Analysis o[ Significance
No adverse fiscal impacts are associated with the proposed project.
PARKS~ RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
A. Potential Irn ~acts
As part of the proposed project, a 6.5 acre neighborhood park would be
developed on-site. This park would exceed the park requirements as
determined by the City. The net impact to parks and recreation would be
-13-
beneficial. A substantial portion of the site (42%) would be dedicated as open
space. There would be no adverse impacts to open space.
B. Mitigation Measure!,
Because no adverse impacts to parks, recreation and open space are
associated with the proposed project, no mitigation measures are necessary.
C. Monitoring/Reporting Program
No mitigation measures are necessary and a monitoring/reporting program is
not required.
D. Analysis of Significance.
No adverse impacts to parks, recreation and open space are associated with
the proposed project.
pUBLIC 5E~¥1CE
A. Potential Impacts
During peak demand times~ OWD cannot currently guarantee an adequate
supply of water to meet the water needs of the proiect. This is regarded as a
significant impact. Development of on-site sewage facilities consistent with
the 1986 sewer study would provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate
project flows. The location of the 69 kV line through several residential lots
is regarded as a significant impact. Incremental impacts to police protection
would result from development of SPA II. Emergency fire and medical
response would be supplied in compliance with the Threshold Policy and no
significant impaCtS are anticipated. Both the Sweetwater Union High School
District and the Chula Vista City School District are involved in the planning
and construction of new facilities which would provide adequate facilities for
the additional students generated by the proiect.
B. Mitigation Measures
The development of on-site water facilities as outlined in the OWD Master
Plan Update would provide adequate infrastructure for water distribution. In
order to enst~e year-round water supply the applicant would be required to
work with OgtD to increase water storage facilities. The City has sufficient
capacity through its METRO contract to accommodate additional sewage
flows generated by the project. In compliance with the Threshold Standard,
the City would review the projected sewage flows and volumes for com-
pliance with City Engineering Standards. The impacts associated with the
existing 69 kV line would be mitigated by relocation. The increased demand
on police protection would require the addition of 1.61 personnel to meet the
City's Threshold Standards. Potential impacts to police protection would be
reduced lo below a level of significance through net fiscal revenue generated
by tho proposed project. The accrual of revenues from the proposed project
would allow the City to fund the additional police personnel. Project-related
impacts to schools would be mitigated through the phased implementation of
additional facilities in eastern Chula Vista. The Rancho del Rey Mello Roos
District (CF #3) would provide tax moneys directly to the school districts for
implementation of their long-range development plans.
C. Moni torin~Reporting Program
Building permit issuance would be conditioned on the project's compliance
with City Engineering Standards for sewage flows and volumes and the
relocatian of a 69 kV transmission line. City staff would ensure that the
applicant works with the OV/D to increase water storage facilities. As part
of the annual review by the Growth Management Oversight Committee of the
City's Threshold Policy, a review of the adequacy of police protection would
be conducted~ to ensure that the Police Department has implemented a hiring
policy that would allow for the addition of the required personnel.
Occupancy permit issuance would be conditioned upon inspection by City
staff of a signed agreement between the applicant and the City of Chula
Vista School District stating that the applicant is participating in the Rancho
del Rey Mello Roos District (CF #3).
D. Analysis of Significance
If the OWD can commit to provision oi water service to this projeCt potential
impacts would be reduced below a level of significance. Development of on-
site sewage facilities consistent with the 1986 sewer study would provide
adequate infrastructure to accommodate project flows. The relocation of the
69 kV line would mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The
addition of personnel to the police department would reduce potential
impacts to below a level of significance. Development of SPA II would result
in increased demand for fire protection services that would be satisfied by
Station tt2 and the future station within El Rancho del Rey. The number of
students generated by the SPA II would place additional demands on the
existing facilities. Both Districts are involved in the near-term planning and
construction of new facilities which would provide adequate facilities for the
additional students generated by the projeCt.
-16-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
IAPPLICANT,S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONSI
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. .
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
A. McMillin Communities, Inc., National City, CA
B. Home Capital Development Group, a subsidiary of Home Federal Savings & Loan~ San Diego,
CA
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
E1 Rancho Del Re~ Partnership~ a California General Partnership composed of
IA and lB above.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than l~ of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
McMillin Communities~ Inc.: McMillin family trust - Macey L. McMillin & Vonnie L.
McMillin
Trustees (40%) Mark D. McMillin~ Laurie A. Ray & Scott M. McMillin
20% ea. Home Capital Development Group: 100% by Home Federal Savings & Loan, San
Diego, CA
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s)
IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association,
~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, rece~ve~, syndicate,
this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other
political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary ~/~l~
?~S~gna~ure~f'a~pli~nt/date -
WPC 0701P Steven E. McGill/Senior Vice President
A-110 Print or type name of applicant
Rancho Del Rey
Managing Partner
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 1
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-9, General
Development Plan for EastLake III/Olympic Trainin~
Center
A. BACKGROUND
The draft of this EIR was issued for public and Agency review on August 4,
1989. It is subject to a 30-day review period through the State Clearing
(see attached letter) which will end on September 8, 1989. The only
comment received as of the preparation of this staff a report are from
Peter Watry and it is attached.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, take testimony relevant to the DSEIR, close the
hearing and schedule consideration of the FSEIR for September 27, 1989.
It would also be helpful to give ERCE any direction in the preparation of
the final report.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project encompasses 1030 acres and includes two primary
components: a General Development Plan and annexation of EastLake III
into the City of Chula Vista. The General Development Plan for EastLake
III further refines and focuses the provisions of the Eastern Territories
Plan to the 1030-acre project site. The General Development Plan includes
two residential neighborhoods, EastLake Woods and EastLake Vistas, an
expansion of the existing EastLake Business Center, and an Olympic
Training Center complex with support uses.
The entire EastLake III/Olympic Training Center site lies east of the
current City limits, within the County of San Diego and within the City of
Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence. Discretionary actions related to the
project include pre-zoning and annexation of the property to the City of
Chula Vista and a General Development Plan approval. Ultimately,
additional approvals will include Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans,
Public Facility Finance Plans, Development Agreements, and tract/parcel
maps prior to construction of the proposed land uses. These additional
approvals are not analyzed by this SEIR and will require subsequent
environmental review.
Alternative E
During preparation of this SEIR, refinements in project design have been
created to reduce various potential impacts, especially regarding
compatibility with adjacent uses and open space buffer concerns along the
Otay Lakes western boundary (project site eastern boundary). These
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 2
refinements have resulted in Design "Alternative E." Section 6 of the
DSEIR provides a detailed description, illustration and comparison of
Alternative E to the proposed project. Alternative E generally proposes
an increase in open space along the east project boundary (buffer to Otay
Lakes) and various residential density alterations.
D. IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Land Use
The project will result in development of currently undeveloped land
(previously analyzed in MEIR 81-03; EastLake Planned Community
approved in 1982), into a mixed-use community consisting of the
following uses.
Residential: 438.1 acres (2008) units
Industrial: 91.5 acres (research and manufacturing)
Commercial: 45.8 acres (15.0 retail and 30.8 visitor commercial)
Public/Quasi Public: 175.0 acres (25 acres school; 150 acres
OTC)
Parks & Recreation: 58.4 acres
Open Space: 169.0 acres
Potential land use impacts include incompatibility with adjacent
uses, specifically and especially sensitive open space of the Upper
and Lower Otay Reservoirs (immediately east of the project site).
The compatibility impacts can be mitigated by project design and
measures proposed herein (i.e., setbacks, landscaped slopes, etc.),
in conjunction with selection of Alternative E (refer to Section 6 of
the DSEIR). All project and cumulative land use impacts can be
mitigated to a level below significant.
2. Transportation and Circulation
The project will generate 65,300 average daily vehicle trips (52,100
trips to external roadways), which represents a significant
contribution to future roadway traffic in the area. As an integral
project of the Eastern Territories Transportation Phasing Program
(TPP), project traffic and other ongoing development were
comprehensively assessed in July/August 1989. Roadway improvements
to offset development have been identified and allocated to the TPP
phasing.
Project and cumulative traffic generated in the future can generally
be mitigated by circulation improvements of the City Eastern
Territories TPP, proposed as mitigation in this Draft EIR. One
outstanding roadway segment (Telegraph Canyon Road from SR-125 to
EastLake Parkway) and one intersection (Telegraph Canyon
Road/EastLake Parkway) cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels of
service (LOS C) by measures proposed in the TPP and included in this
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 3
EIR. These two locations present an unmitigated cumulative impact as
identified at this point in time. If improvements were reformulated
and accepted by the City at future planning stages, this impact could
be mitigated to an acceptable level.
3. Public Services and Utilities
The project will result in an increase in demand for services and
utilities (evaluated in Section 4.3), and will necessitate
construction of various water, sewer, school, park and other
facilities to serve the 2008 residences, OTC and other development
proposed. All project-specific potential impacts can be mitigated by
measures included in Section 4.3, some of which require further
analysis during subsequent planning stages and refinement of
facilities' plans. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts
regarding water supply, sewer treatment capacity and non-renewable
energy resources cannot be fully mitigated; these cumulative impacts
are considered unavoidable and cumulatively significant.
4. Visual Resources
Project development will permanently change the existing natural
character of the site to a mixed-use urban community. Aesthetic and
visual impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level on a
project-specific basis by sensitive design, landscaping and open
space buffers. On a cumulative basis, the project will contribute to
an unavoidable cumulative impact on the existing natural character of
the site and surrounding area.
5. Geology/Soils
Geotechnical constraints onsite (i.e., fault traces, expansive or
erosive soils, landslides) can be overcome by standard measures
proposed herein and at future implementation stages. No significant
impacts will result after mitigation is considered; no cumulative
impacts have been identified.
6. Hydrology/Water Quality
Development of the site will result in an increase in runoff to
downstream areas. Since the site is located at the headwater regions
of the three drainage basins, onsite flooding is not of concern.
Downstream flooding potential, impacts to the Otay Lakes area and
water quality impacts would result, requiring flood control
improvements and drainage and runoff control facilities. Specific
drainage and water quality control plans are required at later site
design stages by measures herein; these will serve to mitigate
project and cumulative flooding and water quality impacts to level of
insignificance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 4
7. Cultural Resources
One important archaeological site {SDI-976) will be impacted by
project development. The geologic Otay and Sweetwater Formations
onsite are considered to possess high sensitivity for paleontological
resources. These impacts can be mitigated by salvage and monitoring
activities (measures in the SDEIR) to an insignificant level.
8. Air Quality
Project vehicle and stationary emissions will increase air pollutants
in the area. Because the project site is assumed as open space in
the SANDAG Series V, VI and VII growth forecasts, project development
has not been included in formation of air quality attainment plans.
Therefore, the project is found to create a significant cumulative
air quality impact which cannot be fully mitigated. Transportation
management measures will reduce these impacts slightly, to the extent
feasible.
On a local basis, project traffic will be offset by transportation/
roadway improvements {required as conditions of approval) which will
ensure acceptable roadway and intersection levels of service. This
will verify that potential local "hot spot" air pollution impacts
will be mitigated to an insignificant level. Short-term local
construction-related air quality impacts can also be mitigated by
proper construction procedures.
9. Noise
Project traffic and urban development will increase ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity. Based on projected future cumulative
traffic volumes on nearby roadways {see Traffic analysis contained in
this SEIR), various locations onsite will require noise attenuation
measures to realize acceptable noise levels at project buildout.
Acceptable onsite noise levels will be attained by measures later
defined at the SPA Plan and subdivision levels (i.e., building
setbacks, noise attenuation by site and/or building design, etc.).
Further noise analysis is required prior to final site design, in
order to define specific measures necessary for adequate noise
attenuation. Upon implementation of further study (required as
mitigation in the DSEIR) and onsite noise mitigation, project and
cumulative impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
lO. Biological Resources
Onsite resources defined as biologically important and/or sensitive
exist in the southern site area (Figure 4-11), and include potential
vernal pools and various plant and animal species associated with the
coastal sage scrub habitat. Impacts to these biological resources
can be avoided by guaranteeing the designated park as open space
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 5
(located south of the OTC site). Measures proposed in Section 4.10
of the DSEIR will serve to mitigate project and cumulative impacts to
an insignificant level.
ll. Socioeconomic Factors and Fiscal Analysis
The project will house approximately 5,422 people in its residences,
contributing slightly to demands on public services and utilities.
The commercial, industrial and OTC related uses will provide
employment opportunities, a beneficial impact. The project will have
an overall positive fiscal impact on the City. No significant
negative socioeconomic or fiscal impacts will result from project
implementation.
WPC 6713P
September 7, 1989
To: Members of the PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Chula Vista
From: Peter Watry
81 Second Avenue
Chula Vista, CA. 92010
Subject: EastLake Ill/Olympic Training Center E. I. R.
I regret that I will not be able to attend the Publc Hearing on September 13 so I am using this means
of addressing my concerns to you relative to the subject E.I.R.
I wish to take this opportunity to urge the following three changes and improvements in the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impract Report, Case No.: EIR-89-11.
1. { Page 1.5 } At the top of page 1-5 it says "Proposed land uses are generally consistent with the
July 1989 City adopted General Plan Update, although GDP project approval requires a General ,
Plan Amendment due to minor changes in land use densities and school and park revised locations,
etc. (italics added). Similar statements are found throughout this E.I.R.
The EastLake III/Olympic Training Center project being proposed is not consistent with the recently
adopted General Plan and the changes being suggested are not "minor." Whether these changes are
a good idea or not is another matter, but the E.I.R. is incorrect in saying that the changes are minor.
The facing Figures 2-4 and 2-5 on what would be pages 2-6 and 2-7 sum up the story. First may I
draw your attention to the area south of Orange Avenue where the Olympic Training Center will be
located. On Figure 2-4, which represents "Scenario 4," it looks to be about 100 acres of "Low"
density that could be developed. At a target range of 2 per acre, that would be about 200 homes.
200 homes times a trip generation factor of 10 means that that area would generate about 2,000
automobile trips per day. Figure 2-5 includes the Olympic Training Center and some commercial in
that same area south of Orange Avenue. According to Table 3-1 on page 3-3 of Appendix A, that
area will generate 26,789 automobile trips per day. So the proposed change south of Orange
Avenue will generate more than ten times more traffic than the adopted General Plan would have
generated. That change is not consistent with the General Plan, nor is that change "minor."
Whether good or bad, the O.T.C. represents a very significant change in land use from the adopted
General Plan.
For the entire project of EastLake III and the Olympic Training Center, the plan shown on Figure
2-4 would have generated about 23,000 automobile trips per day. The plan shown on Figure 2-5
will generate more than 65,000 automobile trips per day -- almost a tripling of the traffic being
generated over the entire project. And this is being done at the extreme eastern edge of Chula Vista.
These changes are not consistent with the adopted General Plan nor are the changes "minor."
The plan shown on Figure 2-4 would produce 1,249 dwelling units at "target." The plan on Figure
2-5 proposes to produce 2,008 dwelling units (a 61% increase)plus a large Olympic Training
Center p/us much more commercial acreage p/us a slightly enlarged I-R area. These proposals
significantly change the entire nature of the area from a low-density "rural" feeling to an intensively
developed urban area. Good or bad, that is a very significant change.
Again, whether these changes are a good idea or not is another matter. But it is repeated several
times thoughout the E.I.R. that these changes are consistent with the adopted General Plan and that
these changes are minor. The proposals are not consistent with the adopted General Plan nor are
the changes "minor."
2. In Section 6 on "Akematives," only two alternatives are discussed: "No Project" and
"Alternative E." (In terms of impacts on the rest of the City, "Alternative E" is no alternative at all.
It is really just the same as the proposal.) The most obvious alternative that is not mentioned is the
General Plan that was just adopted last July. That would be basically Figure 2-4 with the Olympic
Training Center substituted south of Orange Avenue. Since that is, in fact, what is, that alternative
deserves analysis.
3. On page 4-31 and 4-32 the E.I.R. discusses the topic of water. The discussion on water in this
E.I.R. presumes that the only problem with water is a matter of pump stations, reservoirs, and
pipes. It is silent as to where the additional water is going to come from to put in these facilities.
Three facts instantly come to mind. (1) The Otay Water District has for many years now been
using more than their legal entitlement of water because other districts have been using less than
their entitlements. One of those other districts has been the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los
Angeles uses less than their legal entitlement of M.W.D. water because they have had their own
supply through the aqueduct from the Mono Basin (Owens Valley). As you may know, southem
Califomia has been hoping to get an additional 100,000 acre-feet of water from the Imperial
Irrigation District by paying to line their irrigation channels and then sending us the water being
conserved. A recent newsletter from the Metropolitan Water District says that the City of Los
Angeles may end up getting almost all of this because courts may likely cut down the amount that
they can take from the Mono Basin by 80,000 acre-feet. (2) As I am sure you know, the State of
Arizona is entitled to half of the water that we have been receiving from the Colorado River. They
are now only taking about 30-40 per cent of that entitlement, I believe, but within a decade their
Central Arizona Project is expected to be completed. (3) Many areas in northern California are now
rationing water one way or the other. It does not seem probable that we can expect any more water
from northern California when we are not even rationing ourselves.
For a project as large as EastLake, I believe this matter of water availability deserves to at least be
addressed and not allowed to just be ignored.
( ali{orn{a
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 9S814
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
Douglas Reid August 10, 1989
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Eastiake III Shorthned Review Request, SCH# 89080929
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to inform you that concerned state agencies have been contacted with regard
to the request for a 30-day review for the Eastlake Olympic Training Center project.
As none of the agencies object to shortening the review period, the request has been
granted. Accordingly, the review period for state agencies will be from August 10, 1989
to September 8, 1989
If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Aslye at 916/445-0613.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
DCN:GA:hr
HI ~i
~!:Ji
AU(; 1 5 1989
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 1
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-90-04; request to establish
a motorcycle sales and service facility at 345 "E"
Street - Thomas A. HorninQ
A. BACKGROUND
This item is a proposal to locate a motorcycle sales and service facility
in an existing building at 345 "E" Street in the C-T zone.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-90-O1,
of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of
the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if
any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration
issued on IS-90-O1.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant
environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-90-O1.
2. Adopt a motion to deny PCC-90-04 based on the finding contained in
Section E of this report.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North - R-1 - Apartments
South - C-T - Commercial
East - C-T & R-1 - Commercial & duplex
West - C-T & R-3 - Commercial & apartments
£xistin9 site characteristics
The project site involves two parcels totaling 0.47 acres at the northeast
corner of "E" Street and Garrett Avenue. A former furniture store
containing 14,900 sq. ft. of floor area occupies the southerly parcel
which is zoned C-T. An R-3 parcel, which measures 50' x 134', is located
directly to the north and serves as the parking and loading area for the
building with access off Garrett Avenue.
The use is located within the Downtown Parking District which provides on-
and off-street public parking in lieu of the requirement for private
off-street parking. There are seven metered on-street spaces contiguous
to the site. The closest public parking lot is located some 250 ft. to
the southeast on the opposite side of "E" Street.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 2
Proposed use
The proposed use would involve the rear or northerly 10,400 sq. ft. of the
building as well as the abutting parking area. The remaining 4,500 sq.
ft. at the front of the building adjacent to Street would remain
available for a separate commercial use. The exterior of the building
would remain unchanged except for repainting and signage.
The floor plan shows a 3,100 sq. ft. display area at the northeasterly
portion of the building with pedestrian access from the front of the
building via a corridor to "E" Street. An 1,800 sq. ft. service area is
located at the northwesterly corner of the building with an overhead door
off the rear parking area.
The parking area would provide spaces for 13 automobiles and 9
motorcycles, with a wash area shown in the southeast corner. Concrete
block walls would be added to the westerly, easterly and southerly
perimeter to match the existing 5 ft.-high wall along the northerly
boundary.
The facility is proposed as a franchised dealership offering sales,
service and repair, as well as the retail sales of parts and a full line
of accessory items including clothing. The proposal is to conduct all
activities indoors, with no exterior display, storage or repair of
vehicles. The use would employ 10 people and operate between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Tuesday thru Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. on Sunday.
D. ANALYSIS
A1 though the property is wi thin the Parking District, we believe it is
still appropriate to address the issue of parking in the case of a
conditional as opposed to permitted use. The Code is not specific wi th
regard to required parking for this type of facility, al though it would be
expected to be significantly less than many retail uses which could occupy
the site as a matter of right.
The applicant has submitted survey information which indicates that
parking demand at his present location -- South Coast Harley Davidson at
2248 Main Street -- generally does not exceed 10 cars and 10 motorcycles
at any one time. Two staff site checks would appear to confirm that the
demand is modest in comparison to the floor area, and would not present a
problem at the new site.
Note: With regard to the remaining 4,500 sq. ft., the parking needs for a
permitted use would be considered to be met by virtue of its location in
the Parking District. A conditional use would be evaluated on its own
merits.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of September 13, 1989 Page 3
The primary issue is noise. The proposal is to provide internal
ventilation and exhaust systems in order that all work can be conducted
inside with the overhead door closed except at the beginning and end of
the day and brief periods in between. A noise study based on the
applicant's Main Street operation indicates that noise from normal shop
activities should be significantly less than the City's noise standard
when the door is closed, and when the door is open. The noise approaches
the maximum allowed but does not violate the City standard.
Shop operations are considered "environmental noise," which is under the
control of the applicant, and for which standards have been established.
The other category of noise is called "nuisance noise," over which the
applicant has little if any control, and which are not the subject of
specific standards but are addressed on a case-by-case basis, usually as a
result of a complaint. For instance, the study refers to the nuisance
noise of revving of engines in the parking lot which "should not be
permitted by the owner."
Realistically, the owner has little control over customers in the parking
lot, and none at all over off-site arrivals and departures. The parking
lot directly abuts residential uses to the north and east, and a single
family area extends to the north along Garrett Avenue. It is our opinion
that the likelihood of "nuisance noise" from motorcycles in and around the
parking lot, as well as the possibility of test runs and departures
funneling back through the neighborhood to the north to avoid the heavy
traffic and unsignalized intersection at "E" Street, would be a constant
source of zoning complaints and disturbance to the surrounding residents.
For this reason, we are recommending denial of the request.
E. FINDINGS
The nature, location, and access for the use would likely create adverse
noise impacts on surrounding residents.
WPC 6710/2652P
SFD SFD SFD
MFD MFD
SFD MFD ~ MFD
"~° iJECT ....
MFD
MFD MFD
SFD SFD MFD SFD
' C
MFD MFD ~- --
MFD MFD COMM
~COMM I
II
St.
I COMM COMM
COMM
COMM PARKING iCOMM
SFD LOT
COMM $FD
COMM SFD SFD TFE
MFD
TFD $FD
$FD MFD
MFD $FD SFD COMM
SFD
TFD
COMM
TFD MFD SFD
~LOCATOR ·
I PCC-90-04
~.~345 "E' St. ~
suo!~e^ala
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Harley-Davidson Dealership and Service
PROJECT LOCATION: 345 "E" St., northeastern corner.of Garrett and "E" St.
PROJECT APPLICANT: Thomas Horning
CASE NO: IS-90-O1 DATE: September l, 1989
A. Project Setting
The project setting consists of two parcels located at the northeastern
corner of Garrett and "E" Street in central Chula Vista. The northern
parcel is currently developed as a parking lot. The southern parcel which
fronts on "E" Street is the site of a furniture warehouse and storage
business.
Adjacent land uses include multi-family residential on the north, an auto
parts store, ballet studio, auto supply on the south, florist and printer
on the east and auto body, fender repair, auto repair, appliance repair
and a fast-food restaurant under construction on the west.
Pedestrian access to the project is currently provided from the parking
lot to the north or metered parking south of the project on the north side
of "E" Street.
8. Project Description
The proposed project will involve the conversion of the existing furniture
storage and warehouse business to a new motorcycle dealership and general
retail space. The present one story building has a floor area of 14,866.6
and 13 on-site parking spaces. The proposed project will not adjust the
size of the building. The existing project currently has 13 parking
spaces.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
Because the General Plan designations and zoning differ on the two parcels
involved staff's comments on compatibility of the proposal with the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will deal with each parcel separately.
The northern parcel of this proposal is designated as Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan and R-3 Apartment Residential in the
Zoning Ordinance. Off-street parking is allowed as a conditional use in
the R-3 zone. Therefore, the proposed use of this parcel as a parking lot
is in conformance with the zoning and the general plan.
city of chula vista planning department ¢13Y OF
environmental review section (~HUL~ VISTA
-2-
The southern parcel of this proposal is designated as Commercial
Thoroughfare on the General Plan and is zoned for Commercial
Thoroughfare. Motorcycle sales and service are permitted as a conditional
use permit in the commercial thoroughfare zone. If a conditional use
permit is granted, this project will be in conformity with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
1. Fire/EMS
The estimated Fire/EMS response time is 3 minutes, which is within
the 7 minute threshold standard.
2. Police
The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of
service based on the threshold standard and this project will not
change or impact the current level.
3. Traffic
The proposed project would not generate additional traffic.
Therefore the current level of service "C" will be maintained. This
meets the Threshold Standard Policy for Chula Vista.
4. Park/Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the project proposal.
As this is a commercial project, there will be no impact on the parks
and recreation services.
5. Drainage
Review of the development proposal has resulted in the determination
that surface drainage flow and drainage design meet established
engineering standards.
6. Sewer
The existing 8" sewer main on Garrett flowing southerly on "G" is
adequate to serve the proposed project; thus the threshold standards
are met.
7. Water
The project site is located within a previously established urbanized
area with water supplies adequate to meet established threshold
standards.
8. Noise
The dominant source of noise at the present location of the business
comers from pneumatic tools and an air-compressor in the repair shop
area. Field measurements were taken from inside the shop area with
-3-
the door closed to eliminate the high ambient noise from the
surrounding industrial area. The results of these measurements
indicate a general noise environment in the service bay area of
approximately 66.3 dBA, equivalent sound level (Leq).
To quantify the noise impact at the future location, field
measurements of existing ambient noise levels were made near the
residential boundary behind the shop. This location was chosen
because it is the closest residential area to the proposed shop
area. The measurements were taken at l:O0 p.m. on August 29, 1989.
Figure 3 shows the measurement location in relation to the shop, the
street, and the residential units. The principal noise sources at
the future site were the passing vehicles on Garrett Avenue and "E"
Street. The measured ambient noise level at the future site was 55.2
dBA, Leq. Table 2 presents a summary of existing ambient noise
levels measured at the future site.
The City of Chula Vista noise standard considers environmental noise
and nuisance noise. This analysis assumes that the normal shop
operations associated with permitted activities would be
environmental noise. Operation of vehicles in the parking lot at
high rpm would be considered nuisance noise and should not be
permitted by the owner.
This analysis assumes the repair operation will occur only between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:O0 p.m. Further, the applicant plans
to operate the repair shop with the vehicle entry door closed, except
for periods of less than one hour at the start and end of the day
when customers will be leaving and picking up vehicles and very short
single-vehicle entry and exit periods. An incentive to operating
with the doors closed will be the maintenance of the air conditioned
environment. Motorcycle engine exhaust will be vented to the roof
through tubing. The building to be used at the future site is made
of solid concrete construction.
Noise generated in the proposed new location will be attenuated by
the building. With the doors closed, structures of this type will
attenuate noise by more than 20 dBA. There is additional noise
attenuation from the building to the neighboring residences provided
by an existing five-foot-high block wall. With the roll-up door
open, there will still be attenuation. During normal operations, the
noise generated from the shop, measured at the property line, should
be significantly less than 60 dBA. For those short periods when the
door is open, noise levels may approach dBA, but should not violate
the noise ordinance.
There will be no significant impact and therefore, no mitigation is
recommended.
-4-
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
No potentially significant and adverse environmental effects have been
identified for the project at this time.
F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
As no significant effects are expected, mitigation is not needed.
G. Findings of Insignificant Impact
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental impact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The project site is urban in nature, located in a developed area and
devoid of sensitive habitat or species; therefore, the project does
not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment or
curtail the diversity of the environment.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The proposed project, should the conditional use permit be granted,
will be in conformance with the City zoning and land use designations
identified in the Chula Vista General Plan. Thus, it would not
achieve any short-term objectives to the disadvantage of longer term
goals.
3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
This commercial proposal will result in no significant cumulative
environmental impacts.
-5-
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer
Barbara Reid, Assistant Planner
Applicant's Agent: Thomas A. Horning 448 Del Mar Court
Chula Vista, CA 92010
(619) 575-7744
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Noise Technical Analysis for Proposed Motorcycle Sales and Service
Business at Garrett Avenue and "E"Street in Chula Vista, California,
Recon
This determination, that the project will not have any significant
environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on
the Initial Study and any commen~s on this Negative Declaration. Further
information regarding the environmental review of the project is available
from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 6694P
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review lectlon. CHULA VISTA
POR OFFICE USE
Case No. /~- ~.~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec 'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by~.~__
Application Form Project No.~-~.~ ~-~
A. BACKGROUND
1. PROJECT TITLE
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 345 "E" Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 566-231-10 Structure, 566-231-11Parkin8
3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION to convert an e×isting structure from furniture
storage to a franchised new motorcycle dealership facility and general retail
space.
4. Name of Applicant Thomas A. Hornin~
Address 448 Del Mar~Court Phone 575-7744 (business
City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010
5. Name of Preparer/Agent Applicant ~
Address Phone
City State Zip
Relation to Applicant
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map Annexation
Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board
Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
Variance Other
b.' Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study
y_y~Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Xxx Noise Assessment
Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report
Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other
Approvals Required
EN 3 {Rev. 12/82)
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage 21,550 or acreage .49
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
N/A
2. Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. .Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4. bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/tota! acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated prRject population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range ,,
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
Present use is furniture warehouse/storage. Proposed
a. Type(s) of ]and use ~r~.~hi~ nmw motorcycle dealership & Keneral retail
b. Floor area 14,866.6 Height of structure(s) 1 story
c. Type of construction used in the structure frame stucco
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets see floor and
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 13
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 10 , Number of
shifts 1 Total 10
g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
1~5 ~pprox. Average invoices in present location per day
- 3 -
h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate 20 miles,
present history as established business
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings none in proposed
~acility other than cleaning, pickup and delivery of customer units.
j. Hours of operation 9:00 am - 6:00 ~m TUesday through Saturday, 10-4 on Sun.
k. Type of exterior lighting incandesent attached to structure
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section. :' ~
a. Ty~e of Project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided ,~
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
motor vehicle / motorcycle exhaust
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated no
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
' Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
- 4 -
3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) air cond±t±oning and heatin$ as
presently in place in the existing structure, air compressor to power service
tools, ~hn? equipment, meneral office equipment, calculators, computers, etc.
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) none "
S. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. f.cility is exoected to employ 10
~n nn~i~innm usual to a franchised new motorcycle dealership
6. Will highly flammable or potentially ekplosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? waste motor oil
7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 40-50
8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or gonnection 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.
no~e
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
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?
(If yes, please attach) '~
2. H~drol ogy
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? nm
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? street drains on "E" and Garrett
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
no
d.Could"~ain~ge from the si~e ~a~se erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? no
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location, p~i~inS
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? motorcycle engine mnd e×h~,,s~ nni~e, vh~rh
will be mitigated by the full internal exhaust facility plmnned for
the proposed project.
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
no
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project, none
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? no
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? none to the applicant's knowledge
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. 14,866.6 sq ft, structure used for furniture storage
- 6 -
b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North Residential
South Cnmmercial. Auto Parts Store, Ballet Studio~ Automobile biachine
Shop and Automobile Repair
East C~mmerci~lt; Ft~rist and Printer
West Commercialt Auto Body and Fender Repair, Automobile ~epalr,
Tmrm ~ho? ~m~ Food Res~m.rmnt under construction. Appliance
Repair
7. Social ,~ ~
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) no
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
ho~v many and what type?) no
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
- 7 -
E. CERTIFICATION
I, Thomas A. Hornin~
prospective owner in escrow or
Owner/owner in escrow* ~ ~
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE: July 6, 1989
*If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
Case No. ~'~ ~>-~/
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site: ~;~ot~k
North ~-
South
East ~
West ~-.~
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
designation on site:
North
sou h
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~o
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~__~
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enha~c~~
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? ~c&
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) ~,~.m~,c~\~R~ec~_--~k~_~c>~,~<~,~_~). (:~0,
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
'access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) ~0
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:.~\~
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Aesthetics
Does ~he project contain features which could be construed to be at a
variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If
so, please describe.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources: ~\~-~k~__
Electricity (per year) ~4~.~-k ~kx~r~x\\~ .~ cj
Natural Gas (per year) ~-~ --
Water (per day)
6. Remarks:
Director )Ft ~lanning or Representative Datd
-lO-
case No. q: ?O OI
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? ~f_~-~ ]~1
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~
2. Transportation
a. What roads provide primary access to the project? ~
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? ~}/~A~_.
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
L.O.S. ~ ~' ~
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~
If not, explain briefly.
e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to existing streets? ~)~?
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?
Li quefacti on? I
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? ~9 ~ ~l ~
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site? ~/
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? ~C~
c. Is a soils report necessary? ~() ~ ~)~ ~~-
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to,justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? ~,/~
- 12 -
Case
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complgte the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
co × ll .3 =
Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 -=
NOx (NO2) ~ X 20.0
Particulates X 1.5
Sulfur c~ X .78
8.Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be e~9~rated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~-P Liquid <~
What is the location.and size of existing sewer lines on or ,adjacent
to the site? ~<¥_~ ~,~ c~ ~
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.
IInclude any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
City ng~ne~or ~nt~tive Date
-13-
Case NO. ~-~i~-
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
l, What is the distance to the nearest fire station.aDd what is the Fire
Dep~ment's~ estimated reaction time? /~&~
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personnel? ~ -
3. Remarks ~M~ ~{]i ~~~ ~~
Fire Marshal Date
CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTME~T
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Address ~L~5 ~ ~, Plan File No.__ Checker ~ Date
Type Constr. Occupancy. No. Stories Bldg. Area
The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions.
PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN:
, ,~ ', , , i ~ _
FPB-29
-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 Date
Representative
t
NOISE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FOR
A PROPOSED MOTORCYC~ .R SA! .RS AND SERVICE
BUSINESS AT GARREIT AVENUE AND E STR~
IN CHULA VISTA, C~I .r~ORNIA
Prepared for
SOUTH COAST HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.
2248 MAIN STREET
CHULA VISTA CA 92010
Prepared by
Regional Environmental Consultants
RECON NUMBER 2070N
AUGUST 31, 1989
~_~ TABI_,~ OF CONTENTS
Pa~¢
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
1I. METHODS OF ANALYSIS 1
Ill, DESCRIPTION OF F~ISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 1
IV, FUTURE ACOUSTI~AL CONDITIONS 6
V, LMPACT AND MITIGATION 6
FIGURES
1: Project lo~afion in relation to County of San Diego 2
2: Project location shown o~urd. S.O,S. map 3
3: Future site noise measureB~tent location 5
TABLES
,,
1: Existing Site Noise Measurement Data 4
2: Ambient Noise Level Me~,~mmment Data at Future Site 7
!
·
,j
L INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
An acoustical analysis was conducted to assess the imp. act of moving the
operation of a Harley-Davidson motor cycle sales and sevac¢ business to the
intersection of EStmet and Garrett Avenue in the City of Chula Vista.
Figures 1 and 2 show the vicinity and specific location of the store.
The applicable noise standard for assessing the impact is the City of Chula
Vista, Performance Standard and Noise Control 19.68.030, which requires that the
noise generated by operations at the motor cycle shop not exceed an average
sound level, I~q, of 60 decibels (dBA) at the boundary of the adjacent multi-
family residential property, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Two sets of noise measurements were taken. First, noise levels at the
existing business operation were measured during normal working conditions.
Second, ambient noise levels were measured at the furore site near the
residential boundary.
Analysis of the noise sources, the construction of the future building, and
the site geometry indicate that the noise source at the future site will not
exceed 60 dBA at the residential boundaries, and thc noise standard will not be
violated.
lI. METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Existing noise levels at both sites were measured with a Metrosonic dB-308
Sound Analyzer, a programmable solid-state recording device which records noise
levels for preset intervals. The recorder was set with the following
parameters:
Filter: A weighted
Response: Slow (1/8 second response)
Measurement Interval: 30 seconds
Measurement Period: 15 minutes
The recorder was calibrated prior to and following the measurements.
IlL DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The dominant source of noise at the present location of the business comes
from pneumatic tools and an air-compressor in the repair shop area. Field mea-
surements were taken from inside of the shop area with the door closed to elim-
inate the high ambient noise from the surrounding industrial area. The results
of these measurements indicate a general noise environment in the service bay
area of approximately 66.3 dBA, equivalent sound level (Leq). Table 1 presents
a summary of the noise measurements taken at the existing site.
To quantify the noise impact at the the future location, field measurements
of existing ambient noise levels were made near the residential boundary behind
the shop. This location was chosen because it is the closest residential area
to the proposed shop area. The measurements were taken at 1:00 p.m. on August
29, 1989. Figure 3 shows the measurement location in relation to the shop, the
street, and the residential units. The principal noise sources at the future
site were the passing vehicles on Garrett Avenue and E Street. The measured
FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPS, NATIONAL CITY AND IMPERIAL BEACH QUADRANGLES
R-2070N 8189
TABLE 1
EXISTING SITE NOISE IVIEASUREMENT DATA
Measurement Noise
Period Level
1 61.3
2 66.4
3 62.5
4 67.3
5 58.6
6 60.3
7 61.8
8 65.9
9 73.3
10 70.6
11 66.2
12 67.0
13 62.9
14 65.6
15 64.1
16 63.4
17 62.5
18 61.5
19 70.4
21 62.0
22 70.6
23 66.2
24 67.0
25 62.9
26 65.6
27 64.1
28 63.4
29 62.5
30 61.5
Average Noise Level During Total Measurement Period = 66.3 dBA
feet
UJ
I--
~ SINGLE STORY
n- MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
~ ~ ,< 5' BRICK WALL
~ ~- MEASUREMENT LOCATION
I-- 4 SHOP DOOR
< FUTURE
LM
MOTOR CYCLE
SHOP
n-
LU
0
E STREET
FIGURE 3. FUTURE SITE NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATION
~REC¢/V
R-2070N 8/89
ambient noise level at the future site was 55.2 dBA, Leq. Table 2 presents a
summury of existing ambient noise levels measured at the future site. ~--
IV. FUTURE ACOUSTICAL CONDITIONS
The City of Chula Vista noise standard considers envh'onmental noise and
nuisance noise. This analysis assumes that the normal shop. operations associ-
ated with permitted activities would be environmental noase. Operation of
vehicles in the parking lot at high rpm would be considered nuisance noise and
should not be permitted by the owner.
This analysis assumes the repair operation will occur only between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Further, the applicant plans to operate the repair
shop with the vehicle entry door closed, except for periods of less than one
hour at the start and end of the day when customers will be leaving and picking
up vehicles, and very short single-vehicle entry and exit periods. An incentive
to operating with the doors closed will be the maintenance of the air condi-
tioned environment. Motor-cycle engine exhaust will be vented to the roof
through tubing. The building to be used .at the future site is made of solid
concrete consmacfion.
Noise generated in the proposed new location will be attenuated by the
building. With the doors closed, structures of this type will attenuate noise
by more than 20 dBA. There is additional noise attenuation from the building to
the neighboring residences provided by an existing five-foot-high block wall.
With the roll-up door open, there will still be some attenuation. During normal
operations, the noise generated from the shop, measured at the property line,
should be significantly less than 60 dBA. For those short periods when the door
is open, noise levels may approach 60 dBA, but should not violate the noise
ordinance.
V. IMPACT AND MITIGATION
There will be no significant impact and therefore, no mitigation is
recommended.
6
TABLE 2
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT DATA AT FD'TURE SITE
Measurement Noise
Period Level
1 55.3
2 59.5
3 59.2
4 55.7
5 59.0
6 57.6
7 55.7
8 52.8
9 57.6
10 56.7
11 55.0
12 51.3
13 55.2
14 57.0
15 54.1
16 51.9
17 52.3
18 49.3
19 51.4
20 54.3
21 49.1
22 52.1
23 50.5
24 52.4
25 56.9
26 50.8
27 56.2
28 55.4
29 51.4
30 53.4
Level During Total Measurement Period = 55.2 dBA
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEI~NT
IAPPLiCANT,SSTATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WiLL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Thomas A. Hornin~
Ralnh Burni
Dean Burni '
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Thomas A. Hornin~. Drosnective
Ralnh Burni
Dean Burni
2. If any person identified pursuant to (l) above is.a corporation or partnership, list
the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
N/^
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes~ No × If yes, please indicate person{s)
IPersonis defined as: "Any individual, firm, c. opartne.rs.hip,.join, t ventu.re, assoc!~ti.on,
~ club, fraternal organ~z.at~on, corpor.atmn:.es~a:e,. Iru.s~: re~q~s~q~tSYo~O ~ I
this and any other county, c~ty and county, city, mun~c pam ~y,
olitical subdivision, or any other group or combinatioB acting as a un't."
-- -
WPC 0701P ' Thomas A. Horning
A-110 Print or type name of applicant